Now you're getting into religion. We cannot pooossssiiibbllllyyyy explain where the hell helium or carbon came from without some supernatural force, nevermind their atoms and their subatomic particles. Good point though. It's one of those "Why are we here? Where did we come from? Why us? Why Earth?" kind of questions.
The flaws of evolution
- Thread starter Aphex_Twin
- Start date
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
We were saying that there is no proof that matter was ever created, that it is very probable that the universe had always existed in one form or another. We are not disputing the assertion that there must be a first living organism. There probably is a first living organism, whose creation is probably more of a matter of chance than of divine design. Don't mix the two.
Gingerbread Man
Dark Magus
OK, 1st, I'm lazy, and haven't read the whole thread yet. But here is some food for thought:
When Genes mutate, they generally mutate in a bad way. Between a generation, genes may not be created, but certainly genes are lost, or damaged. In fact, this is how people track their ancestors, by what missing genes they have in common. Rarely, if ever, is a new gene or sequence of DNA created between a generation.
Just think of your genes as a book, lets say, Shakespere.
Shakespere's plays have been copied and copied, rewritten and rewritten. As a result, we now have many different variations of Shakespere's plays. OK, so you're saying 'evolution!'.
However, do you think that any of these varitations were better than the original? The original was the one that was famous, known all throughout London. These badly copied versions are inferior, and less Shakespere. The same can also be said for the Lord of the Rings. The original publisher made a tonne of mistakes, other publishers copied those, made more, and it was a real mess to fix. The bible is a bad example, BTW, because only a handful of name spelling differences have been found.
Same goes for genes. After copying and copying, The book will not become a better, more accurate story. It will get worse, and worse, and the errors will have errors made on them, and those errors, errors on them. Reproduction is just the publisher reprinting the book of Genes.
When Genes mutate, they generally mutate in a bad way. Between a generation, genes may not be created, but certainly genes are lost, or damaged. In fact, this is how people track their ancestors, by what missing genes they have in common. Rarely, if ever, is a new gene or sequence of DNA created between a generation.
Just think of your genes as a book, lets say, Shakespere.
Shakespere's plays have been copied and copied, rewritten and rewritten. As a result, we now have many different variations of Shakespere's plays. OK, so you're saying 'evolution!'.However, do you think that any of these varitations were better than the original? The original was the one that was famous, known all throughout London. These badly copied versions are inferior, and less Shakespere. The same can also be said for the Lord of the Rings. The original publisher made a tonne of mistakes, other publishers copied those, made more, and it was a real mess to fix. The bible is a bad example, BTW, because only a handful of name spelling differences have been found.
Same goes for genes. After copying and copying, The book will not become a better, more accurate story. It will get worse, and worse, and the errors will have errors made on them, and those errors, errors on them. Reproduction is just the publisher reprinting the book of Genes.
Im not going to address the first 2 points, but the 3rd..
Only, it dont work like that.
What they emphasize in classes about evolutionary biology is the statistics. Naturally, these equations and such are just models, but my point is that evolution is really in the numbers. Were talking not about any individual, group, or generation, but the variance in the distribution of traits within a species over geologic time. And when dealing with large sets of numbers, a small change in percentage can be very important. A tiny increase in the survivability of an organism can make a large difference in how many members of its species carry the trait in question. Just as creatures have vestigial organs, they have lots of unused DNA, and many seemingly unimportant variations in their genes. Yes, most mutations dont produce any noticeable effect, but polymerases are not as error-proof as you seem to think. I forget the exact error rate, but I think it evens out to 1 or 2 mutations slipping through all the error-checking for every one of your cell divisions. Even a seemingly inconsequential change in protein structure or a random bit of junk DNA can mean just such an incremental increase in survivability when the surrounding environment changes. Thus the gene frequencies change under selection pressure, just as marbles will roll down a slanted table. And if you dropped them on a surface that had 2 slants, like a roof, you wouldnt be surprised to see that they formed 2 piles. So, different selection pressures on different populations can push their evolution in different directions, like the Galapagos tortoises splitting into different species from a common ancestor. Like someone else said, even one million years is an incredibly long time; this stuff doesnt happen overnight.
OK, some people, and I dont mean anyone here, but just in general, seem to have the wrong idea about evolution. Something like this (satirical example): When Bert the bunny was conceived, he was visited by the Evolution Fairy, who granted him the best traits of both his parents, as well as some special new Random Mutations she had cooked up. Once Bert was born, his parents quickly realized he was special. He could run faster than the other rabbits, hide better, and his eyes and ears were extra-sensitive. Bert became a real rabbit stud, had lots of offspring, and founded a whole new race of über-rabbits. The End.
Only, it dont work like that.
What they emphasize in classes about evolutionary biology is the statistics. Naturally, these equations and such are just models, but my point is that evolution is really in the numbers. Were talking not about any individual, group, or generation, but the variance in the distribution of traits within a species over geologic time. And when dealing with large sets of numbers, a small change in percentage can be very important. A tiny increase in the survivability of an organism can make a large difference in how many members of its species carry the trait in question. Just as creatures have vestigial organs, they have lots of unused DNA, and many seemingly unimportant variations in their genes. Yes, most mutations dont produce any noticeable effect, but polymerases are not as error-proof as you seem to think. I forget the exact error rate, but I think it evens out to 1 or 2 mutations slipping through all the error-checking for every one of your cell divisions. Even a seemingly inconsequential change in protein structure or a random bit of junk DNA can mean just such an incremental increase in survivability when the surrounding environment changes. Thus the gene frequencies change under selection pressure, just as marbles will roll down a slanted table. And if you dropped them on a surface that had 2 slants, like a roof, you wouldnt be surprised to see that they formed 2 piles. So, different selection pressures on different populations can push their evolution in different directions, like the Galapagos tortoises splitting into different species from a common ancestor. Like someone else said, even one million years is an incredibly long time; this stuff doesnt happen overnight.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Remember that only mutations in sex cells get passed on. Supposing humans have an average of three offspring that live to reproduction age, that's six cells that are available to get mutations [not the whole human body as nihilistic implies].
Archer 007
Rebirth
I didnt say that mutations didnt cause evolution, I said that some mutations dont have any practical effects on the organism.
Gingerbread Man
Dark Magus
I'll say it here again:
Cell mutation is generally LOSING gene information, having it corrupted as it is passed on. I dont see how any advantageous thing could come out of these mutations.
Another example: Lets say you like making games. You a game. Then you copy it to CD. Then you make a copy of the copy. Then a copy of the copy of the copy. Then you make a copy of the copy of the copy of the... you get the point. You keep on doing this in hope that the game gets better the more you copy it. But really, the game will only get worse. Every now and then you will come across a dud CD, lose some info, and carry it along. The game will only get worse. You are not going to get a 100% rating game by continuously copying it.
Same goes for Evo. Comments? Disagreements?
Cell mutation is generally LOSING gene information, having it corrupted as it is passed on. I dont see how any advantageous thing could come out of these mutations.
Another example: Lets say you like making games. You a game. Then you copy it to CD. Then you make a copy of the copy. Then a copy of the copy of the copy. Then you make a copy of the copy of the copy of the... you get the point. You keep on doing this in hope that the game gets better the more you copy it. But really, the game will only get worse. Every now and then you will come across a dud CD, lose some info, and carry it along. The game will only get worse. You are not going to get a 100% rating game by continuously copying it.
Same goes for Evo. Comments? Disagreements?
Tacit_Exit
King
@ Gingerbreadman
Your analogy is flawed, as it doesn't in any way mirror evolutionary processes.
If this program were required to be run for a certain period, and interact with other, similar programs, at some point selecting other programs to assist in creating this 'copy' you talk about, then the copy was run through a similar process with cohort copies to create the 2nd (generation) copies, THEN you might have something approximating a decent analogy.
At least in this system, the 'programs' are required to run correctly in order to create copies, and if any copies turn out to be defective, they are less likely to create more copies.
And if your hard drive space is limited, and 'parent' programs get deleted (die) after creating copies, only the best copy creators will survive to create more copies.
Bad copies just don't survive in the big wide world of natural selection.
Your analogy is flawed, as it doesn't in any way mirror evolutionary processes.
If this program were required to be run for a certain period, and interact with other, similar programs, at some point selecting other programs to assist in creating this 'copy' you talk about, then the copy was run through a similar process with cohort copies to create the 2nd (generation) copies, THEN you might have something approximating a decent analogy.
At least in this system, the 'programs' are required to run correctly in order to create copies, and if any copies turn out to be defective, they are less likely to create more copies.
And if your hard drive space is limited, and 'parent' programs get deleted (die) after creating copies, only the best copy creators will survive to create more copies.
Bad copies just don't survive in the big wide world of natural selection.
G-Man
A One Man's War
The theory of evolution is purely biological, and it deals with living creatures. It doesn't deal with the creation of life and certainly not with the problems you presented.
Gingerbread Man
Dark Magus
Tacit Exit: Thank you for improving my analogy. Though all you are really saying is that it will take longer for the programs to get flaws in them.
I guess what you are saying is that one program would find the most perfect one it could find to compare against for defects, then copy. Only the copies closest to the original would survive. Of course, eventually two copies with the same flaw are going to meet each other, and carry the flaw into the next generation. This next generation would then manifest itself, as now there are many programs with the flaws in that generation, and they will create more generations with the defects. As a result, the better programs will seperate themselves from the bad ones. But that means a smaller gene pool, so even more likely to create flaws.
Eventually the less corrupted population will be massively outnumbered. And that means that they will be weak in comparison to the larger population. Natural selection will favour them, but the numbers wont.
I wanted to keep the analogy simple, but it can go more detailed. The point I am making is that the timeline for ToE should be pointing in the other generation. The powerful beasts of the past are gone. Where are these Neanthderal? (or whatever those prehistoric superhumans were called) They are all dead, even though natural selection favoured them. I find evolution unfeasable because the probabilities, likeliness, possibilities, show the direct opposite.
We are degenerating from the greater humans that preceeded us. And that is one thing that we can prove. You may say "our life expectancy is climbing" but that is just saying that at the moment our environment is favouring us. When a being lives in an easy environment, e.g. animals in breeding programs, their survival abilities decrease.
Back to the program idea again. The programs that had the fewest flaws will seperate themselves. Since they are better, they will improve the environment that they are in to favour them, in turn getting used to this environment. But all good things come to an end, the nurturing will dissapear, and they will be in the harsh conditions, unprepared. And there goes the least corrupted programs.
The ratio of unfavourable mutations to favourable mutations is so high that the battle is already won. And even if a favourable mutation gets a foothold, its advantages will be its downfall. Blondes, who by many are looked upon as sexier, will be endangered within 200 years, research shows.
I guess what you are saying is that one program would find the most perfect one it could find to compare against for defects, then copy. Only the copies closest to the original would survive. Of course, eventually two copies with the same flaw are going to meet each other, and carry the flaw into the next generation. This next generation would then manifest itself, as now there are many programs with the flaws in that generation, and they will create more generations with the defects. As a result, the better programs will seperate themselves from the bad ones. But that means a smaller gene pool, so even more likely to create flaws.
Eventually the less corrupted population will be massively outnumbered. And that means that they will be weak in comparison to the larger population. Natural selection will favour them, but the numbers wont.
I wanted to keep the analogy simple, but it can go more detailed. The point I am making is that the timeline for ToE should be pointing in the other generation. The powerful beasts of the past are gone. Where are these Neanthderal? (or whatever those prehistoric superhumans were called) They are all dead, even though natural selection favoured them. I find evolution unfeasable because the probabilities, likeliness, possibilities, show the direct opposite.
We are degenerating from the greater humans that preceeded us. And that is one thing that we can prove. You may say "our life expectancy is climbing" but that is just saying that at the moment our environment is favouring us. When a being lives in an easy environment, e.g. animals in breeding programs, their survival abilities decrease.
Back to the program idea again. The programs that had the fewest flaws will seperate themselves. Since they are better, they will improve the environment that they are in to favour them, in turn getting used to this environment. But all good things come to an end, the nurturing will dissapear, and they will be in the harsh conditions, unprepared. And there goes the least corrupted programs.
The ratio of unfavourable mutations to favourable mutations is so high that the battle is already won. And even if a favourable mutation gets a foothold, its advantages will be its downfall. Blondes, who by many are looked upon as sexier, will be endangered within 200 years, research shows.
Gingerbread Man
Dark Magus
Crimes happen every day where there is no proof found of who did it. Crimes happen every day where no proof is found that they even happened. The fault with the ToE is that they assume that if there is no proof or evidence for it, then it couldn't happen. That is, unless this unproven thing favours it.
Of course we are never going to find proof that the universe always existed. It might well have, but all the proof would have either dissappeared completely, or it is so distant that by the time we would get to it, it would be gone.
G-Man
A One Man's War
Gingerbread Man -
Yout analogy ignored the basics of evolution - survival and reproduction of the fittest. A flawd animal won't survive. An improved animal will, and will reproduce. Your analogy should've been:
There were millions of copies of Shakespere's plays. Each generation they were all changed a bit. Then each generation the most popular ones would've been the base for the next generation. What you would get isn't a flawed version of Shakespere, but a version of his plays more fitting to modern taste (assuming ofcource human taste would've changed as slowly as the animal's environments)
Yout analogy ignored the basics of evolution - survival and reproduction of the fittest. A flawd animal won't survive. An improved animal will, and will reproduce. Your analogy should've been:
There were millions of copies of Shakespere's plays. Each generation they were all changed a bit. Then each generation the most popular ones would've been the base for the next generation. What you would get isn't a flawed version of Shakespere, but a version of his plays more fitting to modern taste (assuming ofcource human taste would've changed as slowly as the animal's environments)
Aphex_Twin
Evergreen
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,474
Slow, gradual evolution over long periods of time can make sence. But what doesn't fit the curent model is how fast, and sometimes radical evolution can take place. In single-celled creatures it is simple, because the cell divides and spreads around identical replicas of itself. With sexual reproduction you need several members of a community to develop the same mutation, in order to sustain the new species.
Gingerbread Man
Dark Magus
G-Man: The Shakepere analogy is being a little stretched, the Program one that Tacit Exit said can simulate ToE and its possibilities a little better. In my shakespere analogy, I was saying that the original was the best, which is a creationist ideal.
The difference between Evolutionism and Creation is that the former started with a crude, imperfect being that improved over time and the latter started with a perfect being that slowly degenerated over time. Evolutionists say life is like wine, it matures over time. Creationists say life is like a human. In it's youth it is strong and healthy, but it degenerates and becomes infirm, and become so weak it will be destroyed.
I hope I am not turning this into a Christian vs Atheist debate, but rather keeping it at debating the flaws of evolution.
So, here is a few questions:
1) Do you think evolution is a flawless theory?
1A) Why/Why not?
2A) What is the Universe?
2B) What is real?
2C) Do you think there is a difference between what is the universe and what is real?
3) Is the universe infinite or finite?
3A) can you prove that?
4) What classifies something that is living?
5) Was life, whether basic or complex to start with, created or occured with no intelligent influence?
5A) Can you prove that using solid facts?
5B) Can you theorise it as possible using evidence?
5C) Can you theorise it as possible using logic?
6) If you said life was created, do you believe it started off complex (e.g. human/humanoid) or simple (e.g. bacteria)?
7)If you said life occured without intelligence;
A) What were the steps and 'ingredients' needed to get from entirely dead matter to a living organism.
B) What were the steps between a living organism and a multi-celled organism (e.g. algae)?
8A)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will make my answers after I have seen what others have said. I am trying not to pitch these at any particular group of people, and I hope I haven't. There are certainly some tough questions for me.
Also, do you think we should compile a quiz like this, and give it it's own thread? I dont think this is threadjacking, as it is still discussing the topic (albeit rather loosely at places in the quiz) but if it is threadjacking I will relocate it.
EDIT: if you can, try to avoid reading others answers before making your own answers. It will be better that way.
The difference between Evolutionism and Creation is that the former started with a crude, imperfect being that improved over time and the latter started with a perfect being that slowly degenerated over time. Evolutionists say life is like wine, it matures over time. Creationists say life is like a human. In it's youth it is strong and healthy, but it degenerates and becomes infirm, and become so weak it will be destroyed.
I hope I am not turning this into a Christian vs Atheist debate, but rather keeping it at debating the flaws of evolution.
So, here is a few questions:
1) Do you think evolution is a flawless theory?
1A) Why/Why not?
2A) What is the Universe?
2B) What is real?
2C) Do you think there is a difference between what is the universe and what is real?
3) Is the universe infinite or finite?
3A) can you prove that?
4) What classifies something that is living?
5) Was life, whether basic or complex to start with, created or occured with no intelligent influence?
5A) Can you prove that using solid facts?
5B) Can you theorise it as possible using evidence?
5C) Can you theorise it as possible using logic?
6) If you said life was created, do you believe it started off complex (e.g. human/humanoid) or simple (e.g. bacteria)?
7)If you said life occured without intelligence;
A) What were the steps and 'ingredients' needed to get from entirely dead matter to a living organism.
B) What were the steps between a living organism and a multi-celled organism (e.g. algae)?
8A)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will make my answers after I have seen what others have said. I am trying not to pitch these at any particular group of people, and I hope I haven't. There are certainly some tough questions for me.
Also, do you think we should compile a quiz like this, and give it it's own thread? I dont think this is threadjacking, as it is still discussing the topic (albeit rather loosely at places in the quiz) but if it is threadjacking I will relocate it.
EDIT: if you can, try to avoid reading others answers before making your own answers. It will be better that way.
G-Man
A One Man's War
Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
G-Man: The Shakepere analogy is being a little stretched, the Program one that Tacit Exit said can simulate ToE and its possibilities a little better. In my shakespere analogy, I was saying that the original was the best, which is a creationist ideal.
The difference between Evolutionism and Creation is that the former started with a crude, imperfect being that improved over time and the latter started with a perfect being that slowly degenerated over time. Evolutionists say life is like wine, it matures over time. Creationists say life is like a human. In it's youth it is strong and healthy, but it degenerates and becomes infirm, and become so weak it will be destroyed.
First of all, young humans are among the weakest creatures in nature. And I still didn't understand why creatures can't get any better...
I hope I am not turning this into a Christian vs Atheist debate, but rather keeping it at debating the flaws of evolution.
So, here is a few questions:
1) Do you think evolution is a flawless theory?
1A) Why/Why not?
2A) What is the Universe?
2B) What is real?
2C) Do you think there is a difference between what is the universe and what is real?
3) Is the universe infinite or finite?
3A) can you prove that?
4) What classifies something that is living?
5) Was life, whether basic or complex to start with, created or occured with no intelligent influence?
5A) Can you prove that using solid facts?
5B) Can you theorise it as possible using evidence?
5C) Can you theorise it as possible using logic?
6) If you said life was created, do you believe it started off complex (e.g. human/humanoid) or simple (e.g. bacteria)?
7)If you said life occured without intelligence;
A) What were the steps and 'ingredients' needed to get from entirely dead matter to a living organism.
B) What were the steps between a living organism and a multi-celled organism (e.g. algae)?
1. The theory in general is, there could be some minor changes but the idea is correct.
1A. I've seen many proofs and nothing against them.
2A. All matter and all space.
2B. I think the current philosophical idea is that there is no truth and no reality, and so it's pretty hard to define such things.
2C. As I said, they're far from being the same.
3. Infinite.
3A. I can't think of a situation where there'll be nothing beyond a certain point. It's as close to a proof as I can give.
4. The ability to change at will.
5. Yes.
5ABC - are you talking about my answer or your claim?
7A. Chimical reactions - I don't remember all the needed chimicals but it probably involved mostly H, O and C.
7B. Evolution.
G-Man: The Shakepere analogy is being a little stretched, the Program one that Tacit Exit said can simulate ToE and its possibilities a little better. In my shakespere analogy, I was saying that the original was the best, which is a creationist ideal.
The difference between Evolutionism and Creation is that the former started with a crude, imperfect being that improved over time and the latter started with a perfect being that slowly degenerated over time. Evolutionists say life is like wine, it matures over time. Creationists say life is like a human. In it's youth it is strong and healthy, but it degenerates and becomes infirm, and become so weak it will be destroyed.
First of all, young humans are among the weakest creatures in nature. And I still didn't understand why creatures can't get any better...
I hope I am not turning this into a Christian vs Atheist debate, but rather keeping it at debating the flaws of evolution.
So, here is a few questions:
1) Do you think evolution is a flawless theory?
1A) Why/Why not?
2A) What is the Universe?
2B) What is real?
2C) Do you think there is a difference between what is the universe and what is real?
3) Is the universe infinite or finite?
3A) can you prove that?
4) What classifies something that is living?
5) Was life, whether basic or complex to start with, created or occured with no intelligent influence?
5A) Can you prove that using solid facts?
5B) Can you theorise it as possible using evidence?
5C) Can you theorise it as possible using logic?
6) If you said life was created, do you believe it started off complex (e.g. human/humanoid) or simple (e.g. bacteria)?
7)If you said life occured without intelligence;
A) What were the steps and 'ingredients' needed to get from entirely dead matter to a living organism.
B) What were the steps between a living organism and a multi-celled organism (e.g. algae)?
1. The theory in general is, there could be some minor changes but the idea is correct.
1A. I've seen many proofs and nothing against them.
2A. All matter and all space.
2B. I think the current philosophical idea is that there is no truth and no reality, and so it's pretty hard to define such things.
2C. As I said, they're far from being the same.
3. Infinite.
3A. I can't think of a situation where there'll be nothing beyond a certain point. It's as close to a proof as I can give.
4. The ability to change at will.
5. Yes.
5ABC - are you talking about my answer or your claim?
7A. Chimical reactions - I don't remember all the needed chimicals but it probably involved mostly H, O and C.
7B. Evolution.
Gingerbread Man
Dark Magus
1) No
1A) There are gaping gaps, many improbabilities, some impossibilities.
2A) What is the Universe? What we can sense. Both directly (five human senses) and indirectly (using instruments)
2B) What is real? Everything that is. Not neccessarily physically there, but also things beyond dimensions and understanding.
2C) Yes. See above
3) Is the universe infinite or finite? Finite
3A) can you prove that? No
4) What classifies something that is living? That it can sense the universe.
5) Created
5A) No
5B) Yes
5C) Yes, even more yes than 5B
6) Complex.
7)N/A
I haven't read anybody's yet, just to make sure I speak straight from my head.
----------------------------------------------
EDIT: (after making my answers)
"5ABC - are you talking about my answer or your claim?" your answer.
1A) There are gaping gaps, many improbabilities, some impossibilities.
2A) What is the Universe? What we can sense. Both directly (five human senses) and indirectly (using instruments)
2B) What is real? Everything that is. Not neccessarily physically there, but also things beyond dimensions and understanding.
2C) Yes. See above
3) Is the universe infinite or finite? Finite
3A) can you prove that? No
4) What classifies something that is living? That it can sense the universe.
5) Created
5A) No
5B) Yes
5C) Yes, even more yes than 5B
6) Complex.
7)N/A
I haven't read anybody's yet, just to make sure I speak straight from my head.
----------------------------------------------
EDIT: (after making my answers)
"5ABC - are you talking about my answer or your claim?" your answer.
G-Man
A One Man's War
what do you mean by "sense"?
Gingerbread Man
Dark Magus
What we can observe, and what we can see, feel, taste, touch, smell.
Doesn't neccessarily mean intelligence. Even the simplest bacteria can know when something is happening to it, and react accordingly
Doesn't neccessarily mean intelligence. Even the simplest bacteria can know when something is happening to it, and react accordingly
G-Man
A One Man's War
So webcams are alive?
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
That has nothing to do with ToE or anything else on this thread.
huh?
Stop right here. Yes, right here. By that statement, you are not denying the fact that they CAN mutate in a good way. The specimens that mutate in a bad way will eventually die out. The few specimens with mutations better suited to their environment will prosper. That IS the gist of it.
Originally posted by Gingerbread Man
Just think of your genes as a book, lets say, Shakespere.
You are comparing it against sets of things that presumably has a "best", a upper bound of conparativity. You would have to demonstrate how every living thing on this planet is in their "best" shape to survive, and you would have to explain all the vestigial organs we have. On another level, there is no proof that Shakespeare's original manuscript is the "best". And also, not everybody likes Shakespeare and even less would agree that he deserves to be called a "genius".
Again, you are making a comparison with somethign that has an upper bound. Also, CD copies are "digital", which means either 0 or 1. Every copy is a perfect copy unless you scratch up the CD or torch your computer during the burning.
Another, perhaps greater, mistake that you made with the analogies is that you assumed systems where there is no feedback to changes. The quote "Every now and then you will come across a dud CD, lose some info, and carry it along" demonstrates this. In real life, a unfavorable specimen DIES more easily than the favorable one.
Similar threads
- Poll
