Are Today's Fighters Better than Fighters From The Past? Hell Yes

[SplitSecond]

While Vitaly is a good fighter today, he is only moderately better than Primo Carnera. And evolution takes millions of years son.

just because we have'nt grown a third arm doesn't mean we haven't evolved

you box for your entire life
have some kids, they box for their entire life
have some kids, i think those kids are above average

you got records being broken all the time

[Spartacus Sully]

you box for your entire life
have some kids, they box for their entire life
have some kids, i think those kids are above average

evolution dosnt work like that. you see the genes that you pass on are the same genes your born with and any advancements to your body you make through out your life via hard work has absloutly no influence on what you pass on to your children as the only thing you pass on is the same exact thing you had when you were born and what you tell them.

the 3rd generation may be better but only because its had 2 previous generations of learning to pass on to it, nothing to do with evolution.

[SplitSecond]

evolution dosnt work like that. you see the genes that you pass on are the same genes your born with and any advancements to your body you make through out your life via hard work has absloutly no influence on what you pass on to your children as the only thing you pass on is the same exact thing you had when you were born and what you tell them.

the 3rd generation may be better but only because its had 2 previous generations of learning to pass on to it, nothing to do with evolution.

that's where you are deeply wrong bud

[SplitSecond]

lol, sorry but i had'nt realised there were people still so naive

[Spartacus Sully]

lol, sorry but i had'nt realised there were people still so naive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-ce...w_of_evolution

Acquired characteristics are not inherited

Discoveries in science such as the formulation of the central dogma of molecular biology made it clear that the inheritance of acquired characters was not an evolutionary factor in a physical sense and identified genes as lasting en****** that survive through many generations. Maynard Smith summarized the issue:
“ If the central dogma is true, and if it is also true that nucleic acids are the only means whereby information is transmitted between generations, this has crucial implications for evolution. It would imply that all evolutionary novelty requires changes in nucleic acids, and that these changes - mutations - are essentially accidental and non-adaptive in nature. Changes elsewhere - in the egg cytoplasm, in materials transmitted through the placenta, in the mother's milk - might alter the development of the child, but, unless the changes were in nucleic acids, they would have no long-term evolutionary effects. ”

—Maynard Smith, 1998, p.10

The rejection of the inheritance of acquired characters combined with the classical mathematical evolutionary biology developed by Ronald Fisher (particularly in his 1930 book, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection), J. B. S. Haldane and Sewall Wright, they paved the way to the formulation of the selfish gene theory.[clarification needed] An exception to this of course is the advent of society, where adaptations are indeed passed on through generations, and can even influence which members are allowed to prosper and reproduce, eventually effecting change in the genetic makeup of the population. For cases when environment can influence heredity see epigenetics.[clarification needed]

Fyi we've come along way since darwin.....

lol, sorry but i had'nt realised there were people still so uneducated

[SplitSecond]

i'd bother doin some search for articles and whtnot but im kinda watchin a movie and could'nt be bothered, lol, you should make a thread about it, i'd like to see how many people think the same as you, it'd really expose this forum

[SBleeder]

[IMG]http://i292.***********.com/albums/mm9/mex1247/evolution.jpg[/IMG]

[StarshipTrooper]

i'd bother doin some search for articles and whtnot but im kinda watchin a movie and could'nt be bothered, lol, you should make a thread about it, i'd like to see how many people think the same as you, it'd really expose this forum

And THAT makes it official: He's another troll :rolleyes9: Seriously dude: You should take remedial courses in Biology and Anthropology. You clearly have no clue how biological evolution works.

Poet

[SplitSecond]

And THAT makes it official: He's another troll :rolleyes9: Seriously dude: You should take remedial courses in Biology and Anthropology. You clearly have no clue how biological evolution works.

Poet

do you?...

obviously according to the history section boys the past is definetly better, but are you a biologist?

[TheMagicMan]

We are constantly evolving, there's never been a human gene pool this large or this diverse. Diversity in the gene pool is a form of evolution in itself. Certain races had immunities and traits others did not, the interbreeding allows for certain types of hybrid people that wouldnt have existed 100 years ago. Im not just talking about black/white/Asian/Latino etc...im talking as much as Italian/German, even socio-economic gene pools were more exclusive. Think of it like this, historically, wealthy married wealthy, wealth allowed for one to pass by certain natural selection elements, however, recently wealthy havent all been marrying wealthy or there are new ways to become wealthy. So now people like say a Vitali Klitschko, comes from a historically poor family of most likely thousands of years of serfs, probably has some mongolian blood etc...but now he is born into wealth and he is taught and given skills at a young age. Something that wouldnt have happened 100 years ago.