What about the evidence and how creationists reached their conclusions? Again, you keep obfuscating. There are only two parties in this "debate" (which is no longer a debate). There are evolutionists, and there are creationists who oppose evolution for no other reason than because it offends their delicate sensibilities. There is no independent third party. None. It is perhaps somewhat similar to the "debate" on climate change. There are independent and objective scientists who understand it, measure it and acknowledge it and then there is Big Oil, which pays "scientists" to obfuscate in any manner possible: http://www.good.is/post/nine-of-out-ten-climate-denying-scientists-have-ties-to-exxon-mobil-money/ All kidding aside, Lucrum, despite our many differences, I really believed you were smarter than that. I don't know if you're just having fun with me and pulling my leg, or if you really are that stupid. Either way, I've had my fill. Thank you.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can not understand why the name is "artificial" selection. The humans select (specific) traits they see to like in the animals, then cause the animals to change in a long time. So they should call this specific selection. Because humans are natural, not artificial. And yes, the fox story is fascinating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I do not know. But they have the mutation in their gene. So before humans protect them they are few in the world, and killed by other animals. But humans find (select) their trait they like, then protect them so they reproduce more.
"Artificial" because selection was guided by man for reasons other than specifically fitness for survival. Selection would have been "natural" to the extent that the species could fend for themselves and on their own. In any event, this is a distinction that Dawkins made to contrast domestication by man from selection unfettered by man. I understand your point, however, since there are examples where some species arguably "domesticate" others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aaaa, I understand now!
Once animals are domesticated, all bets are off, because they are bred not for survival, as is the case with natural selection, but because of some other attribute, which may or may not have unintended consequences. Consider modern day cows, which cannot fend for themselves in the wild, especially those that have been bred to produce copious amounts of milk. They weren't that way before man endeavored to domesticate them: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...0-year-old-ancestor-cow-uncovered-quarry.html
I already said that im not religious, and i dont know whether or not a god exists, i firmly believe in evolution, but there is obvious gaping holes in evolution which can not be explained by natural selection. Now why dont you explain to me how it became beneficial for us as humans to lose the ability to swing from trees like monkeys could?
BTW for stu, and everyone elses sake, i fully admit i was wrong on the fainting goats. I didnt know they were domesticated. Now please prove my stupidity as it pertains to neanderthals losing the ability to swing from trees like monkeys could.