View Single Post
Old 02-04-2015, 10:20 AM  
dyna mo
The People's Post
 
dyna mo's Avatar
 
Industry Role:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: invisible 7-11
Posts: 64,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon View Post
It's at the top of the article

Amazing how people read into shit and forget the bullet points.

Ama-ZING!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirtit View Post
From your link:


?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,? said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA?s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

?These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,? he said. ?If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDalton View Post
^^^^^this
Quote:
Originally Posted by crockett View Post
To further quote...

?The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,? said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA?s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

?These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,? he said. ?If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.?


ie their environment didn't change, so there was no stimulus to inspire any need to evolve.



it's as if y'all think I stopped reading the article on this right after the quote I used.

the fact is (from the article)::::::::::::
Quote:
Charles Darwin?s writings on evolution focused much more on species that had changed over time than on those that hadn?t. So how do scientists explain a species living for so long without evolving?

can you brainiacs see the difference here?
dyna mo is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote