It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

multi regional or replacement (out of africa 2) hypothesis which one do you believe and why

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: luthier
Evolution is a FORCE of nature it is very similar to gravity.

It emerged from the big bang at the same time and is a quatum event.




Sorry to butt in, but this is completely wrong. Evolution is not a force. Most genetic mutations are caused by copy errors. It's not some overarching property of matter or energy. Biological life is flawed and the genetic code is not immune to copy errors and certainly not immune to radiation mutations.


You aren't exactly up on quantum evolution or what is happening on the smaller scale.

www.nature.com...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


discovermagazine.com...

www.inverse.com...



The bigger point of quantum Darwinism, however, isn’t simply that it could be the key to helping bridge two schools of physics decided by a chasm. It also lends support to the idea that Darwinism — the survival of the fittest — is universal to all other natural processes in the universe.




I'm sorry but that doesn't turn evolution into a force. We are talking about biological evolution, the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis. Sure obviously, quantum mechanics plays a role, but that doesn't turn evolution into a force, it's still a biological process. That's like saying everything is a force because the quantum mechanics affects it. I guess germ theory is a force.


Evolution is a process, really just a description of the results of genetic mutations and natural selection. There may be more factors at play, but calling it a force is not accurate. Sure it can be affected by forces, but that doesn't make it force in itself.

edit on 1 26 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


the survival of the fittest — is universal to all other natural processes in the universe.


This is what I am referring to. A universal process. Something that could quite possibly effect nature universally throughout the cosmos.

Like a force. Maybe not technically a force but a universal process that could possibly be factored by quantum events.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs


the survival of the fittest — is universal to all other natural processes in the universe.


This is what I am referring to. A universal process. Something that could quite possibly effect nature universally throughout the cosmos.

Like a force. Maybe not technically a force but a universal process that could possibly be factored by quantum events.


Survival of the fittest is kind of a misnomer. It's really survival of the "good enough", and that applies to biological life, not the entire universe. Yes, the environment is a factor in everything universally, but to call chemistry and energy interaction, natural selection, isn't wholly accurate. I see what you are saying now, though, and I agree it can seem LIKE a force, but not a force in itself.



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Yes. Life anywhere (possibly) in the universe.

My point was that evolution exists like forces exist. Life will mutate and adapt or die. It was an inaccurate statement I meant as more of a metaphor for people who seem to think evolution existing is debatable for some reason. I was meaning to say it's a universal process that will occur by the nature of what life is and the nature of physics interaction with the universe and life.

I was trying to make it simple but did a bad job by mispeaking.
edit on 26-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   
www.reuters.com... edName=scienceNews


partial jawbone bearing seven teeth unearthed in a cave in Israel represents what scientists are calling the oldest-known Homo sapiens remains outside Africa, showing that our species trekked out of that continent far earlier than previously known.


Researchers on Thursday announced the discovery of the fossil estimated as 177,000 to 194,000 years old, and said the teeth bore telltale traits of Homo sapiens not present in close human relatives alive at the time including Neanderthals.



edit on 26-1-2018 by dude1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dude1

Your point? That does not support multiregional evolution. I am not sure that is why you posted it. But its expected to post more than snippets from an article.




top topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join