If the specific mutation proves to be more advantageous to the survival of an individual, the other members of the specie would want their offsprings to possibly inherit that trait. They will then prefer to mate with that individual and their offsprings will just be as desirable. Give it enough time, through a number of generations, the whole species would have evolved with the same trait.
This whole thread would be amusing if not tragic. It's like watching a Nobel PHD in Physics try to argue with a 5 year old on whether or not the earth is made out of silly putty.
Except that one creature passes down that mutation to his offspring. I mean, how do you think hemophilia exists if it isn't passed down by genetics?
This difference between this thread and your chronic ill-fated semi-yearly abortion thread trainwrecks is that evolution isn't really a moving ethical target like abortion, and anyone with the gumption to read the right books would have an understanding of what Evolutionary theory is trying to spell out. You don't have to agree with it, and those heebie jeebie goosebumps you're getting now is more about you than the material itself. Quit cherry picking Pastor Mike's anti-Satan Good Learnin' Series of Facebook links and jump straight to the Origin of Species or ask a professor on the good ol' FB for suggestions. After 200 some-odd years, Darwin's book is still surprisingly relevant. Right now, it's like you've put on the Homer glasses and copy pasta-ing random links from science blogs to prove a simple point. Forest from the trees, breh. You're a long time member. If you wanted real discussion, there'd be growth from past threads. People are just responding your lack of growth and respect of the topic in kind.
I'm not saying it isn't passed down. It obviously is. Where in this mutating process is the transitional "leap" made from an old species to a new species? It seems like more of a nudging.... which challenges the bigger picture of evolution of the species.
Several have contributed to the discussion here. Some of the same, old, usual children have showed up to share their churlishness. Who's to say from what direction the growth should come? What is the one line I added to the embedded video as an introduction? This forum is entitled "DEBATE & DISCUSSION" but that is really the last thing that some of you want. Thanks to those of you who have simply answer the questions and attempt to carry the discussion forward.
Correct. It is more like a nudging as opposed to a leap. I fail to see the problem. You seem to think that one day, a Homo Erectus happened to give birth to a Homo Sapiens. That's not how it worked. One day, a homo erectus happened to give birth to a homo erectus who had trait that are more similar to a homo sapiens. Then in maybe ten thousand years the descendants of that homo erectus gave birth to another homo erectus with more traits of homo sapiens, and so on, and so on.
Please check out the fruit fly experiment which is now being taught and performed at the high school level. I think this will answer most of your questions.
What you fail to realize is that nobody claimed it affected an entire species at one time. Why do you bring it up as if someone is making that claim? You are putting forth attempts to refute arguments that nobody is making. I'm not sure why. Science doesn't really require any leaps of faith. It requires evidence. The evidence is there.
Randomness is interesting. It's a local event. At a larger scale, there is a "law" that randomness follow. Which beg the question, is it really random chance that human just happen, or that some very certain conditions very early on unfold to a stage of human today. I can almost see that human is not randomly created. Human became due to the law of nature unfolding over time. You put our universe law of nature and set of conditions in a said completely new universe, you will get human again.
Does that mean that the idea of abiogenesis isn't science? The evidence isn't there and it requires a rather large leap of faith.
My understanding of that is that they believe there is some evidence that backs the idea of abiogenesis. It isn't conclusive but to say there is no evidence isn't accurate from what I've seen. It is something I'm not all that up to date on, so I wouldn't say for sure.
You do understand there have been not one transitional leap samples, but several all along the way that have been discovered right?
From what I know, they have evidence of things sort of similar to things that would be relevant, but nothing directly relevant. Of course that's not to say they'll never have any evidence, one day they might, but for now those who believe in it do so simply out of faith or necessity. For certain beliefs, abiogenesis simply has to be possible.
