Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dimi95]

Except cladking is right.

Two wrongs don't make a right

 

[McBell]

Two wrongs don't make a right

three lefts do...

 

[cladking]

I find this desire not to learn very strange.

Again.

I believe Darwin was wrong because he had false assumptions. I simply don't agree with the conclusions. In other words what you want me to learn is wrong. Rather than tell me what's what you need to tell me where I'm wrong. If you can't tell me where I'm wrong then maybe you are wrong. I'm surprised nobody ever comments on things like my defining breeding as the imposition of an artificial bottleneck! I don't need my words defined for me; I need to be told what's wrong in my thinking. Gainsaying it or lecturing about what you believe are irrelevant to my argument.

Ever notice how people almost never change their minds. Everybody has their minds made up. Homo circularis rationatio.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again.

I believe Darwin was wrong because he had false assumptions.

And yet, you cannot show them to be false. You cannot even show the assumptions Darwin used in formulating the theory. This is a well-established fact in these discussions that crosses several threads.

I simply don't agree with the conclusions.

I don't care. Your agreement isn't necessary and the lack of it doesn't invalidate sound science.

In other words what you want me to learn is wrong.

In other words, what you want to learn is wrong. If you want to be wrong, go for it. But others are not so interested in learning incorrect things and will correct you if you persist in preaching what you believe and calling it fact.

Rather than tell me what's what you need to tell me where I'm wrong.

It is your duty and responsibility to demonstrate your own claims. It is not mine or that of anyone else. This sort of constant retreat to logical fallacies should be something you stop turning to and simply discard.

If you can't tell me where I'm wrong then maybe you are wrong.

I've told you where you are wrong. Others have. Many others . Many times. Don't blame me or them for your faults, mistakes and flaws.

I'm surprised nobody ever comments on things like my defining breeding as the imposition of an artificial bottleneck!

Are you freaking serious? Correcting you on that has become a hobby of mine. This is just you redefining bottleneck once again to mean selection. You must really hate that others understand words for you to constantly and secretly change the definitions.

A bottleneck is the radical reduction in numbers of a population that is often accompanied by an equal reduction in the genetic diversity of that population.

Breeding, artificial or natural, doesn't reduce the population at all and combines diversity and adds to it while leaving the prior diversity intact.

You misapply the term and improperly use it to describe something already described. Re-invention that just creates confusion and further inhibits your own ability to learn and understand. Not to mention confusing others and perpetuating bull****.

I don't need my words defined for me;

I disagree. I think you need to learn what the definitions of the words you use are and to start using them. You seem to purposefully want to break communication down. I think it is a fear response, because others would realize you don't **** about this science.

I need to be told what's wrong in my thinking.

You need to learn how to listen to others and read actual science. Stop making it up, falling in love with your own baseless conjecture and elevating it to fact for no reason.

Gainsaying it or lecturing about what you believe are irrelevant to my argument.

Your arguments are irrelevant. Not pointing that out would be rude and would allow the continually growing body of human knowledge to be contaminated with nonsense.

Ever notice how people almost never change their minds.

I don't expect you to change yours. But I've seen rational people do it. I've done it.

Everybody has their minds made up. Homo circularis rationatio.

Not a real species. Not recognized as a taxon. Another that you seem to have made up, but can't bear to admit to that or find some more useful way to express yourself.

Personally, I find the idea that one would willy nilly make up a taxonomy for personal reasons to be offensive to science and the work of 1000's of taxonomists over the last 250 years. As if all that effort to better understand the relationships between living things is simply making it up without reason. What a slap in the face from someone that hasn't demonstrated they have the chops to even understand taxonomy.

No. I don't expect you to learn or change your view by coming to understand. But I think you should if you are honestly interested in this material. It takes work. It takes study. You have to ask questions. You don't just accept empty claims by those that refuse to support them.

Sadly, I think you believe you are omniscient and know everything. That is not a position that comes to learn, realize or re-evaluate.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do all individuals in a population reproduce?

I don't think so...females might reproduce, males make it possible for them to "reproduce, "

Do all individuals in a population reproduce the same numbers of offspring. Does the environment impact individuals in the population? Do all individuals in a population respond to their environments in the exact same way?

For example, if a portion of the human population is more susceptible to mumps, do they have a greater, a reduced or the same chance of reproducing than the remainder of the population that is less susceptible to the disease? Are there going to be as many offspring in a population from the susceptible phenotype undergoing mumps selection in subsequent generations?

Compare and contrast this to artificial selection where only those with a particular trait of interest are selected to reproduce. Here, humans assume the roll of nature in selection.

"From a purely biological standpoint, the existence of the male sex is kind of perplexing: When it's time to create a new generation, the males of a species often contribute nothing but genetic material to the mix.

"Almost all multicellular species on earth reproduce using sex, but its existence isn't easy to explain because sex carries big burdens, the most obvious of which is that only half of your offspring -- daughters -- will actually produce offspring," lead author and UEA professor Matt Gage said in a statement. "

From the Washington Post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course it is. For example, imagine if every human who ever lived was alive today. We already have roughly 7 billion on Earth today, so imagine if we had to add all humans who ever lived.

I understand your reasoning. However there are many areas not inhabited. We simply don't know everything about the future. Yet the lamb will dwell with the lion. Notice Isaiah chapter 11:6-8. "And the wolf will actually reside for a while with the male lamb, and with the kid the leopard itself will lie down, and the calf and the maned young lion and the well-fed animal all together; and a mere little boy will be leader over them. And the cow and the bear themselves will feed; together their young ones will lie down. And even the lion will eat straw just like the bull. And the sucking child will certainly play upon the hole of the cobra; and upon the light aperture of a poisonous snake will a weaned child actually put his own hand.” A wonderful promise for the future. I am sure God will enable that. As well as provide enough space for all.

 

[cladking]

This is just you redefining bottleneck once again to mean selection.

Like everybody you are simply stuck into one way of interpreting evidence. How is preventing every animal in the world from mating except those with a desired characteristic different than the survivors of a bottleneck with a common characteristic mating?

There is no difference whatsoever. You are merely fixated on a single interpretation that fits your beliefs in Darwin, Evolution, and the certainty of science.

While I answer every single challenge you will ignore this post and talk about how Darwin had no assumption; he was literally the only human being in history to have no assumptions in your book.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Like everybody you are simply stuck into one way of interpreting evidence.

Of course, it is never your ignorance and lack of understanding here.

How is preventing every animal in the world from mating except those with a desired characteristic different than the survivors of a bottleneck with a common characteristic mating?

It isn't a bottleneck. I've explained that. You just don't understand and aren't interested in finding out the facts. And animals are naturally prevented from mating with the majority of the other members of their species. Still not a bottleneck.

Listen, you know the correct definition for bottleneck in the context of this discussion. You've been supplied with the correct definition often enough. I think you purposely do this secret redefinition thing to create confusion and make yourself look more knowledgeable where you are not.

We'll just have to add artificial breeding to the ever growing list of things you don't understand and seem to want to twist in some irrational way to no useful end.

There is no difference whatsoever.

There is a big difference. The two conditions are not the same.

A bottleneck is a radical reduction in the numbers of a population often associated with a reduction in population genetic variation. The species is not different before, during and after the bottleneck event. It is the result of natural disaster impacting the population.

Breeding doesn't reduce the population. It doesn't reduce genetic variation and can increase it. It increases the numbers of the population.

The only difference applied to artificial breeding is the reduction and limitation of potential mates. But it is an artificial condition. Unless you are going to claim that humans are responsible for breeding millions of different species throughout the history of this planet.

You are merely fixated on a single interpretation that fits your beliefs in Darwin, Evolution, and the certainty of science.

You are merely fixated on disregarding existing knowledge and evidence and elevating your favorite, personal, contrived story to fact for no good reason. It fits with what you've been doing since I met you.

While I answer every single challenge

Not at all. That is blowing smoke up my butt from all the evidence that contradicts you. Save the trash talk for creationists.

you will ignore this post

Obviously not. As I have not ignored the majority of your posts. While you have consistently ignored the majority of mine. You do know this forum can be searched right and that there are other people here that see you ignoring them and theirs as well. I've read that this is a major complaint against you on other internet forums. I believe the common comment was "runs away".

and talk about how Darwin had no assumption;

Now you are making things up that I never. You don't seem to know what Darwin's assumptions were and can't demonstrate what was flawed about them. It is pretty clear. Now you are resorting misrepresentation of what I've said. How sad.

he was literally the only human being in history to have no assumptions in your book.

What are you talking about? Are you having some sort of episode? Unlike you, I've listed them. Several times. Like many posts that set you straight, you just ran from them.

You are the only person on this forum that claims Darwin's assumptions were wrong and can't list them or explain why they are all wrong. That is truly sad in my view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Like everybody you are simply stuck into one way of interpreting evidence. How is preventing every animal in the world from mating except those with a desired characteristic different than the survivors of a bottleneck with a common characteristic mating?

There is no difference whatsoever. You are merely fixated on a single interpretation that fits your beliefs in Darwin, Evolution, and the certainty of science.

While I answer every single challenge you will ignore this post and talk about how Darwin had no assumption; he was literally the only human being in history to have no assumptions in your book.

And lurking too. Hi.

 

[YoursTrue]

.do you think the cell is the most basic form of life?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes and no. It would be more accurate to say that everything that exists or has ever existed causes a hurricane

0k you have me laughing there...

. The proximate reason is rising air but the simple fact is that if Napoleon had won at Waterloo the hurricane wouldn't exist at all. Either a different one would be near or there would be none. you can't step into the same river twice. Everything is dependent on initial conditions and everything that exists.

Hmm...

 

[John53]

.do you think the cell is the most basic form of life?

I don't think you want an answer but here goes. Cell block H is pretty basic, even Chopper Read had a hard time in there.

 

[YoursTrue]

Said Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winning chemist: “All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” (Christian Science Monitor, 1/4/62

 

[YoursTrue]

This Evolutionist Has a Puzzling View on Hamas | Evolution News

The moral atrocity committed by Hamas seems not to have diminished Professor Coyne’s passion for atheism, determinism, and free will denial.

evolutionnews.org

Ain't that interesting...

 

[John53]

Said Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winning chemist: “All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” (Christian Science Monitor, 1/4/62

Dr. Harold Urey doesn't speak for everyone. Even though I agree with him on this... it's hard to imagine. Just like trying to imagine the trillions and trillions of objects in the universe.

However I don't presume to speak for anyone but myself.

 

[McBell]

Said Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winning chemist: “All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.” (Christian Science Monitor, 1/4/62

“How life formed on Earth is indeed one of the great (some say the greatest) scientific mysteries, a problem perhaps even more important than the mystery of how common life is in the universe (indeed, the latter question is an offshoot of the first). There are current two schools of thought concerning this origin of life problem. First, some deity did it. That one cannot be disproved with science, so has no further place in our story here. Second, life formed on Earth (or was transported here, but this just begs the question of where and how it first formed) through some chemical pathway within a specific environment at a specific time. This view has much scientific information to support it.” (Peter Ward, Life as We Do Not Know It, page xxiv (Viking Press, 2005).)

 

[John53]

This Evolutionist Has a Puzzling View on Hamas | Evolution News

The moral atrocity committed by Hamas seems not to have diminished Professor Coyne’s passion for atheism, determinism, and free will denial.

evolutionnews.org

Ain't that interesting...

The moral atrocities committed by Hamas and the IDF push me further from religious indoctrination.

 

[YoursTrue]

And gnite to all.. considering "Asked by CBS News what he would advise a Catholic voter forced to choose between a candidate who backs abortion rights and one who has said he would have 11 million migrants deported, the pope said: "They are both against life — the one who throws away migrants and the one who kills children." Oops oops...one who throws away migrants and one who kills children...

 

[McBell]

And gnite to all.. considering "Asked by CBS News what he would advise a Catholic voter forced to choose between a candidate who backs abortion rights and one who has said he would have 11 million migrants deported, the pope said: "They are both against life — the one who throws away migrants and the one who kills children." Oops oops...one who throws away migrants and one who kills children...

Does this mean the Catholics are standing down this election?

 

[shunyadragon]

Do scientists proclaim which fish species started the journey from fish to land dwellers?

First in the period when the first fish/amphibians had the capability walking on the shallow coastal sea floor and had capabilities of gill breathing and primitive lungs there were at least several candidates.

The earliest species before amphibians related to lobe-fined fish: 29.3A: Characteristics and Evolution of Amphibians.

One of the earliest known tetrapods is from the genus Acanthostega. Acanthostega was aquatic; fossils show that it had gills similar to fishes. However, it also had four limbs, with the skeletal structure of limbs found in present-day tetrapods, including amphibians.

Read more in the above reference.

Earliest fish with amphibian attributes - Google Search

The earliest fish with amphibian attributes were lobe-finned fish, which evolved into amphibians around 370 million years ago. These fish had leg-like fins with digits that allowed them to crawl along the sea floor.


Some characteristics of lobe-finned fish include:

• Lungs
  They had lungs that allowed them to breathe air. These lungs evolved from modified swim bladders.
• Appendages
  They had appendages with internal skeletal support that extended beyond their trunk muscles.
• Fins
  They had four fleshy fins that were supported by bones, similar to the structure of a tetrapod's hand.
  
  

The three groups of lobe-finned fish that are relevant to the evolution of amphibians are coelacanths, lung-fish, and panderichtyids. The panderichtyids are the ancestors of amphibians, but they are now extinct. Coelacanths and lung-fish are still living relatives of the panderichtyids, and can provide clues about the biology of the ancestors of amphibians.