I don't believe in evolution; I don't believe in creationism. I have every right to pull theories out of my ass.

---

Q u o t e:
I try not to have a basic understand of things before I said they are crap either.

---

I understand the theory perfectly. I just think that the name could be better(the theory actually describes adaptation via random mutation and natural selection) and that it's wrong.

---

Q u o t e:
In that theory doesn't evolution still occur through natural selection? If so, you fundamentally disagree with the Biotube and you at least generally agree with Darwin's theory.

---

I believe in natural selection. I also happen to know that sexual selection can overpower it any day of the week(peacocks aren't that way because it's easier to evade predators).

---

Q u o t e:
I don't have the patience for this. I'll let Kerrigore or Atvar deal with it. I do think it is interesting how you just fundamentally changed your position on evolution though. So it's not a flawed theory anymore, you just have some technical issues with it. Whatever.

---

How is "it's wrong" a technical issue?

On another note, anybody who has my cow example(the one with the cows, valley and one being crushed by a boulder) saved, feel free to post it.

---

Q u o t e:
Well, let's think about it. Why do creatures evolve? Because they need to adapt to environmental change. Evolution is constantly occuring, because the environment is constantly, albeit most of the time, slowly, changing. Therefore, it can be said that extreme, fast, and abrupt spikes in evolutionary speed would occur during times of severe environmental change. For example, if the world is going through a slow cooling phase, animals will evolve more gradually to adapt to their environment. If, however, a meteor strikes the earth and triggers fast, if not immediate changes in global climate, say, a long, intense cold snap, organisms will either evolve at lightning speed to match their environment, or face extinction if they cannot adapt fast enough.

---

Peacocks.

---

Q u o t e:
biotube has scientific evidence to show evolution is wrong 100% sure.

---

Peacoocks.

---

Q u o t e:


What's hilarious is how you don't think sexual selection is a part of natural selection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Sexual_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

To make your foolishness even more apparent:


It's almost like you don't even bother to have even a rudimentary idea of what you're criticizing.

---

Natural selection - struggle for survival
Sexual selection - who can get the most chicks

I think everything's clearer if we separate the two.

"Throw something at the person below"

Someone bring that back, now that we have a new forum to fling things around in.

---

Q u o t e:
How is sexual competition not part of the struggle for survival?

---

Think hobos. I separate the two concepts primarily because natural selection has built up the connotation becoming more adapted to the environment, whereas sexual selection more clearly refers to who actually managed to pass their genes on, irrespective of their fitness to a given environment.

---

Q u o t e:


No. It's all about the passing on of particular genes. Sexual selection is just as much a part of that as who gets enough food or whatever, and it makes no sense to separate the two in any substantial way. Basically, sexual selection is one type of natural selection. There are other types of natural selection, but it makes no sense to talk as if sexual selection is somehow not part of natural selection.

---

Making them synonymous does nothing but falsely bolster your argument.

---

Q u o t e:
Plus, despite your backpedaling now, you weren't just suggesting that sexual selection and natural selection were distinct concepts, you were suggesting sexual selection as an objection to evolution/natural selection.

---

1)I'll backpedal all I want
2)I never raised it as an objection to natural selection; if you'll recall, I said that sexual selection would overpower the genetic effects of natural selection every time.

---

Q u o t e:
Who passes their genes on is a function of their adaptability. Sexual selection just adds another type of selective pressure. "Fitness" is a term we should avoid in this context, since Darwin wasn't the one who said natural selection was "survival of the fittest" and modern evolutionary theory typically uses fitness to refer to reproductive success in an individual or species.



In other words, even if we grant you that natural selection is "survival of the fittest", fittest is defined as those which succeed at passing on their genes; it is irrelevant whether this is accomplished through becoming strong or crafty (alpha males in a wolf pack), small and good at hiding (mice), or attractive to the females of your species (a common feature of various birds).

---

Now who's moving the goal posts?

---

Q u o t e:
As for Peafowls, you can read more about them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl

Which includes this little gem:

---

I brought up peacoocks because all those showy feathers make them stick out like sore thumbs, making them more likely to be eaten.