"The origin of species"

a reply to: TzarChasm

As for the image you provided, finches are interfertile and therefore are the same species.

Do you actually not see this?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Look, some species have a very short generation period, drosophilia being a great example.

Now that they've been bred in extreme radioactive conditions (which would skew isotopic carbon datation btw) and separated from the mainstream of drosophilia population for decades, they're still the same species.

Does that not tell you something?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TzarChasm

You have indeed provided examples of children not being exact copies of their parents.
Something nobody is disputing that I know of.

Supposing this expounds to speciation is akin, again, to drawing a graph of anything happening over an observed period of time (I used the example of stock market variations earlier) millions of years and expecting observed tendencies to be consistent because that would fit a theory.

This is not how science works, and because this point has been accepted by the author of the lecture you have linked to, which I'm again not trying to re-appropriate, that he has seen fit to publish a written caveat before uploading his video.

To a point, thats what evolution is. Kids not being an exact copy of their parents. But thats oversimplifying it.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TzarChasm

Look, some species have a very short generation period, drosophilia being a great example.

Now that they've been bred in extreme radioactive conditions (which would skew isotopic carbon datation btw) and separated from the mainstream of drosophilia population for decades, they're still the same species.

Does that not tell you something?

It tells me that speciation is a complicated thing.

Now you look - you wanted an example, prezbo even gave you a website full of them. If you arent happy with what you asked for, maybe you should reconsider what you're looking for.

As for this thread, you've been answered. See ya round.

a reply to: TzarChasm

To a point, thats what evolution is. Kids not being an exact copy of their parents. But thats oversimplifying it.

To that point, I see evolution, as I see it in individuals, ideas and sea depth level.

To complexification, I ask what makes you think the origin of species is other species beyond being told so by socially honoured scientists, which again is not the same as science.

a reply to: TzarChasm

And for clarification, tenure is a financial incentive.

Publishing a caveat before the recorded lecture is a way to anticipate the drawbacks of this position when speciation is relegated to the same drawer as craniology, Hofacker-Sadler "law", & c.

This guy knows how fishy "fish to people" really is, as evidenced by his caution in the lecture I'm now listening to.

originally posted by: wisvol
From a purely objective standpoint, the issue of an organized group seeking to diminish or replace a widely accepted scientific topic with one of pure philosophy and faith fits the description of a "conspiracy".

one of this website's owners

Species are correlated to each other, and may not be causal to each other.

No sane person would ignore the evolution of an individual, a group, a species, a phylum, a theory, or anything else : everything constantly changes and evolves in various ways, and none of it shows speciation to me so far.

I doubt that the origin of all species is primordial soup, and I doubt that our ancestry include fish. Here is partly why:

The idea that the origin of all species is primordial soup, and that species become other species over time, are pushed by public services and their convinced students, and serve key social purposes from inception.

The idea that species become other species, but so slow you can't see it, when presented as fact to youth, can and does have lasting consequences including and unfortunately not limited to -either consciously or not- logically following this idea into its consequences for our own, assuming perennity.

To say this differently, people do not incrementally become different species, which is a racist's and an authoritarian's wet dream.
divide

Other consequences of the idea that fish become people over time include justification of empires as naturally selected to do what empires do, which coincidentally also serves "tptb"'s goals.
conquer

Every child differs from their parents in ways not inclusive of the child's species.

A species is defined biologically as "a group whose offspring is fertile". This is from my university's textbook, any better definition is welcome.
How do you think an animal would have mutant offspring both unable to breed with the herd (a new species) and able to breed with their own new species, examples of which are available somehow?

If the herd's environment prompts similar ATCG syntax change deep enough to preclude interbreeding in enough young, what environments prompt this on people?
In other words, if "junk DNA" activates in fish in times of drought to turn them into frogs (some guy sold books about this), what does the human junk DNA do? Science-fiction has "fiction" in it and it's still cool.

Again, every child differs in some ways from its parents, but giving birth to a different species? Really?
Because in order for fish to become people incrementally, quite a few mothers would have had to give birth to different species, so that would be a recurring thing, which come on.

This theory on the origin of species cut into the popularity of a previous view, according to which people originate from the source of everything else (call it bang if you must, this too shall pass) and definitely not the contrary as opening quote suggests.

The question I ask you is "what makes you think the origin of species is other species?" because I truly wish I knew this.
Even better if you can demonstrate speciation which is not the result of man's activity, because that would be his snip design, and therefore not his origin.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

As a biologist I used to argue with this kind of thread and prove the idiocy and ignorance wrong. Now I just shake my head and laugh at the ridiculous mental gymnastics performed in order to avoid an obvious truth, all life today evolved from a common ancestor.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TzarChasm

And for clarification, tenure is a financial incentive.

Publishing a caveat before the recorded lecture is a way to anticipate the drawbacks of this position when speciation is relegated to the same drawer as craniology, Hofacker-Sadler "law", & c.

This guy knows how fishy "fish to people" really is, as evidenced by his caution in the lecture I'm now listening to.

Are you kidding? its a description of the topic in the video, not a disclaimer.

a reply to: dr1234

As a biologist I used to argue with this kind of thread and prove the idiocy and ignorance wrong. Now I just shake my head and laugh at the ridiculous mental gymnastics performed in order to avoid an obvious truth, all life today evolved from a common ancestor.

Cool

Now the proving that the OP is ignorant, idiotic and wrong, please.

Evolved from a common ancestor doesn't necessarily mean origin of species is other species unless evolved is taken in a narrow semantically drifted sense.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Thor odinson, its a description of the topic in the video, not a disclaimer.

Yea Thor Odinson thinks Yggdrasil is the sketchy sketch of slightly different finches proving they're the grand children to the seven hundredth power or so.

Whether or not this description, referenced here after the link is a caveat or not is subject to interpretation.

As for this thread, you've been answered. See ya round.

Welcome back

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: dr1234
Now the proving that the OP is ignorant, idiotic and wrong, please.

That's been occurring this entire thread.

Your inability to understand the responses, or rejection to any and all information that doesn't abide to your false preconceived concept of speciation isn't due to us being wrong, it's simply you being in favor of remaining ignorant and delusional.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: dr1234
Evolved from a common ancestor doesn't necessarily mean origin of species

The term "origin of species" is used by Darwin to express the mechanisms in evolution that lead to divergence. A common ancestor is the result of these mechanisms, so yes, it actually does prove speciation.

It's pretty evident the OP either lacks the capacity to understand basic evolutionary biological terminology and the comprehension of the information that proves the existence of speciation or is so insatiably enamored with his false, preconceived concepts as to what defines evolution and the mechanisms and events that take place within it that they will never accept anything -no matter how obvious and simple the information may be- that will change their false premise.

I suggest we simply stop feeding the troll/laymen. All that has needed to be said on the topic has been countless of times, there is no new information that needs to be presented because the OP doesn't make any new claims or has any new questions. You might as well just start copy and pasting answers at this point because of the OP's impervious mind.

The OP has made a conscious choice to ignore members (at an ever increasing population), and to ignore responses, and to ignore specific arguments and examples.

This is the definition of a closed mind.

Stop feeding the troll

a reply to: wisvol

I laugh my ass off at the primordial soup.
Why replace God did it with something so far
and away more impossible? It's the biggest joke
I've ever heard.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: wisvol

I laugh my ass off at the primordial soup.
Why replace God did it with something so far
and away more impossible? It's the biggest joke
I've ever heard.

Lol "Magic" is WAYYYY less impossible than "Nature"

because... logic?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: wisvol

I laugh my ass off at the primordial soup.
Why replace God did it with something so far
and away more impossible? It's the biggest joke
I've ever heard.

Why overcomplicate the issue with a concept you can't even begin to define?

a reply to: Ghost147

Hah!!!!! As if primordial soup doesn't require magical odds!
You people are a joke! A joke when it comes to the scientific open mind.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

Hah!!!!! As if primordial soup doesn't require magical odds!
You people are a joke!

Right....

When stars reach the end of their lives they expel their outer-layers into the interstellar medium. These atoms that they expel resemble the full diversity of the periodic table, and spontaneously react with one another, canalized by the cosmic radiation originating from stars, black holes, and cataclysmic events all around us.

In order to see these, as well as the intensity in the areas they inhabit, we measure varying wavelengths that we cannot perceive through our own eyes, such as radiowaves, microwaves, X-rays, and Infrared light. What we find when we do this are the same organic molecules associated with life here on Earth; things like Sugars, Alcohols, amino acids, incredibly complex carbon chains and rings (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons - the precursor to many carbon based compounds), so on and so forth.



Above is a photo of the Murchison Meteorite. You can learn more about it here. It landed on earth in 1969.

We have 20 unique amino acids that are used in life processes here on Earth. But when we analyze the amino acids found in this meteorite we find nearly 100 unique amino acids inside, as well as tens of thousands of unique molecular compounds.

So organic molecules are actually extremely prevalent throughout space.

a reply to: randyvs

If God is non sentient explosion and soup, then everything makes sense somehow.

That way we can nuke everyone and Andy Warhol (war hole?) is Art

a reply to: Ghost147

If I've said anything on these boards worth a sh1t.
It is that knowing the mechanics does not negate the
mechanic, To believe that we know the program and that negates
the programmer? Is nothing but hostile and stupid.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147

If I've said anything on these boards worth a sh1t.
It is that knowing the mechanics does not negate the
mechanic, To believe that we know the program and that negates
the programmer? Is nothing but hostile and stupid.

Ah, nice to see that you've moved the goal.

And assuming that everything has a 'mechanic' and a 'programmer' when you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever is not illogical?

The claims of "god did it" are shrinking every time we make a scientific discovery. We now know what causes rainbows, lighting, thunder, sunsets and so forth to form, and it has nothing to do with any gods. We continue to discover the natural occurrence to everything.

So, at the end of the day, when we can describe everything has having a natural formation, and functioning without the need of supernatural intervention, what do we have left? We have a universe that has 'programs' and 'mechanics' as you put it that function all on their own, can self replication, can create something new, and more.

So... what is the need for a programmer and a mechanic in the first place?

a reply to: wisvol

I was saying that you calling me a stupid troll,

Quote me the post where I called you a troll...You probably have me confused with another poster in this thread.
I called you ignorant about a gillion times that's about it.
The two are not equatable terms.