"The origin of species"

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

I've got one word to explain how it all happened....

Goddidit.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Are you sure none of this distrust is fueled by your inability to fully grasp the concepts you claim they "push"?

If this was the case, I would be stupider than the average public school student.
Not mine to judge, but I'd be needing some of that compassion.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if you ignored your professors lectures because you were "ignoring known time wasters".

smoked a joint with pharmacology prof. after a lecture he gave about us future docs needing to prescribe pills and electroshocks to patients he admittedly knew would have a better chance of healing with cannabis.
Never went back, still am not a doctor to this day. But hey, I played one in Hollywood and banged the nurse so yes you're right about that.

did you ever think to maybe bring up some of your issues and questions with the theory of evolution to your professor?

Did ask about speciation a lot, was given responses, the best of which I shared in this very thread.
Other approaches had to do with the start of sexual reproduction, complex cycled parasites with multiple host species (as in how to you gradually evolve into that?) and a lot of myrmecology. Fascinating stuff.

Look I tried being nice, many other users were more than happy to oblige in actually teaching you about the mechanisms you're clearly ignorant about.

Well since I have responded in ways only someone who would read their answer would, I could still be stupider than the average public school student, but not ignorant of the provided data. Do you really not see that stuff?

You don't want to learn anything

You would know my intentions better than myself? That's something.

I want to read what your alternative is to the mechanism of evolution. How did life originate wisvol? How long did it take? What is the causality for diversity in organisms?

You want a stupid troll's take on undisputable science? My oh my, I feel honoured.

OK, in a nutshell:

How did life originate:
Since this conversation has turned into repeating assertively the silliest possible propaganda, I'd go with Idi Amin's public school science version of basically life originated as what ever the # Idi Amin had the poor local kids repeat for grades. I kind of hesitated with honesty, but you're starting to get too insulting for that with that last post of yours.

How long did it take:
All of spacetime, and it's not over yet. Or are you asking me how long between the big bang and the first virus? I say virus because it coincides with Miller's experiment's premise, could be unicellulars or even trees!
Trees? always seen them as a step between rocks and animals, not sure why.

What is the causality for diversity in organisms:
That's the easy one: same as the causality for diversity in elements. Also not speciation.

a reply to: wisvol

So basically the end of this topic is that the OP has no comment on the information received, no incite about the concepts that were brought up, no rebuttal with how they could possibly be incorrect, and still has gained absolutely no knowledge regardless of the plethora of ways that a very, very simple concept was explained to them.

How productive.

You're right. 'Theory' of evolution, was never true. Most of the skulls were forgeries and many people never knew about the human zoos. I didn't know they existed but now looking back at the theory, it's only a theory.

Here is a gift for the OP.

originally posted by: luciferslight
You're right. 'Theory' of evolution, was never true. Most of the skulls were forgeries and many people never knew about the human zoos. I didn't know they existed but now looking back at the theory, it's only a theory.

Another person who doesn't know the difference between theory and the scientific use of theory.

Here's a hint. They're not the same

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: luciferslight
You're right. 'Theory' of evolution, was never true. Most of the skulls were forgeries and many people never knew about the human zoos. I didn't know they existed but now looking back at the theory, it's only a theory.

Another person who doesn't know the difference between theory and the scientific use of theory.

Here's a hint. They're not the same

It was so stereotypical ignorant that I thought it was satirical?

Poe's Law....

a reply to: wisvol

Populations are individuals.

No they aren't.

That is such a silly idea that it is obvious that you just spout these 'ideas' because you want attention.

Populations are comprised of many individuals. A population of one is about to be extinct.

Individuals do not evolve, an individual is exactly what it is from the moment of its birth, or hatching, or cell splitting, or whatever. Individuals DO NOT "change over time" in the sense that is meant by biological evolution. Of course each individual is ever slightly different to its parents and of course they grow and mature and are injured and die and these are all 'changes' in the strict sense of the word, but they are not biological evolution.

Populations do exhibit the change over time that is referred to as biologic evolution. When population A splits into population A1 and A2 the individuals within A1 and A2 will forever be able to breed within their own population. But A1 and A2 will evolve in different directions, and may over time become something entirely different say 'B' and 'C' which would be recognized by the fact that they can no longer breed successfully.

There is often no recognizable point in time when the 'last' A1 generation of cohorts and a 'first' B generation of cohorts or a 'last' A2 generation and the first 'C' generation - but such events have been witnessed.

Furthermore I do not believe that you do not understand these differences in spite of your feigned and willful ignorance.

a reply to: Ghost147

I know, right?

And the "most of the skulls were forgeries" just made me laugh.

Maybe it really is satirical?

a reply to: luciferslight

Thanks

Even the skulls that weren't forgeries are just skulls, how do skulls mean fish become people?
Is there like a skull & bones company that launched that PR stunt just to see how many lames would fall for that?

And to watch the crowd yelling "science" as if it's a substitute for science. Sometimes I think just # 'em, let them crash and burn into the horrible cages they arrogantly defend.

But that's just more reserves for the empire.
Not the good stuff, but enough to outnumber and outgun an off grid village once in a blue moon and that's just not flying on my watch.

So dear lame people, please remember to think and no, youtube and wikipedia are not thinking.
Repeating what a public servant tells you to repeat for grades -or even bank notes- is not thinking.

Doesn't matter if you science that god is an unsentient explosion and some soup; your forefathers said it was the sun, and thunder, and didn't call it god either.
By forefathers I do not mean fish.

Good is still a thing, and it's better than evil anyhow.
Don't defend ideas because they're familiar, defend ideas because they make sense.

a reply to: Ghost147

Facepalm.... And you made it to university level biology?

Maybe he/she did and maybe he/she didn't. But Wegener is even further beyond his ken than Darwin.

I expect he keeps bringing up geologic evolution because he thinks Darwin explained plate tectonics too.

a reply to: rnaa

Populations do exhibit the change over time that is referred to as biologic evolution. When population A splits into population A1 and A2 the individuals within A1 and A2 will forever be able to breed within their own population. But A1 and A2 will evolve in different directions, and may over time become something entirely different say 'B' and 'C' which would be recognized by the fact that they can no longer breed successfully.

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.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: wisvol
Individuals do not evolve, an individual is exactly what it is from the moment of its birth, or hatching, or cell splitting, or whatever. Individuals DO NOT "change over time" in the sense that is meant by biological evolution.

Actually, this isn't totally accurate.

Epigenetics can have an effect on the way cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations occur through external or environmental factorr.

It doesn't account for the same level of variation that occurs through reproduction, but it does occur

a reply to: wisvol

Still you don't understand what science is.

Your arrogance is beyond belief.

As has been explained in this thread AND OTHERS, here is how science works.

You take a FACT and you see what EVIDENCE there is for that FACT. If the EVIDENCE shows that the FACT is indeed a FACT then the EVIDENCE and EXPLANATION get called a theory.

Hence why Gravity is a FACT and we have a THEORY OF GRAVITY.

The same goes for EVOLUTION.

Evolution is a FACT. The EVIDENCE explains that FACT (to our best knowledge at this current time.

Science is about REPEATABLE, OBSERVED, FALSIFIABLE, TESTS. Tests you can do yourself to prove (or disprove) the theory.

You have no PROOF of anything that disproves the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. If you did you would have brought it up in the MANY threads you've either created or participated/trolled in.

its pretty painful to actually witness people fail at basic grade school biology, and then defend their point with so much fervor.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Please, please don't call abiogenesis evolution,

Good plan.

its in NO way related,

Sure it is.

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life - how life came to exist when there was no life before. Science does not have an answer (and may never have a definitive anwwer) but there are lots of people proposing more or less viable hypotheses.

Evolution is about how life changes. The prerequisite for evolution is the existence of life. Evolution proceeds from the first existence of life. The study of Evolution does not depend on how life came to exist, only that it did.

So Abiogenesis and Evolution are related by that moment in when life came to exist.

its not a foundation for all life,

Your statement is silly, of course.

Existence of Life is the END RESULT of Abiogenesis.
Existence of Life is the START CONDITION of Evolution.
The are related by the existence of life.

has no intrinsic value to any life

Other than to describe how it came to exist in the first place you mean?

and from henceforth should never be discussed in origins again, EVER

No, that is exactly WHERE Abiogenesis should be discussed: in threads discussing the ORIGIN OF LIFE.

As you say, it is irrelevant to threads discussing Evolution.

I have always wondered though, how could things that exist evolve from dirt and water

Gee, I thought the Bible made that pretty clear.

I don't recall any Scientific Hypothesis that mentions dirt and water.

a reply to: Ghost147

Life is the END PRODUCT of Abiogenesis. Life is the START PRODUCT of Evolution. The are related by the existence of life.

Yes, but be careful how far you go with this. Environmental conditions may cause changes in the way genes are expressed, and if that change affects the gonads it may be multi-generational. But it is still genetic, and when the environmental conditions return to 'normal' the epi-genetic change may be 'backed out'.

A change that is not effected by a change in the DNA (called epigenetic) is NOT a permanent species determining change.

Disclaimer: I am a looooonnnnnngggggggg way from being up on the work in epigenitics.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: rnaa

Populations do exhibit the change over time that is referred to as biologic evolution. When population A splits into population A1 and A2 the individuals within A1 and A2 will forever be able to breed within their own population. But A1 and A2 will evolve in different directions, and may over time become something entirely different say 'B' and 'C' which would be recognized by the fact that they can no longer breed successfully.

The first B can't breed with either As and is offspring of As.

You just can't seem to grasp that the way you are interpreting the data regarding biological evolution is flawed from the get go.. For some perspective, prior to 2 MA there was only one member of the Pan genus, Pan Troglodytes. They are more commonly referred to as Chimpanzees. They had a much wider habitat prior to 2 MA until the formation of the Congo River Basin. Chimpanzees are not good swimmers and this new and massive river geographically separated what RNAA would refer to above as group A.

What we then have are Chimpanzees on the North side of the river, A1 and Chimpanzees on the Southern side of the river or A2. Over the last 2 MA, A1 has had little change morphologically. A2 on the other hand, have noticeable Morphological differences as well as vastly different social customs. What used to be A2 is now, 2 MA after the fact, your B group who is now a distinct species of the same genus, Pan Paniscus.

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

originally posted by: luciferslight
You're right. 'Theory' of evolution, was never true. Most of the skulls were forgeries and many people never knew about the human zoos. I didn't know they existed but now looking back at the theory, it's only a theory.

This is utter twaddle.1 singular skull was forged over 100 years ago, the Piltdown Man skull. You know how the hoax was discovered? By Anthropologists engaging in due diligence and undertaking proper examination of the remains. It was cast under a cloud of doubt from its inception. Have you ever taken a Biology course let alone an Anthropology course? You are sorely misinformed on this.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Ghost147
Yes, but be careful how far you go with this. Environmental conditions may cause changes in the way genes are expressed, and if that change affects the gonads it may be multi-generational. But it is still genetic, and when the environmental conditions return to 'normal' the epi-genetic change may be 'backed out'.

I'm not denying it's genetic or that it gene expression can be turned on and off, I was just stating that the claim "an individual is exactly what it is from the moment of its birth, or hatching, or cell splitting, or whatever" isn't totally accurate