"The origin of species"

a reply to: Ghost147

That's a lie I never admitted to being a troll nor a troll for evolution threads. That was a brainwave of a deduction based on a statement made on footprints in rocks that I knew had claims made against them and stated that I enjoyed to argue...
It is indeed not an answer and is very much in question...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Actually, you did agree when someone called you a troll.

originally posted by: wisvol
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.

First things first. I want to know if you're referring to the origin of life on earth when you state "the origin of species" (Abiogenesis), or if the only reason you're saying "the origin of species" is because of Darwin's book 'On the origin of species' which discusses evolution. You may simply be confusing the two.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
To say this differently, people do not incrementally become different species, which is a racist's and an authoritarian's wet dream.

No one has ever stated that this is how speciation works. You yourself just stated in the sentence before that "species become other species, but so slow you can't see it", and now you're saying that "people do not incrementally become different species". So what are you so upset about? The fact that people are claiming that species become species but slowly over time that we can't see it? or now that people become a different species and we can see it?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
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.

No one has ever once claimed that "fish become people"

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
A species is defined biologically as "a group whose offspring is fertile". This is from my university's textbook, any better definition is welcome.

That's a fair description of what a species is, generally.

In many cases it's not so black and white, easy to spot. But for the most part, yes, this is accurate.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
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?

No one ever claimed that animals have a mutant offspring that isn't part of the heard and cant breed thus being a new species. In fact, that would totally disprove evolution if that occurred.

Once again, you just said a few sentences ago that people claim "species become other species, but so slow you can't see it". Why have you now jumped to the conclusion that people are claiming "the way a new species forms is through one individual giving birth to another totally new species"

I think I'm about done reading your OP now, it seems you've come to conclusions about evolution that are simply and obviously false, and you're putting words in peoples mouths that simply do not exist. You even have backtracked over your own words in your own OP within the very same OP.

You're coming at this all wrong. I have very little reason to believe you're honestly curious about the functionality and mechanisms that make up Evolution, and have even less reason to believe that you're willing to learn about it.

However, If you are honestly curious. Please just ask a single question at a time, not making any claims, just asking a question.

For instance "Have we ever seen speciation occur?"

I will answer that question for you if you present yourself to be humble and honest with your inquiry.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Cool. Someone is on the ball. Thanks Nate, for being on topic.

Huge misconception on your part, individuals don't evolve they merely adapt to the environment. Keyword ADAPT.

Turns out the misconception might not be mine after all, because this is what evolving means. Misleading because it sounds like ex-vulva a little bit.

Absolutely not, your over simplification in this statement shows how ignorant you are(no offense intended)about the hypothesis of abiogenesis... We didn't evolve directly from "fish"

What is comprehended clearly is worded simply.
You say "evolve directly from fish" when I made the effort to say "incrementally, over time, & c." Be fair.

Your also making the assumption that the mutation of genes to create a different species occurs in one generation...Try several million..

What makes you say that? species is a word, with a meaning defined by professionals quoted above, and although all species change constantly, they would, in order to differentiate, change in a specific way over one specific generation: the generation that cannot breed with the previous one. Not even one million years, gestation period of said species.

.Evolution isn't meant to describe the origins of species just the diversity.

Evolution is meant to describe the origins of species, and that's why Charles Darwin titled his seminal work "the origin of species" so again, no cigar.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I was being facetious...

Double post*

originally posted by: wisvol
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.

The problem is that you are using multiple meanings of the word "evolution" and grouping them up together as if they are the same. Biological evolution is about common ancestry via genetic mutations and natural selection. When you refer to the evolution of an individual, or a theory, it means something entirely different, basically just any type of change over time. Literally anything can evolve in that sense, but in biology it is strictly about genetic diversity (No, PhotonEffect, I'm not saying that's the only thing involved).

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

You are equivocating abiogenesis hypothesis (unproven, origin of life) with the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis (common descent, proven beyond the shadow of a doubt). Primordial soup is not an ancestor, it's a completely different field of science altogether.

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.

And that justifies your doubts? How?

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.

Huh? That's a big load of techno-babble if I've ever read it. I just read that 5 times in a row and can't figure out what you are saying here. Consequences that lead to following this idea into its consequences? Perennity? Please break this down into English.

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

So this is true, just because you say so? Sorry but associating evolution with racism and authoritarianism is a joke. How about a real argument?

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.

Now you are comparing evolution to social Darwinism. Evolution has nothing to do with social constructs or the powers that be. That has nothing to do with evolution in the slightest. Religion is a far better control tool, what could tptb possibly gain from promoting science?

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?

Species don't evolve in a single generation in a single individual. It is about the frequency of alleles increasing or decreasing among an entire population or group. If you think evolution of new species happens in a single generation, you have been severely duped. It's accumulation. Mutations and traits add up over time in a population. Eventually if you took the original and the species 10,000 generations later, the original would not be able to breed with the later one. It's not one couple having a hybrid mutant baby.

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.

Some guy sold books about junk DNA activating in a fish and turning it into a frog??? LOL Science fiction indeed.

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 is why it pays to do the research before you create a new thread bashing something you don't really understand. No creature suddenly gives birth to a different species. If that happened it would falsify evolution. Evolution is about incremental (SMALL) changes to populations over time. I'd recommend you read some real books or studies on evolution. It sounds like you are getting your information from creationist propaganda.

What makes you say that? species is a word, with a meaning defined by professionals quoted above, and although all species change constantly, they would, in order to differentiate, change in a specific way over one specific generation: the generation that cannot breed with the previous one. Not even one million years, gestation period of said species.

Dead wrong. It's not about breeding with the previous generation. It's about going through enough changes so that the original could no longer breed with the current ones.

For example, this can happen if one group of a certain species relocates and becomes isolated from the originals. Both groups continue to evolve, but in different ways to different environmental niches. Eventually you will have the 2 populations becoming genetically incompatible to breed. This is when they would technically qualify as a different species. If one couple gave birth to a child that could no longer breed with the previous generation, they would have nobody to breed with and as a result the "new" genetic line would never get passed down, rendering it extinct.

Your version of evolution is not viable, but it's a straw man, so it doesn't matter.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

That's a lie I never admitted to being a troll nor a troll for evolution threads. That was a brainwave of a deduction based on a statement made on footprints in rocks that I knew had claims made against them and stated that I enjoyed to argue...
It is indeed not an answer and is very much in question...

Here's your quote from another thread:

5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Heh I knew [those creationist claims] had been debunked...
But it's fun to piss off the evolution crowd for me...

originally posted by: mOjOm
Clearly you can all see that's it's pointless to carry on a discussion with oracle. He's just trolling and he admits it. He's already said he's doing this to piss people off and it's not his first time. I've called him out in a number of threads in the past. It's the same tactics every time as well.

1. He refuses to learn or even read any info you give him. (Promotes his own ignorance)

2. Claims everything you say and that science is false. (Promotes ignorance in others.)

3. Claims to know the truth which is his version of Religion but offers no evidence to support it. (Spreads ignorance as truth.)

He even goes so far as to make the claim that science is religion and therefore can't be trusted as true. Which is an odd approach being that religion is what he believes thereby implying that what he believes cannot be trusted. Showing that even he admits to himself how false his own beliefs are. (Supreme ignorance and deception.)

But you're wasting your time with him. It doesn't matter what you say he doesn't care. He cannot offer anything in support of his ideas and doesn't care what you can offer in support of yours. He will just keep saying whatever you say is a lie and will ignore all evidence that shows different..

I would say it's pretty conclusive...

a reply to: Ghost147

Where is the part where I admitted to being a troll?
I was talking about some footprints...
How is somebody else saying something false about me my admission?
I say that is conclusive...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

I think it would be this part...

But it's fun to piss off the evolution crowd for me...

And it's not the first time I've seen you say something similar.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
Turns out the misconception might not be mine after all, because this is what evolving means. Misleading because it sounds like ex-vulva a little bit.

You do realize the Theory of Evolution and the English world "Evolving" are two entirely separate concepts, right?

Search up "Biological evolution" to find a description more accurate to the topic at hand.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
What is comprehended clearly is worded simply.
You say "evolve directly from fish" when I made the effort to say "incrementally, over time, & c." Be fair.

And the 'incrementally, over time" and so forth is far more accurate, yes.

But, you then also stated that Evolution states that speciation occurs when an organism gives birth to another organism that's a different species. Which is completely different from the first description of speciation you used.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
What makes you say that?

Here you go:

originally posted by: wisvol
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?

originally posted by: wisvol
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.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
species is a word, with a meaning defined by professionals quoted above, and although all species change constantly, they would, in order to differentiate, change in a specific way over one specific generation: the generation that cannot breed with the previous one. Not even one million years, gestation period of said species.

It's not one generation to the next generation that can't interbreed, they are referring to the current generation to the distant ancestors. or hundreds of generations back, or thousands of generations back.

We can easily see this both in labs and in the wild when things like Population bottlenecks occur, or within the Founders Effect (such as Darwin's finches)

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
Evolution is meant to describe the origins of species, and that's why Charles Darwin titled his seminal work "the origin of species" so again, no cigar.

He was referring to how life diverges, creating new species over time. The book is not literally on the origin of life on earth.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Where is the part where I admitted to being a troll?
I was talking about some footprints...
How is somebody else saying something false about me my admission?
I say that is conclusive...

I underlined the part for you:

5StarOracle
But it's fun to piss off the evolution crowd for me...

a reply to: TerryDon79

Would not surprise me if I did say something similar before...
I suppose that's typical for someone who believes every claim evolution makes because you have to make big leaps when forming your conclusions...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Would not surprise me if I did say something similar before...
I suppose that's typical for someone who believes every claim evolution makes because you have to make big leaps when forming your conclusions...

Believes every claim? Big leaps?
Sounds like religion.

You want to know one of the defining factors for science? Provable, observable, repeatable tests. We can test ANYTHING science says is a scientific theory (not the same as a layman use of the word theory).

Religion has none of that. It's just "Goddidit!" Not evidence, repeatable tests, just faith.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

Would not surprise me if I did say something similar before...

Right, because you're a self admitted troll...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79
I suppose that's typical for someone who believes every claim evolution makes because you have to make big leaps when forming your conclusions...

It's typical for me to point out that you're a self admitted troll?

Funny. That's the exact same response you gave me when I responded to the comment I just quoted you on in that other topic. in which I quote my response here, yet again:

I fully admit that the Theory of Evolution is not a fact

I also fully admit that Evolution is a fact.

I fully admit that Heliocentric theory is not a fact

I also fully admit that the planetary orbits of the sun is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution is subject to change upon further discovery, just like everything else in Science. No one is claiming that our Theory of Evolution is perfect and absolute. You've been told this many times before.

I'm glad you can at least admit that it's not perfect...
I find it no where near perfect I see it as a hindrance for many other science's...
What's with the 'OUR' are you an evolutionary scientist?

Thought I'd hit reply to ghost*

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
I'm glad you can at least admit that it's not perfect...
I find it no where near perfect I see it as a hindrance for many other science's...
What's with the 'OUR' are you an evolutionary scientist?

Have you any evidence against the theory of evolution or abiogenesis?
You'd be famous if you did.

As for the "our" thing. Who are you refering to?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
I find it no where near perfect I see it as a hindrance for many other science's...

Many of your issues with the theory stem from a false premise. We have explained many of the issues you've had over many topics. By now it's not a matter of you not knowing about the correct information, but a continued rejection of any information that doesn't abide by your preconceived notions.

It's hardly a hindrance considering medicine revolves around the theory of evolution. As does Agriculture, and many other things.

Evolution could arguably be stated as the single most important discovery in all of Biology

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
What's with the 'OUR' are you an evolutionary scientist?

It's a figure of speech. Although I have conducted Evolutionary experiments on my own (I would hardly consider myself an evolutionary biologist, however)

Great. Mr Captain Kirk troll is back to derail another thread. I should have known when the thread went from a handful of responses to 2 full pages during the time I typed my response. I just hope the OP doesn't abandon the thread. I'd like to see what he has to say to my response above and Ghost's explanation how evolution is about populations and groups, not individuals and giving birth to new species. I think it will clear up the bulk of his misunderstandings about evolution.

a reply to: Ghost147

Glad you can also admit you are no expert...

How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? 
How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence...
Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote...
“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

I see you have been digging into your friends list...
That's even more desperate then your false accusations...
Shouldn't be trying to make an example of me then whine about thread being derailed...
That's lame...