Not to sound insulting, but the impetus is on the believer/hypothesizer to produce evidence supporting their theory. I have not read anything suggesting that environment can effect genetic makeup (other than stuff like radiation, etc.), but I am by no means an expert.

Are you sure?

I'm pretty sure. Genetic mutations are random; the body doesn't "feel" some pressure to change. However, some biologists will often use the word "pressure" in an ambiguous manner.

See the heading "Common Misconceptions about Selection" here.

No insult taken. I'm not asking anyone else to agree with my opinion, because I don't have any evidence. However, with no evidence to the contrary, I'll happily believe my own private theory.

I believe my previous post should answer your question, getaceres.

@hairy_Palms: Don't bother arguing with TheWiseMan, he can never be proven wrong because he uses ALL CAPS.

@TheWiseNose: YouTube - Richard Dawkins: Blind Watchmaker Pt1 (again)

I disagree with that all bad genes get swooped out, creatures might just get lucky, just as better adapted creatures might get unlucky. And maybe most mutations do nothing rather then be bad? Mostly i think it is for the biologists to figure out.
No you wont, small portions of it perhaps, the point is that evolution is not such a process.

I know it's a stupid idea because I'm not biologist and so, I cannot argue against biologists but I was making a comparison between the process by which organs that are not used are atrophiated and that maybe some organs could get better when they are used more.

your theory reminded me of the concept of genetic memory ... where experiences from our ancestors could be stored and passed to us through our genes. i've searched the web for a serious source on the subject and couldn't find much ... but maybe this artcle could be of interest to you :

American Chronicle: Deep DNA memory theories: Can we remember our ancestors’ lives?

I dont know if it would be a genetic mutation, but adaption isnt random. For example over time a group of animals who need to run a lot would get longer legs, while others that swim a lot would get webbed feet eventually.

what you are desctibing IS natural selection, but the mutations would be random, but the animals with shorter legs wouldnt survive (caught by predetors whereas the ones with long legs would have a much higher chance of survival, hence are selected based on the random traits.

I was trying to say that for input to be converted to an output
it needs a process

The crystal is bound by its physical form because of laws in nature

It isn't an accident that crystals form

HERE IS MY COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT WITH EVOLUTION


DOES something random create complexity

DOES a tornado running thruogh a junkyard create a boeing 747

DOes an explosion create complexity or destroy it

PLAIN and simple NO NO NO

you believe evolution random
come on

I just ate an avacodo

I am a new species

NICE REASONING

DO me a favour

create a binary file
you can do this for ever if you wish

make it random

What does the computer show you


ERROR

what it does produce is VERY relevant
As random mutations make a converge with a system that apparently hets better

quote:
And? It still is a program.

yeah a useless one that would die/ERROR

QUOTE: Again, science is not about absolute thuth. It's just the better explanation found for events that are happening. Just that, don't try to transform science in religion, it doesn't work that way.


therefore evolution is the best explanation
doesn't mean it is right

Quote: i was using it to illustrate that the input does not have to "understand" the output.

BUT
for output to work it must be able to be the input

can you understand random

yeah is may be"njdshf87yf78w9hyuihtkjhgkuhyg"
but so is "jfd8sfu89utntjknjnjk4n8u"

What does that mean to you?(look at my random typing)

Mostly @TheWiseMan

I just want to add that there are a lot of lies in this thread, one correction to those lies are:
EINSTEIN DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD!!!

Anyone who thinks that doesn't know anything about Einstein. Einstein used the word "god" as Spinoza did, as a reference to nature.

"God doesn't play dice." should be interpreted as "Perfect randomness is something I do not believe in.".
"I just want to know gods thoughts, the rest are details." should be interpreted as "I want a greater description of nature, the explicit calculations are not my cup of tea.".
This is what Einstein admitted himself, he has said that he have no other belief in a god than that similar to Spinoza's.

Get your facts straight! And then your view of science as a whole is really sad. If you would fist learn what the purpose of science is, and to be critical towards your sources, I might consider to take this discussion with you, but at this point it will be meaningless.

quote:Eh? What does this have to do with anything? You stated that complex structures needed design, i gave the example of a crystal as a complex structure which did not.

Turn brocolli into a crystal

Does an atom have a design, YES
Science (knows/assumes) that all atoms are similar in desgin
yes the have more protons and electrons and other things

But they have similar properties and can be classified into a table based on these properties

Did these happen by chance or did the laws of nature create them

Darwinbots starting with 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and just allowing normal evolution is called zero-bots. They actually do evolve into feeding creatures, albeit inefficient. (relative to efficiencies of design. But then again, evolution existing does not mean it produces efficient designs!)
Binary files have some pretty strong limitations on what works. Using interpreted code, for which every possibility works and does not create infinite loops and such. And one would have to write code determining what lives and what dies, and mutation code. Then you can make evolution sims, as given in link.
Artificial life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has more, under notable sims. (some artificial life sims are not that graphical, creatures not as-in x,y coordinates)

None of those three examples are like evolution, and what evolution is like has been explained in previous posts, and in the video.

I made some bots with Darwinbots, i have a pretty complete idea how to make a side-feeding worm, but have not been successfull making it. Tie-comunication and energy sending trouble . Would be pretty cool, i bet that worm you pretty much overmunch everything else.

Quote: The fool thinks himself to be wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

I know i dont know everything
All i am doing is proposing different explanations and you turn them down flat based on science

But all of you state evolution as a fact

It is the best explanation for diversity

but
it doesn't mean it is correct


What is more likely
That 1 of my stupid ideas will be accepted for a small period of time in the future

or that you will be right forever
beacuse apparently you know everything now