Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dimi95]

I did years ago.

Science doesn't even have a definition for "consciousness". How much more poor can it be?

Actually it has and it is not a sort of definition but it is awarness of what we know.
And we know that awarness exists within the genome and outside of it.
By that we can say that consciousness in this Reality is everything within and outside of the natural procceses.

That's a psychological assesment of the metaphysical.

Like really , your answers have become too short and meaningless and you know it.

When are you going to decide to make better questions?

Don't you see that those that have knowledge say things because they expect you to have understanding of them.

Not just any , but logical.
It will be good - for start, if you focus on the logical relationship between categorical statements.

 

[cladking]

Like really , your answers have become too short and you know it.

I'm sorry. I'm having some difficulty understanding your points so am responding pretty much only to what I'm confident in. What I do understand here either I can't agree or it seems to just be gainsaying what I stated. I've found that it's usually responding when someone just says "you're wrong". I don't know what you mean by "And we know that awarness exists within the genome". I suppose you mean what you define as "consciousness" arises from the specific genes of that genome. I don't think I disagree enough to comment. I'm not sure I disagree at all.

 

[Dimi95]

I'm sorry. I'm having some difficulty understanding your points so am responding pretty much only to what I'm confident in. What I do understand here either I can't agree or it seems to just be gainsaying what I stated. I've found that it's usually responding when someone just says "you're wrong". I don't know what you mean by "And we know that awarness exists within the genome". I suppose you mean what you define as "consciousness" arises from the specific genes of that genome. I don't think I disagree enough to comment. I'm not sure I disagree at all.

We know because we can explain in many different patterns.

Patterns exists within the genome.
We can see different patterns in different species.
We see traits that in the genome that connect species with species.
We know by the functions that different species have.
Today there are more then 3000 animal species with unique genome sequence.
At the same time we can see how they are different.
That would neccessitate you to study the procceses and you have to be knowledgable in applied science to do that.
You have to commit yourself to studying different fields that provide different aspects of evidence.
Evolution is not just Biology , it is more then that , it is probably the only term that covers all aspects or science.

Do you have any knowledge of quantum mechanics , quantum physics , molecular biology and maybe heard of creative sciences like molecular chemistry?
Do you check sometime what does the synthesis of molecules tells , and what does the study of the quantum realm also tells?

Do you think that you will find the answers in examples that include weird conclusions that include birds like Sparrows?

Each species have similar and different form of awarness or perception of what their senses tell them.

The Sparrow only knows that it is present.
His ways are different then ours , but yet in some way simular.
Again , i want to know if you are in for a proper discussion.
You wanted metaphysics , you got your metaphysic.

When you see what is there that you cannot see with a naked eye , then you will understand that Evolution is Science , and not just a theory.
It is only technically a theory.

The worst thing is that you think that it is a myth.
I have repeated myself many times and i will say to you one more time.
From all that i have studied in these fields and i think that i do a good job of studying.
This does not mean that i always make perfect conclusions.
Sometimes i am corrected , sometimes i am correct

Again , from all that i have observed gradual change happens in all aspects in the Reality that we live.
That's what the theories and the evidence within are telling.

And it's not that i am the only one to think like that.

All experiments that there are , or going to be made , go into deep water because of what the genome is telling us.

Nuclear genome sizes are well known to vary enormously.

The sizes are telling us that species are different and evolve in different ways.

One more time , i am suggesting you to ask better questions then pretending that you know not of what i am talking about.

Like , please , i want to discuss it , but it becomes annoying because of your uninteres to try to say ok - 'what more do you all have to say , so i can understand it better' instead of making your own assesments and make wuestions based on them and not of what is there.

There are trilions of fossils., and only 4 milion are being documented.
And they are not the strongest evidence.
The genome , the genome tells everything there is to be said.

 

[cladking]

The Sparrow only knows that it is present.
His ways are different then ours , but yet in some way simular.
Again , i want to know if you are in for a proper discussion.
You wanted metaphysics , you got your metaphysic.

I've seen signs of "intelligence" and consciousness in much lesser species than sparrows. I have little respect for English sparrows and that's mostly what I see here. I've not seen much intelligence in them but it would have been easy to miss. Unless you can actually quantify some aspect on the genome to "consciousness" or so9me pattern that can be defined as consciousness it is not metaphysics and not science. Perhaps you have enough experience to know better than this but then I still like numbers. i still want to see cold hard facts rather than generalities. I could provisionally accept your word that such correlation exists but not if this same correlation existed in humans. I don't believe that human awareness is of the same nature as other creatures for the simple reason we are obviously so different. Why can't we learn a little Chimpanzee so we instead have to teach them English? It's not logical to assume we are so smart but we can't learn their language. Animals are always trying to communicate with me. Perhaps because I can pick up a word or two once in a while. I bet I could teach any of them English faster than I can learn Squirrel or Toad. So far I've been trying to learn them a single word that translates something like "carry on" but only a few species seem to recognize it. Most still scamper.

Sure. If you can show a relationship between the genome and awareness I am interested. I fear most of it may be over my head though if it's based in science and math. Perhaps you can dumb it down for me.

When you see what is there that you cannot see with a naked eye , then you will understand that Evolution is Science

Of course it's science! But that doesn't mean either that it's correct or that most change in species is caused by "fitness" resulting in gradual change. Real science is based in experiment so can never be completely wrong.

Again , from all that i have observed gradual change happens in all aspects in the Reality that we live.

I believe it depends very much on your definition of "gradual". I do agree there is some gradual change in species and have never disputed this, ever. What I don't believe is that this is the chief cause of speciation. I believe it is rare for enough change to accumulate in any species to create a new one. Rather these larger changes are usually sudden caused by extreme stress on the species' niche and usually on its population as well. I am aware of very little evidence to the contrary. Of course I could be wrong, but it's improbable I'm wrong about everything because my hypotheses are based on experiment as well. And simple facts still exist such as termites do engage in agriculture and species are observed to change suddenly.


We don't know how to read the genome. I'm sure it can't be parsed and I'm sure you can't point to consciousness on it. Even something like how the brain unfolds in utero is unknown at this time I believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fitness is not the cause of evolution. It is the genome by environment interaction. The response to the environment by different genomes and the perpetuation of the population in the same or new direction from that response.

That someone claims that scientists and the science acceptors here are claiming that fitness causes evolution is a very strong indicator that the particular denier has not real grasp of the science and doesn't understand what is being explained. Further evidence to the claim that deniers don't really have a voice in a scientific discussion in my opinion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science is based on observations and the accumulation of data. The observations and data do not need to come from controlled experiments despite the many empty claims to that effect.

Thinking up stuff without any apparent understanding or vetting is not an experiment. It is a thought exercise. When conducted alone, in the dark, with bias and without any deep knowledge, learning, help or review, these musings can come to be real to some apparently and cast as fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Homo omniscience is not a valid taxon.

The current human species has been described and recognized for 250 years since the beginnings of taxonomy. The evidence indicates that Homo sapiens, our species, has existed for at least 300,000 years.

No one, I MEAN NO ONE, has supported any reason to consider that Homo sapiens was a different species in the past than it is today. No one, I MEAN NO ONE, has provided any evidence or reason to conclude that Homo sapiens went extinct at some time in the past and was replaced by another species of Homo currently claimed to be something called "omnisciensis".

Taxonomy is a science and descriptions of species are based on evidence, the study of the evidence and testing of hypotheses. It is not based on the internal, unvetted, baseless musings of deniers.

Edit: I would add that the only thing it demonstrates is the willingness of a person to make up taxonomic nomenclature on a whim and without reason or evidence while maintaining the contradictory claim of rejecting taxonomy. How unusual and unscientific.

 

[Dimi95]

I've seen signs of "intelligence" and consciousness in much lesser species than sparrows. I have little respect for English sparrows and that's mostly what I see here. I've not seen much intelligence in them but it would have been easy to miss. Unless you can actually quantify some aspect on the genome to "consciousness" or some pattern that can be defined as consciousness it is not metaphysics and not science.

So you don't think that the parasits in you somehow affect the genome?

"Parasites exist not only in the plant and animal kingdoms, they are also a part of us.
Our genome contains myriad short stretches of DNA that propagate at the genome's expense.
For this reason, these transposons, as they are called, are also referred to as parasitic DNA."

Genes as parasites

Parasites exist not only in the plant and animal kingdoms, they are also a part of us. Our genome contains myriad short stretches of DNA that propagate at the genome’s expense. For this reason, these transposons, as they are called, are also referred to as parasitic DNA. Oliver Weichenrieder...

www.mpg.de

Perhaps you have enough experience to know better than this but then I still like numbers.

Numbers like ?
Why do you expect numbers as conclusions?
This is not math.
Biologists explain evolution through all aspects of science.

You can see numbers in the fossil record.
There are trilion fossils , but few milion documented.
The difference is huge.
These they are being classified to present the order of life , not to deal with dating methods and fosills.
When one finds evidence of species that pre-date some clades , that does not make them false.
But it seems that here people think that means 'now i gotcha ya'.

There are just more variations and proof that diverse species coexisted through time.
5 billion is a pretty big number.

Some changed more then others.
Some needed more time then others.
Some not.
What do you know about classification of species?
Some here have already given goos examples , what's wrong with them?
I don't see that they are wrong..

i still want to see cold hard facts rather than generalities.

I told you to maybe try to find something about RNA viruses and see what they tell.
I am not trying to win a Noble prize here , but rather discussing and asking people what they know and what kind of conclusions can be made.

I could provisionally accept your word that such correlation exists but not if this same correlation existed in humans. I don't believe that human awareness is of the same nature as other creatures for the simple reason we are obviously so different.

How are we different , in what sense do you mean that?
The orign of our being?
Outer space is not an option.
That's how magic works.
With thinking that there are species there that are able to create life with technologies.
However the Moon that formed around Earth just may give extra explenations.
I think that Mars and the Moon should be visited again.
I would be the first to sign up for that.
No matter what the result is.
That much i am into science.

I just hate the design theories that are trying to say that this is a computer language in some way and some weird agent sits behind them.
Agent , schemes , design , intelligence.
I have faced these terms in different aspects of life , so they are wicked to me by nature.

Why can't we learn a little Chimpanzee so we instead have to teach them English? It's not logical to assume we are so smart but we can't learn their language. Animals are always trying to communicate with me.

Yes , my dog wakes up my sister every morning because she has the to do her needs.
However - when i go to visit my family home , the dog knows somehow that i am not to be disturbed in the morning.
I had to teach them on that.
Not with beating , but with training it.
They are very friendly if you take care of them and teach them how to behave.
They are like children.
But A Chimpanzee , you can't train a Chimpanzee to understand Physic.
When are you going to talk about human affairs and not those of monkeys and sparrows?

Perhaps because I can pick up a word or two once in a while. I bet I could teach any of them English faster than I can learn Squirrel or Toad. So far I've been trying to learn them a single word that translates something like "carry on" but only a few species seem to recognize it. Most still scamper.

Sure. If you can show a relationship between the genome and awareness I am interested. I fear most of it may be over my head though if it's based in science and math. Perhaps you can dumb it down for me.

RNA viruses and everything about them.
You have a large area of study in relevant science sources that actually share knowledge.

I don't use garbage.

It's not that i am the New Darwin , so you should not expect that i have all the answers.

I can tell only what has been studied from my side.

Of course it's science! But that doesn't mean either that it's correct or that most change in species is caused by "fitness" resulting in gradual change. Real science is based in experiment so can never be completely wrong.

Yeah , that's the thing about RNA viruses.
That all kind of experiments are done.
I started while ago on digging.
I work statistics and analytics , that's my job.
I am required to have knowledge in many fields.

Because it serves the most as an individual and for the colective.

I believe it depends very much on your definition of "gradual".

step-by-step with different species coexisting in different times that made life to be today as it is.
The diversity of species , the ways in which they are similar , but also the ways that make them different.
That different patterns are there , it tells enough that time affects this change.
The change that neccessitates species to evolve like that is long and slow.
Many things have to align so a new species can evolve.
That is why it is called gradual.
You are trying to make them relevant as individuals.
The evidence is clear , at least to me.
We live in a world full of bacteria and viruses.

I do agree there is some gradual change in species and have never disputed this, ever. What I don't believe is that this is the chief cause of speciation. I believe it is rare for enough change to accumulate in any species to create a new one. Rather these larger changes are usually sudden caused by extreme stress on the species' niche and usually on its population as well. I am aware of very little evidence to the contrary. Of course I could be wrong, but it's improbable I'm wrong about everything because my hypotheses are based on experiment as well. And simple facts still exist such as termites do engage in agriculture and species are observed to change suddenly.

They don't engage in agriculture.
At least they don't know , for sure.
Or , do you think that they live as 'slaves' to animal kind?

We don't know how to read the genome. I'm sure it can't be parsed and I'm sure you can't point to consciousness on it. Even something like how the brain unfolds in utero is unknown at this time I believe.

Then how do we that species differ , what do you think?

We can see by the procceses that different genome sequence of species show.
Different sorts of mathematical patterns.
And they code in that way.
Sometimes they code for proteins , sometime for genes.
You have never tried to read some specifics of the genome?

 

[Dimi95]

Fitness is not the cause of evolution. It is the genome by environment interaction. The response to the environment by different genomes and the perpetuation of the population in the same or new direction from that response.

This makes sense to me.
I always wanted to know more about the term and why is it so controversial to some.

When i started reading about Evolution i did not understand what were the issues with the term 'Fitness' since many misinterpreted what it actually represent.
I would 100 % agree that is the genome by enviourment interaction as you said.

It seems that you know much about terms and classifications in the field.

That someone claims that scientists and the science acceptors here are claiming that fitness causes evolution is a very strong indicator that the particular denier has not real grasp of the science and doesn't understand what is being explained. Further evidence to the claim that deniers don't really have a voice in a scientific discussion in my opinion.

I think that i will spend more time in studying Taxonomy after reading your answers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This makes sense to me.
I always wanted to know more about the term and why is it so controversial to some.

When i started reading about Evolution i did not understand what were the issues with the term 'Fitness' since many misinterpreted what it actually represent.
I would 100 % agree that is the genome by enviourment interaction as you said.

It seems that you know much about terms and classifications in the field.


I think that i will spend more time in studying Taxonomy after reading your answers.

I've had to apply my hand to species identification and taxonomy since my graduate days. I've even determined species new to my state based on this knowledge. Actual work that isn't the thought musings that others seem to use to make claims. I'm no expert, but I do try to keep up with this field of biology, among others.

The interaction of genes in and with the environment is clearly misunderstood by many deniers. Even within science, it is a concept with some difficulty of understanding. But the rejection of it would require more than just words and that is all deniers have on the subject.

I've presented this paper numerous times in the past and find it useful in understanding natural selection. When it was first published, someone here was kind enough to start a thread about it if I recall correctly. I also seem recall that thread seemed to have a dearth of denier presence as well. Another indication that deniers are not interested in learning anything or expanding their knowledge base beyond personal belief and rambling personal musings.

Edit: Having provided this information in the past, I have received little if any response or recognition of those attempts by deniers that continue to claim no evidence for the theory of evolution has ever been provided to them. You can draw your own conclusions, but mine are the obvious and rational ones that get mentioned here often without refute.

Barrett, R.D., Laurent, S., Mallarino, R., Pfeifer, S.P., Xu, C.C., Foll, M., Wakamatsu, K., Duke-Cohan, J.S., Jensen, J.D. and Hoekstra, H.E., 2019. Linking a mutation to survival in wild mice. Science, 363(6426), pp.499-504.

It is available online, but I'll include a link here.

https://hoekstra.oeb.harvard.edu/files/hoekstra/files/barrett2019sci.pdf

Abstract

Adaptive evolution in new or changing environments can be difficult to predict because the
functional connections between genotype, phenotype, and fitness are complex. Here, we make
these explicit connections by combining field and laboratory experiments in wild mice. We first
directly estimate natural selection on pigmentation traits and an underlying pigment locus,
Agouti, by using experimental enclosures of mice on different soil colors. Next, we show how a
mutation in Agouti associated with survival causes lighter coat color through changes in its
protein binding properties. Together, our findings demonstrate how a sequence variant alters
phenotype and then reveal the ensuing ecological consequences that drive changes in
population allele frequency, thereby illuminating the process of evolution by natural selection.

The authors were able to establish a connection between a mutation and the interaction of selection by the environment on that mutation resulting in a change in the allele frequency of the population. The evidence supporting the theory of evolution and natural selection that deniers continually claim does not exist and is false.

Edit: One of innumerable experiments supporting evolution that are continually claimed to not exist. I don't expect response of this from deniers based on past experience. But given the flaccid response to the Lenski experiment recently, if there is any, it will be more of that limp, baseless sort of flaccid denial.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is my conclusion, that among deniers, there is little understanding of the meaning of environment in the context of biology.

The environment is all the abiotic and biotic factors, both internal and external, that impact individuals within a population and the population as a whole. In many ways, it is similar to the definition for niche that I learned as a young student. An nth dimensional hypervolume.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The evidence supports that the planet I live on, the Earth, is a bit over 4.5 billion years old. There is evidence of living things existing on this planet as far back as 3.8 billion years ago, with living things beginning to flourish and diversify over half a billion years ago. In light of this history, the claim that history did not begin until 4,000 years ago is not only incorrect, but grandly ridiculous, immensely biased and very, very short-sighted.

Why would someone make a clearly ridiculous claim like that? Is it coming from a sense of the possession of a superior knowledge? A seeming view of personal omniscience? That is refuted by the lack of salient facts and the many flaws that the claim exists on.

Is it to establish some sort of personal authority? Again, that is refuted by the facts and that others provide falsifying the claim.

Is it done to maintain a failed position and maintain unwarranted attention? I think it is. It certainly seems that way given the dearth of actual knowledge of history and biology that such claims reveal and the failure to falsify theory with facts and reason. It seems to me to be another exercise in "keep the argument alive for any reason no matter how slim or ridiculous".

 

[Pogo]

Science is based on observations and the accumulation of data. The observations and data do not need to come from controlled experiments despite the many empty claims to that effect.

Thinking up stuff without any apparent understanding or vetting is not an experiment. It is a thought exercise. When conducted alone, in the dark, with bias and without any deep knowledge, learning, help or review, these musings can come to be real to some apparently and cast as fact.

I guess you could class it as an exercise, I have often heard it called mental masturbation.

 

[Dimi95]

I've had to apply my hand to species identification and taxonomy since my graduate days. I've even determined species new to my state based on this knowledge. Actual work that isn't the thought musings that others seem to use to make claims. I'm no expert, but I do try to keep up with this field of biology, among others.

The interaction of genes in and with the environment is clearly misunderstood by many deniers. Even within science, it is a concept with some difficulty of understanding. But the rejection of it would require more than just words and that is all deniers have on the subject.

I've presented this paper numerous times in the past and find it useful in understanding natural selection. When it was first published, someone here was kind enough to start a thread about it if I recall correctly. I also seem recall that thread seemed to have a dearth of denier presence as well. Another indication that deniers are not interested in learning anything or expanding their knowledge base beyond personal belief and rambling personal musings.

Edit: Having provided this information in the past, I have received little if any response or recognition of those attempts by deniers that continue to claim no evidence for the theory of evolution has ever been provided to them. You can draw your own conclusions, but mine are the obvious and rational ones that get mentioned here often without refute.

Barrett, R.D., Laurent, S., Mallarino, R., Pfeifer, S.P., Xu, C.C., Foll, M., Wakamatsu, K., Duke-Cohan, J.S., Jensen, J.D. and Hoekstra, H.E., 2019. Linking a mutation to survival in wild mice. Science, 363(6426), pp.499-504.

It is available online, but I'll include a link here.

https://hoekstra.oeb.harvard.edu/files/hoekstra/files/barrett2019sci.pdf

Abstract

Adaptive evolution in new or changing environments can be difficult to predict because the
functional connections between genotype, phenotype, and fitness are complex. Here, we make
these explicit connections by combining field and laboratory experiments in wild mice. We first
directly estimate natural selection on pigmentation traits and an underlying pigment locus,
Agouti, by using experimental enclosures of mice on different soil colors. Next, we show how a
mutation in Agouti associated with survival causes lighter coat color through changes in its
protein binding properties. Together, our findings demonstrate how a sequence variant alters
phenotype and then reveal the ensuing ecological consequences that drive changes in
population allele frequency, thereby illuminating the process of evolution by natural selection.

The authors were able to establish a connection between a mutation and the interaction of selection by the environment on that mutation resulting in a change in the allele frequency of the population. The evidence supporting the theory of evolution and natural selection that deniers continually claim does not exist and is false.

Edit: One of innumerable experiments supporting evolution that are continually claimed to not exist. I don't expect response of this from deniers based on past experience. But given the flaccid response to the Lenski experiment recently, if there is any, it will be more of that limp, baseless sort of flaccid denial.

Yeah , that is a clear as it gets.

I really don't find anything to argue with those who understand Evolution.

What really takes my atention since i discussed something about thermal venths.

The study of Evolution may potentially open other question within the universe.
It is very obvious and we see how much all fields of science have progressed with Evolution.
The way we understand it tells us how important it is in the discoveries of the Reality that we live in.

Evolution is studied within many fields and supported with all sorts of evidence.

When you once realize what it is and how strong is it, it is hard to reject it.
That is not about bias , but about honesty.

Claims are there to be maid , and to be tested with observations.

It seems that there is no way to build a bridge in this discussion like in the last pages.

No counter-arguments , just poor answers even when you question their metaphysics.

These answers are comming in thisbform because it is very clear that many reject the evident.

Abiogenesis is certainly open for studying , but about Evolution - clear as it gets.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you don't think that the parasits in you somehow affect the genome?

"Parasites exist not only in the plant and animal kingdoms, they are also a part of us.
Our genome contains myriad short stretches of DNA that propagate at the genome's expense.
For this reason, these transposons, as they are called, are also referred to as parasitic DNA."

Genes as parasites

Parasites exist not only in the plant and animal kingdoms, they are also a part of us. Our genome contains myriad short stretches of DNA that propagate at the genome’s expense. For this reason, these transposons, as they are called, are also referred to as parasitic DNA. Oliver Weichenrieder...

www.mpg.de

Numbers like ?
Why do you expect numbers as conclusions?
This is not math.
Biologists explain evolution through all aspects of science.

You can see numbers in the fossil record.
There are trilion fossils , but few milion documented.
The difference is huge.
These they are being classified to present the order of life , not to deal with dating methods and fosills.
When one finds evidence of species that pre-date some clades , that does not make them false.
But it seems that here people think that means 'now i gotcha ya'.

There are just more variations and proof that diverse species coexisted through time.
5 billion is a pretty big number.

Some changed more then others.
Some needed more time then others.
Some not.
What do you know about classification of species?
Some here have already given goos examples , what's wrong with them?
I don't see that they are wrong..


I told you to maybe try to find something about RNA viruses and see what they tell.
I am not trying to win a Noble prize here , but rather discussing and asking people what they know and what kind of conclusions can be made.



How are we different , in what sense do you mean that?
The orign of our being?
Outer space is not an option.
That's how magic works.
With thinking that there are species there that are able to create life with technologies.
However the Moon that formed around Earth just may give extra explenations.
I think that Mars and the Moon should be visited again.
I would be the first to sign up for that.
No matter what the result is.
That much i am into science.

I just hate the design theories that are trying to say that this is a computer language in some way and some weird agent sits behind them.
Agent , schemes , design , intelligence.
I have faced these terms in different aspects of life , so they are wicked to me by nature.


Yes , my dog wakes up my sister every morning because she has the to do her needs.
However - when i go to visit my family home , the dog knows somehow that i am not to be disturbed in the morning.
I had to teach them on that.
Not with beating , but with training it.
They are very friendly if you take care of them and teach them how to behave.
They are like children.
But A Chimpanzee , you can't train a Chimpanzee to understand Physic.
When are you going to talk about human affairs and not those of monkeys and sparrows?


RNA viruses and everything about them.
You have a large area of study in relevant science sources that actually share knowledge.

I don't use garbage.

It's not that i am the New Darwin , so you should not expect that i have all the answers.

I can tell only what has been studied from my side.


Yeah , that's the thing about RNA viruses.
That all kind of experiments are done.
I started while ago on digging.
I work statistics and analytics , that's my job.
I am required to have knowledge in many fields.

Because it serves the most as an individual and for the colective.


step-by-step with different species coexisting in different times that made life to be today as it is.
The diversity of species , the ways in which they are similar , but also the ways that make them different.
That different patterns are there , it tells enough that time affects this change.
The change that neccessitates species to evolve like that is long and slow.
Many things have to align so a new species can evolve.
That is why it is called gradual.
You are trying to make them relevant as individuals.
The evidence is clear , at least to me.
We live in a world full of bacteria and viruses.



They don't engage in agriculture.
At least they don't know , for sure.
Or , do you think that they live as 'slaves' to animal kind?


Then how do we that species differ , what do you think?

We can see by the procceses that different genome sequence of species show.
Different sorts of mathematical patterns.
And they code in that way.
Sometimes they code for proteins , sometime for genes.
You have never tried to read some specifics of the genome?

Clearly, the fact that these claims you are responding arise from an admitted ignorance of the evidence and the unsupported claim that speciation is "sudden" where sudden has no agreed meaning and some alternative meaning is used is evidence enough to disregard them as the rejection of a baseless personal belief.

That sudden is rendered more ambiguous, offering less data seems to be done to squeeze empty claims through the bottleneck of scrutiny.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I guess you could class it as an exercise, I have often heard it called mental masturbation.

It all amounts to the same when a person considers it a sound basis for conclusions and cannot offer any other reason to do so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah , that is a clear as it gets.

I really don't find anything to argue with those who understand Evolution.

What really takes my atention since i discussed something about thermal venths.

The study of Evolution may potentially open other question within the universe.
It is very obvious and we see how much all fields of science have progressed with Evolution.
The way we understand it tells us how important it is in the discoveries of the Reality that we live in.

Evolution is studied within many fields and supported with all sorts of evidence.

When you once realize what it is and how strong is it, it is hard to reject it.
That is not about bias , but about honesty.

Claims are there to be maid , and to be tested with observations.

It seems that there is no way to build a bridge in this discussion like in the last pages.

No counter-arguments , just poor answers even when you question their metaphysics.

These answers are comming in thisbform because it is very clear that many reject the evident.

Abiogenesis is certainly open for studying , but about Evolution - clear as it gets.

I get what you are saying, but the way I look at it is that we don't "know" and there is much to learn. It remains contingent. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the evidence and new evidence continues to support the theory. But that does not mean we don't know a lot or that what is known, however incomplete, is wrong and any random belief must be raised up as a valid replacement.

Definitely, the counter arguments are either rationally flawed, without the support of any evidence or sound review of evidence or non-existent. Though, as many are aware, often repeated in heavy rotation when they are offered and despite the failures.

I don't even accept the claims that some are metaphysicians and scientists and have performed experiments.

For instance, a recent claim was that the reduction in insects being hit by cars that has been observed is the result of adults teaching offspring to avoid cars. Or conversely, the offspring learn to avoid cars from some unspecified source.

Given that adult insects and juvenile insects often possess different forms and live in different spaces, with the offspring in places where cars and highways are not, I'm not sure how such learning is alleged to take place. Certainly, no hypotheses were offered. It was just posted as "revealed truth" from a seemingly considered "all knowing source". To me, this claim revealed more ignorance than any useful insight. Further reason in my mind to discount the source as having any substantial position in the discussions.

The refusal to learn and adjust or throw out a position seems to be the biggest impediment to discussion that I encounter on threads like this.

One example that is often repeated despite all that has been made available here is that a person cannot see any reason to accept the theory and makes repeated threads asking for it to be explained and receiving those explanations from numerous participants. The rejection is and has been clearly and easily shown in every instance to be an argument from ignorance. I don't know, so it couldn't be. But others do know and have beaten themselves up trying to show someone that has no interest in seeing.

Another set of posts on here and other threads has been to assert reference to such unknown things as "Ancient Science", "Ancient Language", a seeming conspiracy of a mysterious group referred to as "Peers" and a claim of knowledge of the brains of ancient humans. Offered as if known fact, but never with any evidence to provide reason to consider it more than personal musings and part of some sort of syncretic belief system. If a person wishes that to be their belief system, I'm fine with that, but don't offer it as fact and then play semantic acrobatics, logical fallacies and diversion when asked to support the assertions. That is all that results unfortunately. So, yes, I agree that debate and discussion here to have any meaning arises in the corrections to the claims and the interaction with others that are actually knowledgeable in science and the biology in question.

Deniers don't seem to realize it, but they are responsible for their content here and providing it clearly so others can understand what they are trying to say. They are responsible for removing themselves from the board in my view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah , that is a clear as it gets.

I really don't find anything to argue with those who understand Evolution.

What really takes my atention since i discussed something about thermal venths.

The study of Evolution may potentially open other question within the universe.
It is very obvious and we see how much all fields of science have progressed with Evolution.
The way we understand it tells us how important it is in the discoveries of the Reality that we live in.

Evolution is studied within many fields and supported with all sorts of evidence.

When you once realize what it is and how strong is it, it is hard to reject it.
That is not about bias , but about honesty.

Claims are there to be maid , and to be tested with observations.

It seems that there is no way to build a bridge in this discussion like in the last pages.

No counter-arguments , just poor answers even when you question their metaphysics.

These answers are comming in thisbform because it is very clear that many reject the evident.

Abiogenesis is certainly open for studying , but about Evolution - clear as it gets.

I find responses like "sigh" and NO!!! and "I'm sure" to indicate the existence of knowledge of the subjects those editorial comments are offered to as a response. However, what the evidence indicates is that nothing is ever offered to support that indication. In fact, what is offered often undermines the indication.

You may also have noticed that many of us have pointed out a steady flow of contradictory claims and positions often asserted in the same sentence or paragraph or arrived at in closing statements of the same post. All from those denying support of what is known in science. Why I find interesting is how this can occur while bypassing any personal scrutiny or rational review by the person or persons doing this.

It is fascinating to me to see someone shoot down their own claim and not seem to be able to recognize what they have done by their own hand. It makes me wonder what is really going on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah , that is a clear as it gets.

I really don't find anything to argue with those who understand Evolution.

What really takes my atention since i discussed something about thermal venths.

The study of Evolution may potentially open other question within the universe.
It is very obvious and we see how much all fields of science have progressed with Evolution.
The way we understand it tells us how important it is in the discoveries of the Reality that we live in.

Evolution is studied within many fields and supported with all sorts of evidence.

When you once realize what it is and how strong is it, it is hard to reject it.
That is not about bias , but about honesty.

Claims are there to be maid , and to be tested with observations.

It seems that there is no way to build a bridge in this discussion like in the last pages.

No counter-arguments , just poor answers even when you question their metaphysics.

These answers are comming in thisbform because it is very clear that many reject the evident.

Abiogenesis is certainly open for studying , but about Evolution - clear as it gets.

Both of these remain open for study, but we know far more about evolution than we do about the origin of life.

One thing you may notice is the continual effort to conflate the two by deniers in an effort to reject both. It seems that if one is more unknown, then it must drag the other down into the abyss as well. And by default whatever belief the particular denier holds is elevated to the "answer" by default. I personally call that the "default paradigm".

The interesting thing is that evolution is taking place according to all the evidence and it does not appear to make any difference how living things in which it is occurring happened to come about. Evolution seems to occur simply due to the existence of variation, selective reproduction and time. There is no indication that evolution would not take place in the presence of divine creation or that any origin of life would not come to result in it changing over time. Some interpretations of the Bible have tried to incorporate the facts of evolution into into interpretation. Baseless in the attempt by the evidence, but recognition that some believers are seeing the light.

 

[Dimi95]

Some interpretations of the Bible have tried to incorporate the facts of evolution into into interpretation. Baseless, but recognition that some believers are seeing the light.

Yeah for sure.
It is all about how that which is within it serves you.
People should not serve any books.
I mean , who knows whobwas Adam.

What we know are 'gossips'.
That is why they are classified as such.
I have trying to explain that here in different ways , but it is useless.
It is just a separate discussion , and it does not have place here in these fields of discussion.

At least i think so.