Ron Paul in the 70s defending the legalization of drugs in the face of an absolutely rabid and biased host and audience. (from r/drugs)

...But I said that a genetic mutation that helps a creature survive in its in its environment can lead to it being able to survive and breed and have a chance of passing down the trait that made it different and more capable. Implying that those without that trait would not survive. That IS natural selection, right?

And genetic drift would just be that there are a lot of creatures (I say creature to be intentionally vague, aquatic, avian, land-based, stationary, it doesn't matter) that survive because of their genetic mutation that sets them apart from those that don't have that trait. And because there are a lot of those creatures its more likely that the trait is passed on through repeated breeding vs. the lack of breeding by those that are.. well.. dead. And if not, natural selection would be more likely to weed those out that don't have the trait if said trait really benefits their odds of survival or breeding and is not trivial like heterochromia. I didn't think that needed to be explained.. not everyone with a freckle on their forehead will have kids with a freckle on their forehead, we all know that because we have parents with small unique things we don't have, and I'm not teaching a class, I was being brief with the assumption that common sense like that would be implied, known, or deduced.

Redundancy in logic revolves around the idea that the same point is being made multiple times, not that its being clarified or that number of times you mention a word exceeds one... Regardless, I wasn't redundant. I used the word evolution more than once but I literally made no repeated points, I pointed out the distinction between the "theory of evolution" (which implies all life on Earth evolved without intelligent design) and the collective phenomena genetic mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection (genetic mutation being most important, genetic drift is a result of natural selection and both are implied or deduced when you even mention evolution as the idea that a majority of a species in a given environment changes over time via a successful mutation. <--That could be called redundancy but I say it more to clarify.) are a fact because they happen.

To clarify, the "theory of evolution" is a theory because you can only disprove intelligent design as much as you can prove it.

Evolution however is a fact because it happens. Genetic mutations can be the difference between survival and death (natural selection) and in great frequency, assure the likelihood that those traits are passed on to adjust for the survival of the species (genetic drift). If you go back and actually read the comment with the idea in mind that its pretty obvious that one mutation can't change an entire species and I was trying to be brief you'll see how redundant I've made myself by posting this fucking essay.

I never said a mutation had a complete chance to be passed down (see: 'freckle' argument) but it definitely can be, I was not redundant because I "referred to evolution twice while trying to explain evolution" (if you fault me for word choice, I'll fault you. Show me a science textbook that explains electrons by just saying 'electrons' once or a biography on George Washington that doesn't say "George Washington" or "Washington" more than once.) I mentioned evolution again after describing the most important aspect which was mutation that brings distinction over who overcomes what life-threatening factors. When a whole species is concerned its not a far leap to consider that what's best for one would be best for all and if multiple creatures have a vital trait it will carry over if only because they are the leftover majority. Anecdotally, I made it singular for brevity and clarity sake, I assume people know what natural selection is, "Survival of the fittest" is literally a cultural trope. I never said The theory of evolution makes mention of intelligent design. In fact, I made the distinction that the theory was a contrary point of view that many use to denounce the idea that there needed to be intent to create things as they are by any sort of deity or deities. Although some will say the ideas work in tandem, its not far off to assume evolution could have come into existence and functioned independent of divine intervention long enough that humans evolved.

Am I saying its true? No, I couldn't possibly know. Is it plausible enough that its a popular explanation? yes. The "theory of evolution" is. Why? Because its derived from the factual phenomenon of evolution. But as far as creation goes, its still a theory because intelligent design cannot be proved or disproved but it still widely believed. I hope I don't need to mention The Big Bang Theory and creation of all matter and theories explaining what may have caused the Big Bang in order for my explanation to not be short sighted and incomplete.

I included plenty of spacing this time, maybe the lack of spacing is what confused you in my last post, but if you go back and reread it as well as this post you'll find that I'm mostly repeating what I said as well as filling in blanks from my original post which really had very little redundancy. According to you a lack of information was also a problem, I didn't mention clearly that it happens on a mass-scale ("species" deducible and/or implied) over time ("...evolved over time...") and without 100% frequency to pass-over to offspring (" chance...") but as the quotes in parenthesis hopefully show I either implied it, left it up to deduction, or assumed people knew. I can't say which because the interpretation depends on the individual and what they know.

Also, if genetic drift and natural selection are deemed to be so intrinsic to even a basic understanding of what evolution is that any description that includes the oddities of what defines the process and not the regularities by which it functions, why didn't you explain them? It seems you're concerned about "[helping anyone] who may be confused as so why the theory of evolution is considered a fact. Seems like an awfully short sighted thing to do to leave such a vital definition incomplete... -___- Again, you sleight me, I sleight you.

Hopefully this very wordy, redundant, multi-paragraph essay in response to a comment on a post that you probably didn't read very carefully will make clear what i thought was implied in my brief explanation of the distinction between the fact and process of evolution vs. "the theory of evolution" as an explanation for why life (namely humans) is the way it is as we know it now. Its both, the Thereof Evolution is just a short hand description for why life is the way it is now and can be used subjectively to refute intelligent design while evolution is just something that happens.

/r/cringe Thread Parent Link -