"The origin of species"

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: rnaa
The first B can't breed with either As and is offspring of As.

You're hypnotized. You have the power to change this. Consider different things at once, compare them, before you believe any of them.

I mean honestly... How and WHY are you taking University Biology?

a reply to: peter vlar

There was no sudden change where an A2 birthed a B that was so genetically different that it was incapable of mating with any members of A2.

If so, A and B are not different species, by definition.

Instead, all of A2 slowly changed over the course of nearly 2 MA until the entire population was now a B.

this would mean this entire population becomes B the same day? Of course not, that's preposterous even to you, so by way of consequence B appears one individual at a time in your view.
Meaning there is a first B, and in a relevant example where A & B represent different species, first B is unable by definition to breed with any A because they're different species. This is the individual I'm referring to.
Seeing the forest for the trees isn't so hard.

It just doesn't seem to get through to you that the way you insist evolution is presented by Biologists and Anthropologists or any textbook. Your B group is always able to mate and successfully reproduce with the entirety of the population for the entire 2 MA that they have been separated from A1, Pan Troglodyte until they become their own distinct species. This is all supported by both the fossil record and the genetic data.

Presenting is one thing, science is another, and your "until they become a different species" is the point in time I'm referring to.

Fossil record of monkeys in the Congo yes, totes proof that fish become people.
Genetic data supports this how?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: rnaa
The first B can't breed with either As and is offspring of As.

You're hypnotized. You have the power to change this. Consider different things at once, compare them, before you believe any of them.

I mean honestly... How and WHY are you taking University Biology?

Maybe he is passed the first two years and the third year is where a person encounters all the flaws.

When you become smart enough to realise how stupid all the nonsense is in evolution and the faith needed to believe it all

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: rnaa
The first B can't breed with either As and is offspring of As.

You're hypnotized. You have the power to change this. Consider different things at once, compare them, before you believe any of them.

I mean honestly... How and WHY are you taking University Biology?

Maybe he is passed the first two years and the third year is where a person encounters all the flaws.

When you become smart enough to realise how stupid all the nonsense is in evolution and the faith needed to believe it all

Faith isn't needed, unlike the old dude in the sky.

We can test science. What tests are there for old sky men?

a reply to: wisvol

I find it difficult to believe that some people still question this (I think it's great to question, but at some stage you must reach an answer when there is proof).

Easiest example would be, if you take any animal with eyes and let the species reproduce in a dark room for a couple of thousand years, they lose their eyes.

In any species it's clear that they have ADAPTED through natural selection. Natural selection is very simple, the animals with the genetic adaptations to survive the best, in their environment, will be the ones that get to mate and reproduce. So passing on the necessary genetic mutations and making it part of the species over time. Nature is about survival, those who are best adapted to survive will pass on said adaptations and those adaptations will become more prevalent within the species.

I think it's a beautiful system that plays according to the laws of nature. We just need some more natural selection within the human race, because currently everyone gets to mate (especially the stupid ones) and this does not benefit our species, it sets us back.

We need more people who are in a mental position that allows them to raise healthy kids. Epigenetics is a great example of the the role nurture plays when it comes to raising a healthy member of the species. Nature and nurture go hand in hand. The yin and the yang. We must develop on both fronts to better the human race.

I want my species to go far and lose their negative traits. We are only in the beginning of developing our conscience minds as we have only recently been able to break the chains of nature and place ourselves in an environment that does not threaten us in the same way nature does.

The monkeys got smart and adapted to be smarter and smarter because the ones with the larger brain had a clear advantage when it came to survival. And now we are here, as animals different to the rest on the planet.

We still have a lot of animalistic traits, so many, and people don't always realize when they are giving in to the animal that is still inside of them. We can choose the side of intelligence or the side of instinct. I do my best to choose intelligence, but it is not always easy.

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".

That about sums it up, evolution is nothing but pure philosophy.

Not one single speck of scientifically provable evidence has been found in support of it.

Evolution is clearly a philosophy and a product of reason. It is not scientific. For anything to come under the umbrella of the scientific method, it must be observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. The evolutionary model cannot be placed in this framework. For example, one cannot design an experiment to test evolutionary ideas. One cannot repeat the process. In other words, science is limited to what can be known through man's empirical senses.

www.quodlibet.net...

The fact that the fossil record shows that evolution never happened clearly indicates that Darwinian gradualism is 100% BS

It's so obvious that it is clearly a deliberate fabrication that one can't help but wonder how can people be so gullible.

when I try to talk about Darwinism with some people, their eyes glaze over and they start panicking and saying things like:

'Evolution HAS to be true because the only alternative is an old man up in the sky, with a white beard.'

How do you know that is the only alternative? Who told you this?

Darwin's theory: a steaming pile of dung

"Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum

Ever since the time of Darwin, part of the major press has been given the task of disseminating Darwinist indoctrination. The Darwinists of the time were well aware that the theory of evolution would never be corroborated by any scientific evidence, but produced a Darwinist dictatorship as the result of systematic and organized activities and charged part of the major press with spreading the fraud. The press in question is still at work today. The only difference is that the Darwinist fraud they perpetrate has now been exposed.

Darwinist Propaganda Techniques

a reply to: Murgatroid

My good sir, David Attenborough has done some fantastic work in showing the examples of evolution, from fossils, to insects to animals. I suggest you start there.

a reply to: Murgatroid

So we should believe in a talking old dude in the sky because there's soooo much evidence for that.

This is what I love about religious folk. Anything they think that goes against there religion is false because "there's no proof". Where's the proof of your OAP in the sky?

a reply to: GreenGunther

Thanks for posting

Easiest example would be, if you take any animal with eyes and let the species reproduce in a dark room for a couple of thousand years, they lose their eyes. In any species it's clear that they have ADAPTED through natural selection. Natural selection is very simple, the animals with the genetic adaptations to survive the best, in their environment, will be the ones that get to mate and reproduce.

Seems to me that being blind does not offer an advantage as far as surviving and reproducing in the dark goes.

This said, I know thin parents can have fat kids, and even blind ones.

What I am asking (again, do you guys not read the OP?) is how does it make sense to you that a species would become another species.

I want my species to go far and lose their negative traits.

By becoming so blind they can't breed with other people?

The monkeys got smart and adapted to be smarter and smarter because the ones with the larger brain had a clear advantage when it came to survival.

Elephants outnumber us?

We can choose the side of intelligence or the side of instinct. I do my best to choose intelligence, but it is not always easy.

There's a beautiful zone where instinct and intelligence agree, assuming decent instinct.

a reply to: Murgatroid

The fact that the fossil record shows that evolution never happened clearly indicates that Darwinian gradualism is 100% BS It's so obvious that it is clearly a deliberate fabrication that one can't help but wonder how can people be so gullible.

I knew you were cool, from other posting and the avatar. I loled.
Please do feel free to rock on, Sir.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Like when they tested generations of fly's and they evolved into fly's

or Murey and Millars virus that after generations were still viruses

I would love to see the science as opposed to assumption and blind faith like evolutionists

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

Like when they tested generations of fly's and they evolved into fly's

or Murey and Millars virus that after generations were still viruses

I would love to see the science as opposed to assumption and blind faith like evolutionists

Like when the tested God...oh wait...we can't test imaginary things.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar

There was no sudden change where an A2 birthed a B that was so genetically different that it was incapable of mating with any members of A2.

If so, A and B are not different species, by definition.

Not at all true. After 2 MA of isolation, B is now a distinct and separate species from A. The genomes of both Pan Troglodyte and Pan Paniscus have been fully sequenced and they are, biologically and taxonomically, separate species of the same genus.

Instead, all of A2 slowly changed over the course of nearly 2 MA until the entire population was now a B.

this would mean this entire population becomes B the same day? Of course not, that's preposterous even to you, so by way of consequence B appears one individual at a time in your view.

No, it doesn't. Once again, evolution as a mechanism of change in allele frequency over time is measured across populations, not individuals and that population doesn't change one individual at a time. As beneficial phenotypes present, they spread throughout the population, slowly, over time. Until the entire population carries the same genes. A does not birth B. Le's use the color wheel to add to this. A is yellow, B is red. After the formation of the Congo River Basin, A2 slowly moves through all the shades in between yellow and red until all that is left is a red B population.

Meaning there is a first B, and in a relevant example where A & B represent different species, first B is unable by definition to breed with any A because they're different species. This is the individual I'm referring to.

No, there is not a first B. No matter how many times you repeat it, there is no singular first B.

Seeing the forest for the trees isn't so hard.

Based on your lack of understanding and vehemence, I've got to disagree because you're not even looking at the trees.

It just doesn't seem to get through to you that the way you insist evolution is presented by Biologists and Anthropologists or any textbook. Your B group is always able to mate and successfully reproduce with the entirety of the population for the entire 2 MA that they have been separated from A1, Pan Troglodyte until they become their own distinct species. This is all supported by both the fossil record and the genetic data.

Presenting is one thing, science is another, and your "until they become a different species" is the point in time I'm referring to.

Oh I know what point you are referring to, you don't seem to understand that there is no specific point in that timeline because the entire population is slowly evolving together. There is no special mutant individual birthed from its parents. There are no X-Men to be found.

Fossil record of monkeys in the Congo yes, totes proof that fish become people.
Genetic data supports this how?

Who said anything about monkeys? I'm talking about 2 species of ape who are our closest living genetic relatives. And per your earlier reply to me, I thought you were looking for speciation events. How do you go from a speciation event to your statements about fish into man? Yes, I can read, I know you aren't really implying a fish turned into Homo Sapiens but you keep trotting it out like its a duck that quacks.

From fish we get Amniotes and Amphibians. From Amniotes, we get the common ancestors of Reptiles and Mammals which branch off into Sauropsids who the ancestors dinosaurs as well as all living lizards and birds. Then we have Synapsids who are the common ancestors of all mammals. A large percentage of Synapsids were wiped out along with most other life on Earth, during the Permian Extinction event. From there we move to Eupelycosauria and then on to Sphenacodontia and to Therapsidia and then onward to proto-mammals and finally the mammals.

As we all know, the KT extinction event left a lot of ecological niches wide open and the mammals that survived went from being the size of chipmunks to the vast array we see today as the planet slowly recovered. The earliest apes appeared 25-30 MA, 12-15 MA Orangutan split off, 8-10 MA gorillas diverged from our common ancestor, 6-8 MA Chimpanzee diverged from there we see a wide variation in Homininae from examples like Sahelanthropus Tchadensis(~7 MA) and Orrorin Tugenesis 5-6 MA, then we see Ardipithecus ~4 MA, then the Australopithecines from 3.8-4 MA through around 2.5 MA and finally we arrive at our own genus with H. Habilis 2.8 MA- 1.5 MA +/- and on and on...

How does the genetic data support this? The establishment of a molecular clock done by calculating the mutation rates and counting backwards.

a reply to: TerryDon79

The difference is I don't pretend mine is nothing other than a faith

Based on a great deal of scientific evidence that proves design.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

The difference is I don't pretend mine is nothing other than a faith

Based on a great deal of scientific evidence that proves design.

Scientific evidence? Oh, you mean shapes? Yeah, THATS proof lol.

As for science having no proof? Go read a book.

a reply to: wisvol

A species becomes a different species or sub-species when the genetic deviations become to great and they are not able to interbreed. Then that species starts to develop on their own etc. etc.

en.wikipedia.org...(biology)

As you will observe on the tree of life not all species give rise to new ones.
It's a difficult topic which I do not feel I have the adequate knowledge if you require in-depth descriptions. But one thing I know for sure is that, that monkey in your local zoo is my cousin.

originally posted by: wisvol

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.

I think the answer is in DNA. All life on earth right now is related in DNA. Even grass is related to us and as we look at chimps and work our way back the one fundamental connection is DNA. The less likely life looks to be similar the less DNA is related, but there is always a relationship. This basically suggested all life has a common past of some kind. If we go back 5 million years we can say chimps and humans were the same species, if we go back 300 million years we might be able to say a grape vine and humans were the same species.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Your comment there is perfectly rational and fits in with the theory of evolution (:

a reply to: peter vlar

Saying "not at all true" isn't the same as being right.
In fact it's less than acceptable in this context because:

" If so, A and B are not different species, by definition. "

Not at all true. After 2 MA of isolation, B is now a distinct and separate species from A. The genomes of both Pan Troglodyte and Pan Paniscus have been fully sequenced and they are, biologically and taxonomically, separate species of the same genus.

You said A & B interbreed and if so, by definition they are the same species. Saying "no" does not change definition of species (or any). Even if you say it often.

If Troglodyte (T) and Paniscus (P) are the same species, their offspring is fertile, and if not, not.
That's what species mean.
Therefore if T is from P or vice versa, and they are as you now say, different species, the first representative of the newer species is incapable of breeding with the older one.

evolution as a mechanism of change in allele frequency over time is measured across populations, not individuals and that population doesn't change one individual at a time. As beneficial phenotypes present, they spread throughout the population, slowly, over time.

Those "beneficial phenotypes", in order to spread throughout the population slowly over time incrementally mollo andarci piano have to first pop up.
And they don't pop up over time, they pop up one bright august morning at 8:12 like other monkeys.
Populations are in fact individuals, you broken disc.

Based on your lack of understanding and vehemence, I've got to disagree because you're not even looking at the trees.

Populations are the forest and individuals are the trees in this metaphor. You need help.

After the formation of the Congo River Basin, A2 slowly moves through all the shades in between yellow and red until all that is left is a red B population.

Color code it, sure. Red can't breed with Yellow. Shades of orange who can breed with yellow aren't red because red is a species in your own demonstration.
Shades of orange who can breed with red aren't yellow, because yellow is a species in your own demonstration.
For the sake of argument, say there's a shade of orange that can breed with both red and yellow (like donkeys can breed with horses and with donkeys) then the offspring will be fertile (same species) in one case and infertile (like mules or ligers) in the other, because that's how observable reproducible data goes.
If not, surely there's a biology thesis about it, and if not, enjoy the tip and the diploma.

Now try with a themesong each.

No, there is not a first B. No matter how many times you repeat it, there is no singular first B

So like they're twins because science or they have to be a population at a time, as in 7800 monkeys are born B so there's no first?

Oh I know what point you are referring to, you don't seem to understand that there is no specific point in that timeline because the entire population is slowly evolving together.

Seriously dude get your # together I'm not having fun any more: there is a first B, and even if the first be is somehow an entire population, they become B as opposed to other species A, at the specific point in their evolution when they cannot interbreed. Interbreeding isn't evolution, it's real and it's at 1520hrs on a wednesday, not in magical evolution time that we can't see.

Who said anything about monkeys? I'm talking about 2 species of ape who are our closest living genetic relatives.

You did, you brought up monkeys in the form of specific non human primates which is the definition on a monkey. Your closest living genetic relatives are your brothers and sisters.

How do you go from a speciation event to your statements about fish into man?

Assuming you actually don't make those links, and then basta, as in next time you respond please have a point.

Fish into man is the proposition logically following both abiogenesis and panspermia, as repeated by other speciation believers on this thread. If the first life is soup, before monkeys turned into people they were fish, because soup wouldn't turn directly into monkeys (gotta have fish first).
A speciation event, if that's a thing, is the necessary building block to explain people lollygagging about if the first life is soup, through many speciation events including soup to some specific bug, what ever that bug doesn't breed with and so on until fish, and then on and on and on until monkeys, then people! Who according to that "logic" are also speciating right now! Maybe the islanders of Easter Isle have turned back into another species so they could reproduce more yea? Of course not, that would be in the future.

OK thanks for the fish become chipmunks because 458-F bit, that was sweet evidence.

How does the genetic data support this? The establishment of a molecular clock done by calculating the mutation rates and counting backwards.

Species mutate, they don't mutate into other species because you count backwards billions of years: get this
For the last three years, the stock market has mutated negative one percent, so it lost 5 percent in five years, so therefore my molecular clock says people in the 1930s were all billionaires!! see how that works?

a reply to: GreenGunther

A species becomes a different species or sub-species when the genetic deviations become to great and they are not able to interbreed. Then that species starts to develop on their own etc. etc.

Yes, that's a sensible synthesis of speciation. My question is when your cats are left enough million years in a closet full of friskies, and they become birds (or chipmunks, or the next species), there's a pioneer being that is no longer a cat, who has cat parents, and that's just nonsensical yet it is a consequence of your own synthesis.
This is the point of this thread.

But one thing I know for sure is that, that monkey in your local zoo is my cousin.

Glad you know that for sure because before Chuck Darwin introduced that bull# notion in a successful bid to justify his employer's African colonialism in the public eye by saying African people aren't *really* people, nobody knew that for sure or even for maybe.

The monkey at the zoo looks like you more than a chipmunk does, and even more than a fish does, and almost as much as that wax statue of you at Tussaud's but maybe your actual cousins are your cousins instead because speciation works only on paper, and only until someone reads it.