How hard is it to become proficient in weapons based arts compared to physical fighting ones?

Evolution is just individual efforts culminating across generations or within a lifetime. There is no random gene mutation that occurs and natural selection mechanism doing this. Biologists don't even believe that natural selection and gene mutations are the main drive of evolution. DNA is just protein schema for cells. They help cells remember how to fold proteins! That's it. Cells can keep producing proteins a couple weeks after it's removed but eventually stop. Don't think because you read some articles you know jack about reality or scientific fields or what scientists know and think. Ignorant. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists and they often disagree or have no clue. They are merely individuals and have their own rational faculties to process information and come to differing or similar points of view depending on the individual. Arrogant.

You don't gain strength because your DNA knows the way. That's not how your body works. You don't thicken and toughen skin because your DNA knows. Still not how it works. Nothing in DNA tells the cells how to use the proteins synthesized. The role of DNA may be incredibly limited in fact, less than even the scheme for protein. It is probably a bit clever a role though.

How many people have trained for epidermal durability anyhow? You know anyone? No one does it. The absense of people you know that have done it means you just don't know. There is nothing intelligent about this discussion since no one will do the training to gain even a small measure of improvement. The ones jeering would never suspend their petty stupor and put in a year of daily training. There is nothing against developing an advantage like tougher skin and flesh. The limit is not known. Put in check your petty egos.

You mean the word crap?

 

Lamarck's theory of evolution is really really out of date.

Even school kids know that,

The work of Lamarck - Evolution - AQA - GCSE Biology (Single Science) Revision - AQA - BBC Bitesize

Siri show me someone doesn't understand biology without saying outright, they don't understand biology.

 

I think perhaps we have come to the end of this part of the conversation.

Just…wow…!

 

There is no comprehensive account for evolution idiot. I should have included a lack of efforts as a drive of evolution as well. Not using your, say, hands often doesn't result in them disappearing, and using your legs often doesn't necessarily make them stronger or incredible in some fashion (think walking). You're ignorant and don't know it.

 

Natural Selection isn't why we have different species. This is understood by biologists. Do you disagree?

 

Oh bless your little rant.....


Fear is the path to the dark side … fear leads to anger … anger leads to hate … hate leads to suffering.


Why are you so full of anger?

Perhaps actually training would help you.

Both your anger issues, and also in knowing what your talking about.

 

Yes i disagree. Convince me otherwise.

 

If neither of you know that there is no real theory of evolution, or rather the presence of different species, you have no ground on which warrants your astonishment. There are many conjectures going in many directions as to what could drive evolution.
lizard-evolution-island-darwin
You're all ignorant. Evolution on the scale shown in this study is rapid and born from individual efforts to adapt to their surroundings. Survival is a great motivator I guess.

 

I know biologists, both marine, (which makes her a mermaid surely) and land based.

Natural selection is definitely "the origin of the species"

Are do you just think willpower and press ups did it?

 

Natural Selection is just some guys conjecture about how things work. The link above clearly disproves the idea that mutations are small and random, from a random scrambling of. .. DNA? DNA wasn't even discovered yet when natural selection was theorized by some random scientist we know the name of. Its role is in helping cells remember how to synthesize different proteins. That's it. None of it makes sense which is why no actual biologist believes it.

You do not know actual biologists or they are very ignorant. Show them the article I sent you and see what their reply is.
How about you tell me what the theory of natural selection is while you're at it and what evidence supports it.

 

The professor quoted in your articlehttps://www.mcgill.ca/biology/andrew-hendry


Research areas:
Conservation, Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour
Areas of expertise:
The evolution of biological diversity: adaptive radiation, ecological speciation, "rapid" evolution, natural selection, and gene flow. Empirical systems include salmon, sticklebacks, and guppies. Methods include surveys of biological diversity, field and laboratory experiments, molecular genetics,

 

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource

Original study, theyre planning on sequencing the lizards to see if this is a genetic or epi genetic cause.

This is evolution on a rapid scale, not evidence against evolution.

 

I didn't say that evolution doesn't occur. You misread. Please copy past what natural selection and why biologists think it explains how species change and form. You will find that it makes no sense. Ask your biologist friend if you want. Sign her up, invite her here.

 

molecular genetics, natural selection, gene flow....

Posted again with the relevant bits in bold

 

NATURAL SELECTION IS JUST THE FACT THAT THOSE THAT SURVIVE, BREED. Holy crap. DNA is for the synthesis of proteins, which is never explained or understood as to how it determines the form of an animal or what determines which DNA section is activated and deactivated and when. It's just matter, it does not order itself into a living breathing creature. This is a fact that cannot be denied except by staunch ignorants. Anyone with a brain knows that one has not explained the ordering force behind the matter. If you have an explanation I'd like to hear it. If your first thought is the "soul" then you really have no answer, do you?
You're not even explaining what the point of highlighting those things are so I am here repeating myself over and over again to no end. What do you think I'm saying? Please clarify.

 

You only appeal to authority. Your logical fallacy is appeal to authority. Does that help move this forward? When it's not appeal to authority it's appeal to popular belief. Can we engage with the concepts we've brought up now?

 

I see we got to the letter A in the list of logical fallacies, and thought "that will do".

Sus or what....

 

Natural selection goes hand in hand with sexual selection. Not all who survive actually get to breed.
If a small population a a sexually breeding species was introduced onto an island with great possibilities, adaptive radiation can happen, and evolution just before speciation can happen faster than evolution of a species that hasn't changed its habitat for millions of years. A professor at my university came up with a theory of Frozen Evolution. A very interesting concept. I do no have the book with me at the moment and I don't remember the exact details, but you can read on it. It is a very interesting theory that might actually make a lot of sense in this context.

What knowledge in evolution do you actually have to claim you know better than anyone else?

 

Do not project your laziness.

This doesn't really explain how species change though, as it doesn't address all evolution. I haven't said evolution doesn't exist. Evolution is how species change, or adapt, to their surroundings. It is well known that adaptations and changes occur in organisms but the mechanism for such change isn't sexual or natural selection as most changes can occur during their lifetime and can't be selected for without such changes occuring WITHIN a single organism's lifetime before they in fact breed. You can cite any study, copy paste any explanation, there will be none that can address the fact that micro-evolution occurs, and within very few generations very drastic changes may occur that can be selected for but THAT does not explain its existence. There is no mechanism for how DNA controls the macroscopic structure of an organism either, you can try and find anyone that can support the theory with sound reasoning but it falls apart quickly. The only role DNA has is in protein synthesis, not the ordering of such proteins; not even within a singular cell does it have any role beyond protein synthesis.

Does this make sense? In essence, there is very little to support the conclusions of biologists. Most scientists are normal people that have gone to school and cannot think critically enough or have the guts to question what their instructors tell them, nor their peers, nor can they explain why what some people said in the past as conjecture is to be taken as their "constitution" so to speak.