Evolution. What is right about it, and what is wrong? - LucasForums

08-22-2007, 9:59 PM
#1

I decided to make this thread sinc ei decided i needed to leanr a bit more about these theoretical sciences that i don't learn much of in school. I don't fully beleive evolution is correct, but soem parts of it are still correct. i don't believe macro evolution is real, and i will make my points with what scientific knowledge i have. This is a discussion, not a debate whethe ror not it's fully wrong or fully right. as some facts i have seen of it appear to be right, and some are not. it is a factual science but still a theory.

Rules:

1: No dicussion of religions regarding this, or anything related to how life actually began via the 'natural selection' theory.
2: no arguing excessivlely or harsh posts over this. This is not a thread to prove evolution wrong or right, only to sort it out for waht is wrong and what is right about it.
3: Just have fun discussing this! keep an open mind and let's try to learn some things about science from each other.

Macro Evolution:
Are fossils proof enough? have we ever actually recovered some perfectly intact DNA strnad sform what remains of the dinosours instead of looking at other animals and saying the chicken is related to the Tyranasurus Rex, or some repilian lizard is related to an amphibian through evolution? do we actually have solid truth of macro evolution where no important bits or peices of vital evolutionary genomes are missing?

Micro Evolution:
What has this been tested on? so far i've only heard it's from bacteria ans such, which are completely unrelated to other forms of larger living things, which i will explain later? Is interspecies intercourse of flies and bacteria even proof of true micro evolution when it is from two completely different species that aren't even of the smae family?

Here are my sicnetific points:

Two big dogs- AA and AA, breed and make aa, a smaller dog. Aa and Aa are heavily mixed parents, making an aA breed, having genetic disorders- which is not evolution as far as i can tell.

Bacteria types A and B have never had contact with each other, and are not of the same family, but are of the same Phylum. Type B dies out, and type A makes Type B bacteria. that isn't evolution because of this:
Bacteria and such are a special Phyla, completely different genetic setup than other Phylas. They naturally have randomized genetic codes, a form of natural slection, but not evolution itself. They are the closest thing to evolution however.

Now, slightly more complex things:
Interspecies intercourse- not evolution.

Species AA and BB mate. BB overrides most of AA's genetic codes. Species Xx breeds with species yY, and you have a perfect cross, at least i think that's how it works when that happens. Species yY has genetic disorders due to heavy mixing of different creatures of it's same species, the yY not being natural, as it should go Yy, yy, or YY.
Those two species mate, and you Get Either XY or YX, or that in lowercase xy, yx, or xY, yX. Normally species Y should overide species X, but if the gnetic disorder causeds the lowercase or the higher starting letter, the lower starting letter that is capital is the dominant gene.
None of that is evolution. Natural slection is the DNA slection of compltely new genes without mating thugh interpsieces or identical species.
Human DNA study has revieled i think about 2 Billion possible genome combination in DNA already, and all of that appears to not be evolutionary- it is of different races of Humans mixing their DNA through their children so much that disorders happen that appear to be evolution. so far, the only way evolution can work is interspecies intercourse. now don't worry, i'm not trying to disprove evolution itself, as you saw with my explanation of bacteria, that is a form of evolution that is real.

if species Dd and dD mated, you'd have a perfect cross, likely resulting in multple offspring. but if this happened, i'm not fully sure on this one though, but i'll still explain it: DD mated with DE, you'd get evolutionary traits longer along the line. the DE was recived by interspeices intecourse, but if gene DE was De, the e would not override the normally less dominant D. If DE still was mated, the mixture over time could result in evolution.

In conclusion, what i've seen is that only Interspexcies intercourse and specil genetic setups can result in evolution. The T-rex had to mate with a bird dinosour to eventually have the Chicken as a relative. Bacteria is a totally different setup than the normal double-helix DNA right? or wait? is it or did i get something wrong with that? Correct me if that's wrong. There you go- my views on what's right and wrong of evolution. Any suggestions on this would be appreciated. I am not the best at science, so if i've made some mistakes, i am open to correction of them. I am open to both sides- evolutionists vrs non-evolutionists, so i guess i can be a nuetral party here.