[Question - Explain how genetics supports Darwin's theory.?]
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
It doesn't at all. If I cut off my arms because I no longer need them, my kids are not going to be born without arms. If I convince all my kids to cut off their arms because they don't need them their kids will not be born without arms. Even if my entire familly has been cutting off their arms for the past 999,999,999,999 billion years, guess what? Their kids will still be born with arms!!! The reason is we all have the genes to produce arms, some may be short or long or small or large, but we are gonna be born with arms. I don't care how much time the evolution religion gives it, humans will never be armless. We will never produce lobster claws to replace the arms because we don't have the genes for lobster claws.
Source(s):
common sense
92 comments
You need to check your sources, buddy.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/disability_issues&id=7909295
"Linda and Timmy have a genetic condition called Holt-Oram syndrome.
'It pretty much said that it's a 50/50 chance that any children that I have will also be born without arms," Linda said."
Granted, Linda and Timmy do not have this syndrome because they had an ancestor that cut of their arms because, well... that's fucking stupid. However, it as an example of a genetic mutation and that my pea brained friend is an example of evolution - A mutation occurs that alters one's genetics. If the mutation is beneficial, the chances of producing offspring is high and so the mutation is likely to be passed on, not just to their children, but to their children's children and so on. Simply put, this, along with many other mutations working their way into the gene pool, will eventually lead to a new species.
Errrm, ...and this rubbish disproves evolution in what kind of way?
Oh I see, you don't have the slightest clue of what you are talking about.
I think you misunderstood the question. It was "Explain how genetics supports Darwin's theory", not "Give us an example of your stupidity". But thank you for trying, and please enjoy this one year free supply of "Shut-the-fuck-up".
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
That's all I need to see to know that we're fucked as a species. Idiocracy, here we come.
@dionysus
That's all I need to see to know that we're fucked as a species. Idiocracy, here we come.
Would it help things if it turned out that was more a result of a Trollocracy instead?
This is a level of crazy stupid I had previously hoped only existed in the realm of offhand gossip. Cutting your arms off because you don't think you need them does not mean your body agrees. Had you used your appendix as an example you might have feigned credibility well enough not to look like an utter moron, but as it stands you fail biology forever.
Please explain how you can cut off both arms. Cut off one arm, possible, perhaps. But two? What are you going to hold the knife with for the second one? Or have you developed great skills with your feet?
Actually, the whole argument is rather silly.
Even if my entire familly has been cutting off their arms for the past 999,999,999,999 billion years, guess what? Their kids will still be born with arms!!!
I guess you don't understand genetics
Well, she did prove Lamarckian evolution wrong. Darwinian evolution, on the other hand...
(Quick, where is she from, because if she honestly thinks that evolution is the inheritance of acquired characteristics, then the education system in her country has utterly failed her, and is hopeless!)
Except "I don't care how much time the evolution religion gives it, humans will never be armless."
The rest is pretty much true - and in support of our current understanding of the mechanics evolution.
If I cut off my arms because I no longer need them, my kids are not going to be born without arms.
If they were, that would disprove Darwin's theory; so you've got it backwards.
[Question - Explain how genetics supports Darwin's theory. ?]
"Best Answer - Chosen by Voters"
I'm afraid science isn't a democracy. Discoveries are supported by objective facts - evidence . In the case of Evolution, take your pick from the shitloads of evidence that exists (and is yet to be found - and will be): Transitional Forms, such as Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Darwinius massilae, Ardipithecus etc. And certainly the clincher: the fact we humans share at least 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees.
...and no, we humans aren't starfish or axolotls (I've always liked that word!). But we have found a way to regenerate particular tissues via Stem Cell research. As a Spanish woman will tell you - pun intended - when a pioneering British technique enabled her to have a replacement windpipe, without the problem of organ rejection (when stem cells were taken from her own bone marrow, and regenerated into such).
It's all in the genes...!
Lamarckism =/= Evolution.
Which is not fair to Lamarck, as he was really a very fine scientist, whose name has been unfortunately attached to a minor part of his theory. Darwin kind of leaned towards this belief too, but modern evolutionary theory is based largely on, and is massively supported by, genetics, and only a completely ignorant fuckwad would think anything different
You do know that people are born sans limbs occasionally (the limb producing genes are, for some unknown reason, non functioning).
There are also people born with webbed fingers and toes.
Shall I go on?
"Even if my entire familly has been cutting off their arms for the past 999,999,999,999 billion years, guess what? Their kids will still be born with arms!!!"
But the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
We probably don't have lobster claw genes. But, some of us have Neanderthal genes, and we all have hair, which derives from the same keratin and cysteine genes found in bird feathers and claws, and reptile scales and claws. Plus, in every cell in our bodies we have mitochondria, which probably started their evolutionary journey as bacteria.
It annoys me when rubes insist on labeling evolution as a religion. Is gravity a religion also?
It's like they know that religions are horrible man-made institutions, so they project their own bullshit onto rational people.
*sigh* When will the rapture get here??
"freako104
You failed evolution."
No, evolution failed her/him.
@Brenda Rizzo
It's a he and the other questions would indicate an origin in the United States. (Incidentally, one of his other questions is "woman won't have sex with me?"). Also, note that the "best answer" status comes from TWO votes.
That's Lamarck's theory, dumbass, it was disproven in the 1800s, I think you are a little bit outdated with your information.
Congratulations, you've just disposable the Lamarkian view of evolution.
The correct theory of evolution, however, doesn't say anything like that.
Oh, and thanks for proving that the average poster on Yaho! Answers is dumber than a bag of hammer handles.
I don't care how much time the evolution religion gives it, humans will never be armless.
Actually, there are some people who are born armless, or with extra arms. And scientific theories are NOT a religion.
I have been reading this site for few months now, and this is the stupidest post I have seen. Bravo.
PS: Evolution =/= Lamarckism
Actually, if a population lived in a culture which required them to cut off their left arm, it WOULD create an environmental pressure to not have a left arm. So it's possible that if mutations arise with a smaller left arm or an absent left arm, they'd suffer less physical trauma at having their arm removed and probably breed better... So... yeah, it COULD result in people with no arms. Or little stubby tyrannosaurus arms because after that point they couldn't really reach to cut off their other arm...
I hope this was voted "Best Answer" because it's so stupidly hilarious.
Humans would become armless if it was more advantageous for us to not have arms. I don't get how these people don't understand it does have everything to do with genetics. They should speak to the whales who lost their legs, but still have vestigial leg bones in their bodies. Whales. With fucking LEGS.
@Cy
Totally true. In fact it's scary how bang on this answer would be if "Darwin" were substituted with "Lamarck".
In fact, I shall now convince myself that the OP simply misread the question, and was totally talking about Lamarckian evolution. This denial process will prevent my head from exploding.
@Cy and NoriMori
This answer still wouldn't be correct even if they were talking about Lamarck rather than Darwin, because the question was about genetics.
If the question was "Explain how genetics supports Lamarck's theory" then "It doesn't at all" would have been correct, but the explanation has nothing to do with genetics, so it would still be wrong.
I know I'm going out on a limb here, but here goes...:
image
Ascoeur: 'GRR! This guy kept asking me "Want to do it?", and he was always pulling my leg about it, so...'
Q-Feuille: 'It's okay, he's harmless now.'
X3
(PROTIP: As a result of appearing in episode 2 of the anime series "Kiddy Girl-and", Abe now only likes females)
"Even if my entire familly has been cutting off their arms for the past 999,999,999,999 billion years, guess what? Their kids will still be born with arms!!!"
WRONG. If the entire family and their descendants did that and kept doing that then the ones born with no arms to cut off would have an advantage from not being prone to dying during surgery. Early on in that time period they would be born without arms.
Given enough time, you'd get a random mutation for just not having arms. That person would have a slightly higher chance of living for not having to go through your ridiculous ritualistic surgery to please whatever deity it is you are doing it for. All surgery carries risk.
So over an extremely long period of time yes the tendency of survivability and reproducibility (forgetting the fact that you'd probably just die out in competition with other families, but we'll just pretend you're the only people in the world for the sake of the argument) would tend towards those without arms in the first place.
That is true, yes. But just because you're acting on a wrong level. If you want to see changes on your children, you're supposed to alter your genes, not mutilate your body.
And yet, if you convince your kids to be mindless drones, and they make a tradition out of it for generation after generation, what do you get?
Take a looksee at the Bible Belt, genetics be damned.
Source(s): The inside of a pitiful fundie's skull, clean and brain-free as a steel bowl scrubbed for ten years with the Brillo pad of indoctrination, where Lamarckian evolution is confused with Darwinian evolution because there's nothing in there that can differentiate beyond "Is an intellectual zombie, therefore good" or "Uses brain, therefore bad".
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.