How can you believe in evolution?

[The Master M]

I think laws are oldschool science, since nothing is constant.

Not true. We still use laws.

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

If there were laws against stupidity, you would not be allowed to post.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

There certainly are conditions where they don't apply, but they're still laws. You're doing the same thing creationists do with the word theory.

[Treznor]

I think laws are oldschool science, since nothing is constant.

Not true. We still use laws.

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

If there were laws against stupidity, you would not be allowed to post.

Attack the argument, not the person making the argument.

[United Dependencies]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

I thought it was the random act that allowed the mutated gene which best fit the new situation to pass on.

[Ifreann]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

I thought it was the random act that allowed the mutated gene which best fit the new situation to pass on.

No. There are a few different ways in which a mutation can occur, natural selection is about which ones propagate and which ones die off.

[Narjat]

I think laws are oldschool science, since nothing is constant.

Not true. We still use laws.

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

Yes but then I suppose these laws are not laws at all. Laws should (?) be mathematically true in any and all conditions - I suppose it doesn't get more absolute in science than that.

Hence the search for the Great Theory of Everything, a theory that connects all the known branches of science and possibly explains a whole bunch of other things.
It's tough also because mathematics is so unkind

[Treznor]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

I thought it was the random act that allowed the mutated gene which best fit the new situation to pass on.

What random act?

The idea is that everyone is slightly different from their forebears. Each individual change is tested for viability by environmental factors. A spider that knows how to catch insects to eat is going to thrive, but will probably die in a flood. If floods happen regularly, spiders that happen to have a variation that allows them to survive floods will be more likely to spawn new generations than spiders that don't. That's natural selection at work, taking advantage of minor changes to encourage variations to become dominant. Enough changes over a long enough period of time result in new species that are genetically distinct from the original.

[Ifreann]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

I thought it was the random act that allowed the mutated gene which best fit the new situation to pass on.

What random act?

The idea is that everyone is slightly different from their forebears. Each individual change is tested for viability by environmental factors. A spider that knows how to catch insects to eat is going to thrive, but will probably die in a flood. If floods happen regularly, spiders that happen to have a variation that allows them to survive floods will be more likely to spawn new generations than spiders that don't. That's natural selection at work, taking advantage of minor changes to encourage variations to become dominant. Enough changes over a long enough period of time result in new species that are genetically distinct from the original.

It's the mutation that's a random act.

[United Dependencies]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

I thought it was the random act that allowed the mutated gene which best fit the new situation to pass on.

What random act?

The idea is that everyone is slightly different from their forebears. Each individual change is tested for viability by environmental factors. A spider that knows how to catch insects to eat is going to thrive, but will probably die in a flood. If floods happen regularly, spiders that happen to have a variation that allows them to survive floods will be more likely to spawn new generations than spiders that don't. That's natural selection at work, taking advantage of minor changes to encourage variations to become dominant. Enough changes over a long enough period of time result in new species that are genetically distinct from the original.

No I thought that natural selection was whatever caused the enviroment to favor certain genes. Wouldn't the whole explanation be the entire theory?

[Narjat]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

I thought it was the random act that allowed the mutated gene which best fit the new situation to pass on.

And I thought that the mutation is the "random" event. Although I'm not entirely sure it's always random. In fact on a bio-chemical level it probably isn't that random at all. I mean what is a mutation anyway? It's a bunch of molecules that should go this way and have these atoms inside them and should fit in here in the dna chain being replaced by another bunch of chemically compatible molecules.
But in chemistry you can't replace anything with anything else... There's possibly a rather large but ultimately finite set of mutations that are possible.
What exactly "decides" that a mutation goes this or that way is beyond anyone's ability to take a wild guess :/

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I think laws are oldschool science, since nothing is constant.

Not true. We still use laws.

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

If there were laws against stupidity, you would not be allowed to post.

Not terribly wise to post inflammatory remarks on the forums either. As stated earlier, don't attack the poster. It invariably ends in tears.

[Karsol]

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

There certainly are conditions where they don't apply, but they're still laws. You're doing the same thing creationists do with the word theory.

Ouch, that hurt.
Entomology was never my strong suit.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Could someone please explain as to why you would believe in this?

Basically, I am a rationalist, because I think no super person could craft a person so complex and talented as a human. I think the creatures are a product of millions of years of natural evolution because there are proofs of our ancestors, it's just that we haven't got the fully step by step ultra-detailed picture of evolution.

[Xsyne]

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

There certainly are conditions where they don't apply, but they're still laws. You're doing the same thing creationists do with the word theory.

Ouch, that hurt.
Entomology was never my strong suit.

Clearly.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[Karsol]

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

There certainly are conditions where they don't apply, but they're still laws. You're doing the same thing creationists do with the word theory.

Ouch, that hurt.
Entomology was never my strong suit.

Clearly.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Gah!!! It's what the spell-checker said!!!

[Xsyne]

I think laws are oldschool science, since nothing is constant.

Not true. We still use laws.

I was under the impression that we still refer to anything that was called a law as "laws" but we don't name things laws anymore. Am I wrong on this? Physics is one of the only branches of science I could never really get into, and it's the one that uses laws the most, as I recall.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I was under the impression that we still refer to anything that was called a law as "laws" but we don't name things laws anymore. Am I wrong on this? Physics is one of the only branches of science I could never really get into, and it's the one that uses laws the most, as I recall.

A law is a mathematical model that makes predictions but does not try to actually explain things.

[Consaria]

Could someone please explain as to why you would believe in this?

Basically, I am a rationalist, because I think no super person could craft a person so complex and talented as a human. I think the creatures are a product of millions of years of natural evolution because there are proofs of our ancestors, it's just that we haven't got the fully step by step ultra-detailed picture of evolution.

God isn't a "person"

[Xsyne]

It just seems silly to me, as their maybe conditions where our 'laws' make no sense.

There certainly are conditions where they don't apply, but they're still laws. You're doing the same thing creationists do with the word theory.

Ouch, that hurt.
Entomology was never my strong suit.

Clearly.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Gah!!! It's what the spell-checker said!!!

Yeah, Entomology is the study of insects. Etymology is the study of word origins. I assume you typed "etomology", since that give "entomology" as the first correction. Even without spellcheck, people confuse them all the time. At this point it wouldn't even be worth commenting on if it weren't for the humor factor.

[Xsyne]

I was under the impression that we still refer to anything that was called a law as "laws" but we don't name things laws anymore. Am I wrong on this? Physics is one of the only branches of science I could never really get into, and it's the one that uses laws the most, as I recall.

A law is a mathematical model that makes predictions but does not try to actually explain things.

Okay, that makes sense. I'm not entirely sure how useful a concept it is, since theories make predictions as well as explain things. I'd guess it has something to do with the "mathematical model" bit.

[Treznor]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

I thought it was the random act that allowed the mutated gene which best fit the new situation to pass on.

What random act?

The idea is that everyone is slightly different from their forebears. Each individual change is tested for viability by environmental factors. A spider that knows how to catch insects to eat is going to thrive, but will probably die in a flood. If floods happen regularly, spiders that happen to have a variation that allows them to survive floods will be more likely to spawn new generations than spiders that don't. That's natural selection at work, taking advantage of minor changes to encourage variations to become dominant. Enough changes over a long enough period of time result in new species that are genetically distinct from the original.

No I thought that natural selection was whatever caused the enviroment to favor certain genes. Wouldn't the whole explanation be the entire theory?

It's a combination. Genes that are expressed in different ways will be tested for viability by the environment. If it has no discernible impact, the gene may survive but it won't become dominant. If it has a negative impact, the gene won't be propagated. If it has a positive impact, it'll likely propagate more successfully than those who haven't expressed that gene.

[United Dependencies]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

I thought it was the random act that allowed the mutated gene which best fit the new situation to pass on.

What random act?

The idea is that everyone is slightly different from their forebears. Each individual change is tested for viability by environmental factors. A spider that knows how to catch insects to eat is going to thrive, but will probably die in a flood. If floods happen regularly, spiders that happen to have a variation that allows them to survive floods will be more likely to spawn new generations than spiders that don't. That's natural selection at work, taking advantage of minor changes to encourage variations to become dominant. Enough changes over a long enough period of time result in new species that are genetically distinct from the original.

No I thought that natural selection was whatever caused the enviroment to favor certain genes. Wouldn't the whole explanation be the entire theory?

It's a combination. Genes that are expressed in different ways will be tested for viability by the environment. If it has no discernible impact, the gene may survive but it won't become dominant. If it has a negative impact, the gene won't be propagated. If it has a positive impact, it'll likely propagate more successfully than those who haven't expressed that gene.

I understand that. Was the person asking for an explanation of the entire theory itself?

[Treznor]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

I thought it was the random act that allowed the mutated gene which best fit the new situation to pass on.

What random act?

The idea is that everyone is slightly different from their forebears. Each individual change is tested for viability by environmental factors. A spider that knows how to catch insects to eat is going to thrive, but will probably die in a flood. If floods happen regularly, spiders that happen to have a variation that allows them to survive floods will be more likely to spawn new generations than spiders that don't. That's natural selection at work, taking advantage of minor changes to encourage variations to become dominant. Enough changes over a long enough period of time result in new species that are genetically distinct from the original.

No I thought that natural selection was whatever caused the enviroment to favor certain genes. Wouldn't the whole explanation be the entire theory?

It's a combination. Genes that are expressed in different ways will be tested for viability by the environment. If it has no discernible impact, the gene may survive but it won't become dominant. If it has a negative impact, the gene won't be propagated. If it has a positive impact, it'll likely propagate more successfully than those who haven't expressed that gene.

I understand that. Was the person asking for an explanation of the entire theory itself?

I don't think he was asking for the published data, no. Just a summary definition of natural selection, which we've done.

[Ifreann]

whats natural selection?

Simply, the mutations that help you spread your genes will spread, the mutations that make it harder won't.

I thought it was the random act that allowed the mutated gene which best fit the new situation to pass on.

What random act?

The idea is that everyone is slightly different from their forebears. Each individual change is tested for viability by environmental factors. A spider that knows how to catch insects to eat is going to thrive, but will probably die in a flood. If floods happen regularly, spiders that happen to have a variation that allows them to survive floods will be more likely to spawn new generations than spiders that don't. That's natural selection at work, taking advantage of minor changes to encourage variations to become dominant. Enough changes over a long enough period of time result in new species that are genetically distinct from the original.

No I thought that natural selection was whatever caused the enviroment to favor certain genes. Wouldn't the whole explanation be the entire theory?

It's a combination. Genes that are expressed in different ways will be tested for viability by the environment. If it has no discernible impact, the gene may survive but it won't become dominant...

Genetic dominance is something else all together.

[Treznor]

It's a combination. Genes that are expressed in different ways will be tested for viability by the environment. If it has no discernible impact, the gene may survive but it won't become dominant...

Genetic dominance is something else all together.

Quite right. Sorry, my layman's understanding is having trouble boiling it down to more manageable bites.