Evolution

"Of course we could be able to tell how many bacteria"s are resistant, and many other sites said only a minuscule amount are resistant." And yet I do not see any sources or links. "Ok, I went through this before, it is very simple for a bacteria to accept other material, a fern does not work in the same way as it would have to affect all cells, otherwise the unaffected cells would reject the mutated ones, this is easy with a single cell because then you only have to affect one cell, you are yet to rebut this, instead you presented the same old theory that I already proved wrong." Please read my explanation carefully. I mean, you seriously did not think that one the cell repaired its DNA, it somehow sprouted wings and flew back to the original fern, did you? As I said evolution benefits the species, no the DNA damaged individual. However, this special mutation would allow for it's genetics to last longer than another fern with damaged DNA, but without the mutation..[1] "Well you see this is where the debate stops progressing, adaptive evolution happens all the time, such as developing an antibody to a virus you were exposed to, or the virus becoming resistant to your antibody if it survives, this is a small example obcourse, so we move back to random evolution, according to the theory of evolution, random evolution is due to mutations, (technically so is adaptive evolution but those mutations are designed by the organism for a specific purpose) they commonly happen slowly by many mutations from generation to generation, or one big one, asexual organisms cannot spread genetic material, so they would "evolve" individually, since sexual reproduction requires there to be more than one creature, these ferns (assuming they somehow had a big enough mutation that is perfect enough to create a flower, which is too complicated to be random, and is unnecessary and would not help reproduction in any way even so.) would die out, so all our plants would reproduce asexually, this is not the case, again, you fail to combat this." The main point of my last 'argument' was for you to STATE A SOURCE. In all the years I have researched and study evolution, I have never heard of 'purposeful mutations'. The only thing close is 'adaptive mutation', and the reason why I did not know of this is highly controversial in the scientific community and generally NOT considered evolution. (Has only been observed in bacteria) [2] "No I understand evolution perfectly, enough to know why it is ridiculous, your only combat to my reply is my saying that chimps could not evolve into humans, I knew this, I was stating that one species cannot be said to evolve into another just because their genetics were similar, then I pointed out that Newton and Leibniz developed the same calculus, so logically we have no reason to believe that chimps would not develop similar traits/ genetics to humans because they are both adapting to the same environment, likewise is Newton and Leibniz assessing and transferring into an equation the same reality." To quote: "Though many human fossils have been found, chimpanzee fossils were not described until 2005. Existing chimpanzee populations in West and Central Africa are separate from the major human fossil sites in East Africa; however, chimpanzee fossils have been reported from Kenya, indicating that both humans and members of the Pan clade were present in the East African Rift Valley during the Middle Pleistocene."[3] "Well that was fun, interestingly enough most everyone defending evolution is an atheist, why aren't there any Hindus, Buddhists, or some other religion? Strange, I though that "Being an atheist demands no qualifications but that you do not believe in god." yet every atheist I've seen on this site defends evolution, but you won't find any Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Taoists, Shintoists, deists, agnostics, how many religions are there that wont defend evolution, every one of hem but atheists, and yet I hear so much about "logic" and "not forming a conclusion without evidence", those guys remind me of Richard Nixon who said "Homosexuals are communists who are trying to destroy America", but then he was cheating on his wife--- WITH A MAN, anyway I think I disproved evolution here, I don't want to be beating a dead horse so to speak, good luck "disproving" my statements though." I am are here to debate evolution, not talk about how the 2 atheists you've seen defend evolution. Well anyways, it has been a truly enjoyable debate, although con did appear to try to attack controversial sub-theories (Which are controversial for a reason), just to gain points. I look forward to the voting, and remember to choose the one you truly think won! [1] http://itol.embl.de... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.nature.com...