Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[shunyadragon]

Did you read the article? To recap re: morality and evolution, "there is now enough evidence to suggest that Darwin is broadly vindicated." The Enduring Relevance of Darwin's Theory of Morality

Yes, I read the article. It is Creationist anti-science trach. The philosophy of Charles Darwin is no longer relevant to the sciences of evolution today.

Darwin heed not be vindicated. There is no enduring relevance of Darwin's Theory of Morality, What is relevant is Charles Darwin first proposed the Theory of Evolution based on research and physical evidence.. The sciences of evolution have advanced far beyond Charles Darwin's research to demonstrate beyond any doubt.

Do you believe in enduring relevance Darwin's Theory of Evolution?

The bottom line is do you accept the enduring relevance of the contemporary Sciences of Evolution as representing the history of life on earth including humans?

Answer this basic question.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. This is one reason people believe they already have all the answers. Another reason they quit investigating is that they science has all the answers.

I'm not aware of a single scientist (you know.... the people actually doing the investigating) who thinks science has all the answers...

It's not God or a belief in "God" that makes people lazy, it's finding the answers.

Or rather, pretending to have the answers.

Finding the answers is very easy to do because we all reason in circles. We all of necessity circle all the way back to our assumptions. It is our nature. Nothing except experiment can break this savage cycle. Unfortunately breaking the cycle merely leads us tangentially to a brand new cycle in which we are stuck.

Uhu.

Try reformulating that into something that makes sense.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes. This is one reason people believe they already have all the answers. Another reason they quit investigating is that they science has all the answers. It's not God or a belief in "God" that makes people lazy, it's finding the answers.

Finding the answers is very easy to do because we all reason in circles. We all of necessity circle all the way back to our assumptions. It is our nature. Nothing except experiment can break this savage cycle. Unfortunately breaking the cycle merely leads us tangentially to a brand new cycle in which we are stuck.

You need to provide references to support your intentional ignorance notion that scientists claim to have all the answers. Yes, many religions and their conflicting divisions do make this claim. It is apparent from the content of your posts you claim to know more about science then 95%+ of the scientists in the world in your rejection of the sciences of evolution.
.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is. This in that article is a strong opinion about atheists and "moral law":

After all ...they don't really mind.

Again . . . anti-science Creationist articles do not reflect the current sciences of evolution.

Yes this article has a strong "opinion" and smell of day old road kill in summer.

 

[cladking]

Or rather, pretending to have the answers.

This smacks of scientism right here. You have no means of knowing who is pretending to have answers unless you already have them. You have no means of knowing God didn't do it unless you already know Darwin did.

Our words always point to our beliefs. You believe in Evolution and I do not. I believe species change and Darwin was wrong.

 

[cladking]

I'm not aware of a single scientist (you know.... the people actually doing the investigating) who thinks science has all the answers...




Or rather, pretending to have the answers.


Uhu.

Try reformulating that into something that makes sense.

Did you miss this?

"The removal of individuals and their offspring is effectively the same thing as the rest of the species dying off."

If you had caught it I believe you'd have seen agriculture and breeding supports my theory rather than yours.

 

[Betho_br]

I don't know about the answer to OP, but I'm pretty sure that DNA has a death date for each specific species. The date has come, the entire species becomes extinct.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't know about the answer to OP, but I'm pretty sure that DNA has a death date for each specific species. The date has come, the entire species becomes extinct.

This is not true. I smell intentional ignorance road kill here concerning science.

It is best to educate yourself concerning the sciences of evolution and intelligently answer the question in the OP.

 

[shunyadragon]

Did you miss this?

"The removal of individuals and their offspring is effectively the same thing as the rest of the species dying off."

Odd incoherent statement.

If you had caught it I believe you'd have seen agriculture and breeding supports my theory rather than yours.

No. You do not have a legitimate theory based on science.

 

[Betho_br]

This is not true. I smell intentional ignorance road kill here concerning science.

It is best to educate yourself concerning the sciences of evolution and intelligently answer the question in the OP.

The comet theory posits that the catastrophic impact of a comet or asteroid caused large-scale fires, resulting in the destruction of forests and consequently the extinction of terrestrial dinosaurs due to the loss of habitat and food resources. However, this explanation does not adequately address the fate of aquatic dinosaurs, whose extinction remains a significant enigma. These organisms, adapted to aquatic environments, would not have been directly affected by the forest fires induced by the impact. Therefore, it is necessary to explore other hypotheses! I proposed mine, as a hypothesis is still one of the steps of science. You were very rude to me.

 

[MelancholicPotatoChip]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

Where is Forrest Valkai when you need him.. lol

 

[shunyadragon]

The comet theory posits that the catastrophic impact of a comet or asteroid caused large-scale fires, resulting in the destruction of forests and consequently the extinction of terrestrial dinosaurs due to the loss of habitat and food resources. However, this explanation does not adequately address the fate of aquatic dinosaurs, whose extinction remains a significant enigma. These organisms, adapted to aquatic environments, would not have been directly affected by the forest fires induced by the impact. Therefore, it is necessary to explore other hypotheses! I proposed mine, as a hypothesis is still one of the steps of science. You were very rude to me.

Not true, It is not a "Comet Theory," it is a well documented geologic event. The catastrophic impact did have catastrophic impacts on the oceans as well as on land. It is all the large animals and many plants that perished in the land and seas. Nonetheless smaller more adaptable species indeed did survive. Some larger species even one pine tree found in Australia survive the extinction event.

'Dinosaur trees' from Australia begin new life in UK | Botanic Gardens Conservation International

Botanist James Wong joins Forestry England at Bedgebury National Pinetum and Forest in Kent today to help plant six critically endangered Wollemi Pine trees - the first global 'metacollection' to save the iconic species from extinction.

www.bgci.org

Wollemi pines have been dubbed the ‘dinosaur tree’ because fossil records show they were living 200 million years ago alongside the dinosaurs. It was thought they had become extinct between 70 and 90 million years ago until a chance discovery in 1994, when a small group of living trees was found by an Australian explorer and botanist, David Noble, growing in a remote gorge in the Wollemi National Park in New South Wales. This moment is considered one of the greatest botanical discoveries of our time. The tree species is now classified as critically endangered on the IUCN’s red list, an important indicator of the world’s biodiversity which sets out the risks of extinction for plant and animal species.

Since its discovery, there has been a concerted effort to insure the species against the loss of the remaining wild trees, with fewer than 100 left growing in a gorge 150 kilometres from Sydney. These wild trees are increasingly vulnerable to threats from diseases and wildfires and narrowly escaped being destroyed by wildfires in 2019-2020 which burnt more than 10 million hectares of land in eastern Australia.

Actually, dinosaurs and other large animals did survive longer in the Antarctic region, but eventually did become extinct to the eventual world wide environmental change.

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

Firs, this has been addressed a number of times in the past. You fundamentally reject the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis, therefore your repeated questions are not meaningful. Repeating the current scientific research and knowledge over and over and over again is not productive of those that are intentionally ignorant of science based on an ancient religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Mustta dis and mustta dat is about all there is in studying what else is there or what is.

You also need some serious help in English. Maybe a speech therapist will help.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where is Forrest Valkai when you need him.. lol

He is still around, but many intentionally ignore him.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not true, It is not a "Comet Theory," it is a well documented geologic event. The catastrophic impact did have catastrophic impacts on the oceans as well as on land. It is all the large animals and many plants that perished in the land and seas. Nonetheless smaller more adaptable species indeed did survive. Some larger species even one pine tree found in Australia survive the extinction event.

'Dinosaur trees' from Australia begin new life in UK | Botanic Gardens Conservation International

Botanist James Wong joins Forestry England at Bedgebury National Pinetum and Forest in Kent today to help plant six critically endangered Wollemi Pine trees - the first global 'metacollection' to save the iconic species from extinction.

www.bgci.org

Wollemi pines have been dubbed the ‘dinosaur tree’ because fossil records show they were living 200 million years ago alongside the dinosaurs. It was thought they had become extinct between 70 and 90 million years ago until a chance discovery in 1994, when a small group of living trees was found by an Australian explorer and botanist, David Noble, growing in a remote gorge in the Wollemi National Park in New South Wales. This moment is considered one of the greatest botanical discoveries of our time. The tree species is now classified as critically endangered on the IUCN’s red list, an important indicator of the world’s biodiversity which sets out the risks of extinction for plant and animal species.

Since its discovery, there has been a concerted effort to insure the species against the loss of the remaining wild trees, with fewer than 100 left growing in a gorge 150 kilometres from Sydney. These wild trees are increasingly vulnerable to threats from diseases and wildfires and narrowly escaped being destroyed by wildfires in 2019-2020 which burnt more than 10 million hectares of land in eastern Australia.

Actually, dinosaurs and other large animals did survive longer in the Antarctic region, but eventually did become extinct to the eventual world wide environmental change.

Firs, this has been addressed a number of times in the past. You fundamentally reject the sciences of evolution and abiogenesis, therefore your repeated questions are not meaningful. Repeating the current scientific research and knowledge over and over and over again is not productive of those that are intentionally ignorant of science based on an ancient religious agenda.

Etc and etc and more etc

 

[YoursTrue]

You also need some serious help in English. Maybe a speech therapist will help.

Datsa da best you ken anser huh

 

[YoursTrue]

No

No

No

No, the above has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

Sure it does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This smacks of scientism right here.

Lol

You have no means of knowing who is pretending to have answers unless you already have them.

Not at all. Detecting someone who's just pretending doesn't require me having any answers at all. It's as easy as reviewing their own justifications and their lack of demonstrability.

You have no means of knowing God didn't do it unless you already know Darwin did.

Another one who doesn't understand the difference between not accepting a claim and making the opposite claim...

Not accepting the claim that the gumball machine has an even amount of gumball, does not mean that one positively believes that it holds an uneven amount...

Our words always point to our beliefs. You believe in Evolution and I do not. I believe species change and Darwin was wrong.

Science doesn't deal in beliefs. It deals in what is most likely / plausible / probable.

Beliefs are for the religious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did you miss this?

"The removal of individuals and their offspring is effectively the same thing as the rest of the species dying off."

If you had caught it I believe you'd have seen agriculture and breeding supports my theory rather than yours.

I didn't miss anything. I sure noticed your misunderstandings.

 

[Eli G]

Science doesn't deal in beliefs. It deals in what is most likely / plausible / probable.

That is believing that "something" is likely/plausible/probable. Since it is not certain, people need to have faith on it ... and many many times what they believed was wrong.

Beliefs are for the religious.

And non-religious too, as can be seen from a large portion of evolution advocates representing some "science" on this forum: they present evolution of the species as a fact... which is wrong.