darwinism does not explain

No, that is not what I said at all. I said that saltwater fish venture into fresh water to look for food that has adapted to live there, and then end up adapting to live there as well.

Because all life on earth depends on water as a solvent, and that is because all life on earth comes from a single ancestor.
If you take a monk to the poles, he will die because the water in his body will freeze and then his cells will be unable to perform any chemical reactions, not to mention that when the water freezes, it expands and crystallizes, causing cell rupture.
All life which exists in the poles relies on a remarkable ability to retain enough body heat to keep water in liquid state. There are organisms which can freeze and then be brought back when thawed and those are as well reliant on some pretty amazing adaptations.

Who knows, maybe millions of years from now the rest of the earth will be depleted, and the poles will be swarming with life descendant from these creatures.

Don’t forget about mass extinction events. There have been a handful in the history of Earth.

No, that is not what I said at all. I said that saltwater fish venture into fresh water to look for food that has adapted to live there, and then end up adapting to live there as well.

[quote]
And the predators would have followed them into the decreased surface area, making them more vulnerable and they would have gone back out into the oceans, and the predators would have followed them. Simple statistics. Sometimes the predators are micro-organisms… so the argument that predators have longer life cycles doesn’t work.

Just read the article, ok?

I just read the article, it took me a few minutes because I read fast. It never talked about the game theory of evolving from oceans to fresh water. Any transitional species would have had transitional predators, and the predators would have had more weight than the prey because of the decrease in surface area between salt water and fresh water areas. This would have pushed the fish and the predators back into the ocean. It’s not logically possible from basic game theory that there would ever have been a completely fresh water fish, being as they all arose from sea water.

Darwinism can explain many things but not all because it is the trial and the error to explain biological development (evolution) by demographic and economic developments (compare: Thomas R. Malthus). And that does not work completely. There is something like a „missing link“ between biology on the one side and demography and economy on the other side. The evolution of the species does not only function by adaptation or fitting but also by dissociation or distancing.

The Darwinian evolution theory consists of three prnicples: (1) heredity (inheritance, descent), (2) variation, (3) selection; and just the selection which is the moct characteristic principle of the Darwinian evolution theory is at least partly false.

Your argument is absurd if you consider the fact that evolution happens over the course of millions of years. A species could have lived in fresh water completely predator free for tens of thousands of years before a mutation in a predator species allowed it to go into fresh water as well.

Has anyone brought up the evolution / mutation of germs and viruses within a year or two???

how about SYMBIOGENESIS…what do you think about lichens and how they were created…
I thought when you go on the science site you could discuss science…I was wrong…

Can you explain why? It makes perfect sense to me that adapting to fresh water would have been beneficial due to competition for resources, among other things. If an organism can only survive in water, it makes sense that they’d eventually spread to just about every livable aquatic environment there is over a long enough time span. I’m also confused why you keep bringing up game theory because, as far as I know, it’s about decision making. Organisms don’t really choose when and where to evolve and adapt like that.

I tried to tell you that a long time ago.

Lichens are pretty fascinating. In short, a symbiotic relationship between organisms leads to the formation of a composite organism with different features than its constituents.

To be fair, you haven’t really bothered to discuss anything in this thread. You just keep asking what people think of this or that. Maybe if you offered a view of your own or an argument of some sort a discussion could ensue.

Turtle is only going to get a discussion if he articulates a POV. A couple of lines asking what people think about something is not enough to generate interest.

Yeah, what Stat said. :text-+1:

very good…can anyone here articulate a pov about symbiogenesis…you guys know about that…the problem I have with evolution -----I don’t think random mutations explain what we are seeing with homo sapiens…there must be something else going on having to do with nature…I am not talking about any god thing…

???
What are you seeing?

I cant believe that random mutations and genetic mixing of races account for the change in our brain during the last 1-4 million years…james help me out…I have a hard time putting things in words…I am working on it…

I don’t think you can avoid random mutations… within a certain class, obviously goats don’t come out of humans. I do think that we have accelerated much faster than is allowed by natural selection, and I don’t think it’s a flaw in the theory, I think we were genetically modified by another species with other hominid species on this earth. Actually, if they hadn’t screwed with us, in a few hundred million years, the bonobos would have evolved to a much better species than homosapiens.

Darwin called this “descent through modification” which is a different concept than random mutations… the “descent” part being key here.

But that correlates with a change in gene frequency, not actual genetic manipulation from an external source. Also, mutations are a mechanism of modification.

Millions of years is a long time. You might also want to consider selection pressures that would likely favor beneficial traits such as increased brain complexity and intelligence.