9th April 2009, 3:33 PM
lazy you seem to be misunderstanding me. That's understandable as I didn't really make myself clear.
Yes cells respond to their environment. However, that is not the method by which they evolve, which is what I was talking about. They evolve due to changes during reproduction which are selected for or against by their surrounding environment. Evolution does not occur in a single creature. It occurs in a population.
Oh, by the way, you really have no basis to propose anything. THAT WAS AN APRIL FOOL'S DAY JOKE OF AN ARTICLE! It's FAKE!
Your examples are lemarcism by the way. And, you've got to provide evidence for them. What experiments have you ever done to actually demonstrate this? You're essentially claiming that you, a film student, have some total revolution of the understanding of evolution, only minus any actual evidence on your part, which flies in the face of over a century of research by thousands of biologists.
Further, you are anthropomorphising cells way too much. Cells don't "know" anything. They don't "fight for their life" with any willing intent. They survive and act as they do because their behaviors led to their survival, and the behaviors that didn't died off.
The thing is, I've been taking a lot of time to research biology lately. I've learned a lot. However, this poor misunderstanding of evolution as something an individual actively does as a willing gambit to survive is NOT in anything I've ever read.
Yes cells respond to their environment. However, that is not the method by which they evolve, which is what I was talking about. They evolve due to changes during reproduction which are selected for or against by their surrounding environment. Evolution does not occur in a single creature. It occurs in a population.
Oh, by the way, you really have no basis to propose anything. THAT WAS AN APRIL FOOL'S DAY JOKE OF AN ARTICLE! It's FAKE!
Your examples are lemarcism by the way. And, you've got to provide evidence for them. What experiments have you ever done to actually demonstrate this? You're essentially claiming that you, a film student, have some total revolution of the understanding of evolution, only minus any actual evidence on your part, which flies in the face of over a century of research by thousands of biologists.
Further, you are anthropomorphising cells way too much. Cells don't "know" anything. They don't "fight for their life" with any willing intent. They survive and act as they do because their behaviors led to their survival, and the behaviors that didn't died off.
The thing is, I've been taking a lot of time to research biology lately. I've learned a lot. However, this poor misunderstanding of evolution as something an individual actively does as a willing gambit to survive is NOT in anything I've ever read.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)