Thomas the Tank Engine Share Posted February 4, 2015 Research actually provides further support for Darwin, UCLA professor says An international team of scientists has discovered the greatest absence of evolution ever reported Link to post Share on other sites
DocM Share Posted February 4, 2015 The usual environmental changes aren't he only evolution driver. Random copying errors and radiation mutagenesis (there are radioisotopes everywhere) should gave caused at least some divergence. 1 Share Link to post Share on other sites
theyarecomingforyou Share Posted February 4, 2015 The usual environmental changes aren't he only evolution driver. Random copying errors and radiation mutagenesis (there are radioisotopes everywhere) should gave caused at least some divergence. Unless the simplicity of the organism precludes mutagenesis, either because it lacks the complexity required for genetic degradation or because the resulting mutations would make it unable to survive and reproduce. 2 Share Link to post Share on other sites
siah1214 Share Posted February 4, 2015 The usual environmental changes aren't he only evolution driver. Random copying errors and radiation mutagenesis (there are radioisotopes everywhere) should gave caused at least some divergence. 1 Share Link to post Share on other sites
+virtorio MVC Share Posted February 4, 2015 Don't let Fox News see this, otherwise it'll be their new "It's cold so obviously Global Warming doesn't exist" thing but for evolution. 3 Share Link to post Share on other sites
rfirth Share Posted February 4, 2015 The usual environmental changes aren't he only evolution driver. Random copying errors and radiation mutagenesis (there are radioisotopes everywhere) should gave caused at least some divergence. They would diverge slightly. But those changes might not be visible in the fossil record. Changes in biochemistry are invisible here. Bacteria reproduce asexually... basically cloning themselves. They are all VERY well suited to their environment. Their environment never changes. It's not very surprising that they are so similar to bacteria 2 billion years ago. Link to post Share on other sites
Patmore Douglas Share Posted February 4, 2015 Don't let Fox News see this, otherwise it'll be their new "It's cold so obviously Global Warming doesn't exist" thing but for evolution. I know what you mean. Those Fox News and other conservative simpletons are just the worst. You know the ones who ask the questions, "If we are experiencing Global Warming, why are we freezing our tails off - contrary to what earlier climate models predicted?" or, "If we are experiencing Global Warming, why has the earth temperature remained flat for the last 15 years?" or "Why on earth should be believe a bunch of highly biased scientists, who have financial, career, and political stakes in affirming this phenomenon, which is based on decades worth of data, for an earth that is billions of years old? It is not as if the data is not only statistically insignificant, but it is so by orders of magnitude!" Those annoying conservatives and their common sense questions. When will they shut up, and just accept whatever elitists liberals try to shove down people's mouths? 2 Share Link to post Share on other sites
siah1214 Share Posted February 4, 2015 conservative simpletons The only accurate part of your post. http://xkcd.com/1321/ Link to post Share on other sites
ctebah Share Posted February 4, 2015 I know what you mean. Those Fox News and other conservative simpletons are just the worst. You know the ones who ask the questions, "If we are experiencing Global Warming, why are we freezing our tails off - contrary to what earlier climate models predicted?" or, "If we are experiencing Global Warming, why has the earth temperature remained flat for the last 15 years?" or "Why on earth should be believe a bunch of highly biased scientists, who have financial, career, and political stakes in affirming this phenomenon, which is based on decades worth of data, for an earth that is billions of years old? It is not as if the data is not only statistically insignificant, but it is so by orders of magnitude!" Those annoying conservatives and their common sense questions. When will they shut up, and just accept whatever elitists liberals try to shove down people's mouths? Oh how I wish more people were educated enough to understand the difference between Global Warming and Climate Change... 2 Share Link to post Share on other sites
HawkMan Share Posted February 5, 2015 The usual environmental changes aren't he only evolution driver. Random copying errors and radiation mutagenesis (there are radioisotopes everywhere) should gave caused at least some divergence. Link to post Share on other sites
siah1214 Share Posted February 5, 2015 The organism is where it needs to be, it has peaked. it probably has had mutations, but they haven't been beneficial and as such, they have been discarded. That is how evolution works. Yeah the headline should have read "Evolution: Working as intended." 2 Share Link to post Share on other sites
fusi0n Share Posted February 5, 2015 ah, I was expecting Justin Bieber.. 1 Share Link to post Share on other sites
+virtorio MVC Share Posted February 5, 2015 I know what you mean. Those Fox News and other conservative simpletons are just the worst. You know the ones who ask the questions, "If we are experiencing Global Warming, why are we freezing our tails off - contrary to what earlier climate models predicted?" or, "If we are experiencing Global Warming, why has the earth temperature remained flat for the last 15 years?" or "Why on earth should be believe a bunch of highly biased scientists, who have financial, career, and political stakes in affirming this phenomenon, which is based on decades worth of data, for an earth that is billions of years old? It is not as if the data is not only statistically insignificant, but it is so by orders of magnitude!" Those annoying conservatives and their common sense questions. When will they shut up, and just accept whatever elitists liberals try to shove down people's mouths? Common sense questions? LOL Link to post Share on other sites
123456789A Share Posted February 5, 2015 ah, I was expecting Justin Bieber.. I was expecting <insert technology company here>. Link to post Share on other sites
+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹ Share Posted February 5, 2015 I came here free from expectations. And those were met. Link to post Share on other sites
soniqstylz Share Posted February 5, 2015 More like 6,000 years, amirite? 2 Share Link to post Share on other sites
+warwagon Subscriber² Share Posted February 5, 2015 how many people thought they saw the word "Orgasm" in the title. Link to post Share on other sites
siah1214 Share Posted February 5, 2015 how many people thought they saw the word "Orgasm" in the title. Just you. 4 Share Link to post Share on other sites
lkernan Share Posted February 5, 2015 how many people thought they saw the word "Orgasm" in the title. Me too, i was sure it said "Scientists discover orgasm hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years" and thought, wtf! Link to post Share on other sites
Rippleman Share Posted February 5, 2015 GRANDPA to the 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 power! 1 Share Link to post Share on other sites
+Red King Subscriber² Share Posted February 5, 2015 This is quite underwhelming. 1 Share Link to post Share on other sites
Torolol Share Posted February 5, 2015 so this Organism failed to get the Darwin Awards? 2 Share Link to post Share on other sites
ctebah Share Posted February 5, 2015 Everyone knows the universe is only 6000, give or take 13.8 billion, years old... 2 Share Link to post Share on other sites
T3X4S Share Posted February 5, 2015 Or maybe - just maybe - that organism is perfect for its environment - it doest need to evolve On a side note, I think I'll go watch Richard Dawkins read his hate mail - always so funny. 1 Share Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts