Study showing an increase in birth by Ceasarian Section impacting(and thereby proving) human evolution.
I believe this could be of some interest. I haven't read the actual paper itself, just this report from the BBC. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38210837 Perhaps someone can look at this study in further detail to decide if it is worthy of inclusion in the 'proof of evolution' section. Thanks. not a real jedidamn right i'm paranoid 10:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
http://www.reasons.org/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believe-s-testable-creation-model GreatPerson (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- I love how it says "testable", yet the very first point in Dr. Ross' list appeals verbatim to miracle. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
... who have a basic knowledge of science can understand how much of evolution 'works' on the broad level - members of one species go into two different environments (in the broadest possible sense) can lead to two different variants and eventually two different species; as environments change the creatures will also do so (eg the transition from life in the sea to seashore/mangrove life and then land based life); and 'if there is no good reason why eg one eye colour has a particular benefit then variants all are likely to survive.' (And 'if life has evolved here on Earth it will probably emerge elsewhere in the universe - insert Trappist/Dr Who Silence pun here - and some of it will seem very peculiar to us, but there will be certain practical limits to it.)
However it is some of the technicalities that provide 'the problems' - how did 'the original chemicals' develop into 'self-replicating components' which then became cells (beyond 'some self-replicators make use of other such's by-products and associate together as a result' or how one gets from 'sensors' ('nerves or whatever') to eyes and taste buds. To some extent this may lead to 'god of the gaps'-itis (and should be where there is more explaining). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- The "place" you describe is basically the link between philosophy of mind (in the sense of a "philosophy of life") and evolution — but also where chemistry specifies into biology. Abiogenesis, in other words. As a skeptic, this place about marks the furthest end of where methodological naturalism has currently taken us (with certainty). Beyond this point, in the unexplored "gap" which lies ahead, the only guide you can trust is metaphysical naturalism — but that's assuming you want to stray into the jungle at all. I highly recommend doing so, but only responsibly. See our article on philosophical naturalism for more. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
In a nutshell
- Welcome to the jungle. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Where is the github???
I can't find the github repository. The author said in 2016, he was releasing his source publicly in a few weeks.
Common misconceptions about evolution
- Nice. I one time had to argue with my art history teacher that "nature is survival of the fittest", attributed that to Darwin, and that "nature selects the best and discards the rest" and that doesn't really line up with evolution. The video didn't touch too much on the idea that "less fit" organisms die off when I think they simply slowly vanish from the population; their genetics change slowly, gradually, it won't be noticed until after tons of generations to the point species from one point is different from species from a past point. The part about genetic traits being "strange", "useless", "neutral" is very interesting, I'd bring that up whenever the opportunity arises. It might mess up some brains! --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)