Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

Homo Sapiens evolved at least 150k years ago.

Why don't you now show that they had complex language. Just find the gene that controls language and show it's just like ours. For any God who can predict which individuals will fall and which will prevail this should be like child's play. I'm sure any Guy who really is omniscient would have no problem.

You certainly don't listen to other people, that much is clear.

How many times have I told you that expert opinion is just opinion and that our species is most aptly named "Homo omnisciencis". Have you ever actually read one of my posts.

Science isn't a group project and its results are individual as well because we each make our on individual models of experiment and theory. You're living in a make believe world where science is driven by the genius of mankind. There is no such thing as "science" as you understand it and there is no such thing as "intelligence" either. We are still standing on the shoulders of giants that started at Adam even though we all got shaken off when the tower fell and we've rebuilt it from bits and pieces.

Nobody's opinion matters. Your definition of science is wrong but it doesn't matter any more than mine does anyway.

But unlike you I can define all my terms and show logic, evidence, and most of all, experiment to support my position. Just because you continue to ignore my argument it does not reflect on the chances that I might be right.

If anyone wanted proof that our language was confused 4000 years ago this thread could be considered prime facie evidence.

 

[cladking]

And again, your private definition, that is what metaphysics means to English speakers.

I have a feeling that if you rendered this sentence in English you'd go on my ignore list.

 

[cladking]

Mass isn't predictive either, your point?

I'm not sure what you mean here. You can measure masses and know how how hard they will pull on a scale. Many equations have "m" in them and every one of them makes many predictions. Show me an equation that determines whether the cat gets the mouse and why it did or did not.

If you ever have one you'll have first discovered consciousness and quantified it.

 

[wellwisher]

Thank you. I can't really take exception to anything here and am in close agreement with much of it.



I believe most of science (I'll avoid using the word "metaphysics") is based on a few very poor definitions and some false assumptions. Several are relevant to "Evolution" but the most important are that individuality and consciousness can be factored out of the equation. Darwin factored it out because he believed only humans are conscious and still we believe only a few species are conscious. Obviously if you believe any life can evolve outside consciousness then it really could be factored out. I don't believe this. I don't believe anything in reality follows any sort of course but is rather a random walk or cyclical or both. In a sense you could say that things that are cyclical are harmonic and things that are a random walk are chaotic, but the real world is a mixture of both except that the chaos is driven out of technology virtually by definition.

While I understand the attraction of defining fitness as survival ability I can't imagine anything so simple governing the real world works AND I can't imagine that consciousness doesn't play a chief role. I can't see any sort of advantage in understanding change in species by defining terms in such a way.

I just figured out what the ancient "goddess" "henet" really represented last night and marveled at the fact I hadn't seen it earlier. Like all things once you see them they are quite clear.

This supposed "problem" only exists in the heads of those who are ignorant of evolution (willfully or otherwise).


Would you like some mayo with that word salad?

The dice and cards approach assumes random mutations as part of their evolutionary model. However, this random step can be explained, with logic, starting with a well known process; post modification of the DNA. This is where a methyl group or acetyl group, is added to the DNA bases modifying the raw DNA at certain locations. The methyl adds a reduced; oily, group that adds extra surface tension to the water and forces these base pairs to stay packed tighter. These are harder to transcribe. The acetyl group has the opposite effect making these easier to transcribe; more activity.

Say we duplicate the DNA; cell cycle, so all the DNA, that has been post modified, is open for transcription. The cell does not copy this using raw DNA materials, that are also post modified, to duplicate the modified aspects of the mother cell DNA. That "post effect" is only on the mother cell's DNA. This difference between the zones of modified mother cell DNA, and normal raw materials used for duplicating DNA, tweets the hydrogen bonding potential between the mother cell's genes, at the modified places, and the new forming duplicate strands, that do not have any modification.

Mistakes make more sense at these modified positions, since the molecular and hydrogen bonding potentials have changed in very distinct ways by these modification additions. In other words, new bases pairing, will now reflect the modified DNA and appear off but have the correct energy for the assembly.

A target has been created by the mother cell's life experiences, via global potentials, and passed to her daughter cells. But it will be initially expressed in her daughter cells as genetic changes, without the methyl or acetyl; clean slate daughter cell DNA. She is ready for her own post modification, onto that, over time. This logic can be inferred from the water model for the life. You are welcome to run the experiments and prove it to yourself; water logic and evolution. You could win a Nobel Prize in accepted science.

Below are Adenine and Cytosine unmodified and also methylated. The reduction is in response to equilibrium changes the mother cell's DNA feels. Acetylation is similar but adds an acetyl group which is more polar and has a different mistake; typo, in mind.

	Unmodified base
			Adenine, A		Cytosine, C

Modified forms N6-Methyladenine, 6mA 5-Methylcytosine, 5mC N4-Methylcytosine, 4mC

 

[leroy]

You mean, according to your strawman idea, or misunderstanding, of the theory.

In the actual theory, such would be impossible.

This is actually just another variation of the error you have been insisting upon for more then 3 years, even though we have been correcting it and pointing out your mistake on a near weekly basis... You know... the whole "but gorillas remain gorillas".... Yes, they do. And mammals remain mammals. Which is exactly why mammals won't evolve into fish. Because that would mean they aren't mammals anymore.

IOW, if humans evolved into fish, then evolution theory would be disproven, falsified, wrong

Wrong ..... fish unlike mammals or birds is not a clade in the current system of clasification of animals...... fish is a generic term (lke bug or worm) that has not a clear objective definition.

This means that theoretically one can be both fish and mammal in the same way someone can be both bug and insect.................


Please no not make a big deal out of this and admit your mistake


source
"The term fish is a convenient term used to refer to diverse aquatic organisms, such as lampreys, sharks, coelacanths (SEE-luh-kanths), and ray-finned fishes — but it is not a taxonomic group that would be used in a phylogenetic classification scheme, as “vertebrates” or “hominids” is. That’s because phylogenetic taxonomic groups must be clades. A clade is a group that includes all the descendents of a common ancestor and that ancestor, and all the different organisms that we think of as fish don’t form a clade"

What is a fish?

evolution.berkeley.edu

--
Your “big point” is correct one by definition doesn’t stops being part of a clade to become an other……………..mammals by definition will never stop being mammals and evolve in to birds………. Because even if a mammal evolves in to a creature with feathers and beak it would not be part of the “bird clade”………………. But in the particular case of “fish” fish is not a “clade” ………..so while your point is correct……….. your specific example of “fish “is wrong

Ofcourse this is just semantics…….. mammals will never evolve into birds, because we happen to define “birds” as something that didn’t (and can´t) evolve from mammals

 

[leroy]

Well then you already knew the answer, whales are mammals that have evolved to live in water but they are not and never will be fish.

Again, why not?

Given enough time and selective pressure why couldn’t whales evolve in to a smaller creature with gills and scales………..(something that we could call a fish)?



(anticipating your answer)

Before wasting your time with an incorrect answer and embarrassing yourself………….keep in mind that “fish” is not a clade

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean, according to your strawman idea, or misunderstanding, of the theory.

In the actual theory, such would be impossible.

This is actually just another variation of the error you have been insisting upon for more then 3 years, even though we have been correcting it and pointing out your mistake on a near weekly basis... You know... the whole "but gorillas remain gorillas".... Yes, they do. And mammals remain mammals. Which is exactly why mammals won't evolve into fish. Because that would mean they aren't mammals anymore.

IOW, if humans evolved into fish, then evolution theory would be disproven, falsified, wrong

Why is it impossible? If fish could Evolve to humans, why could humans not evolve to -- something like water-dwelling animals? Please do explain WHY you maintain that humans could not evolve to water-dwellers.

 

[Pogo]

Again, why not?

Given enough time and selective pressure why couldn’t whales evolve in to a smaller creature with gills and scales………..(something that we could call a fish)?



(anticipating your answer)

Before wasting your time with an incorrect answer and embarrassing yourself………….keep in mind that “fish” is not a clade

Walk from Tijuana to NYC, now repeat your walk backward step for step making sure the temp and weather etc is the same at each step. On returning to Tijuana, now recreate the steps of your brother with the same caveats for environment who left at the same time as you but ended up in Seattle.

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean, according to your strawman idea, or misunderstanding, of the theory.

In the actual theory, such would be impossible.

This is actually just another variation of the error you have been insisting upon for more then 3 years, even though we have been correcting it and pointing out your mistake on a near weekly basis... You know... the whole "but gorillas remain gorillas".... Yes, they do. And mammals remain mammals. Which is exactly why mammals won't evolve into fish. Because that would mean they aren't mammals anymore.

IOW, if humans evolved into fish, then evolution theory would be disproven, falsified, wrong

maybe you might consider that the theory IS wrong. It can't be "Disproven," because nothing in science can be proven, isn't that the case? Therefore, it can't be "DISproven." So according to the theory, humans could "evolve" to be water-dwellers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Walk from Tijuana to NYC, now repeat your walk backward step for step making sure the temp and weather etc is the same at each step. On returning to Tijuana, now recreate the steps of your brother with the same caveats for environment who left at the same time as you but ended up in Seattle.

That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, which is done, according to the theory, by mutations and survival by whatever makes it according to the circumstances.

 

[leroy]

Walk from Tijuana to NYC, now repeat your walk backward step for step making sure the temp and weather etc is the same at each step. On returning to Tijuana, now recreate the steps of your brother with the same caveats for environment who left at the same time as you but ended up in Seattle.

Ok, so then it is unlikely (but not impossible) for whales to evolve in to fish.



But as I said before, given enough time, luck and selective pressure………..whales can evolve in to fish………agree

Besides you are overestimating the complexity of the path with your Tijuana and NY example……….. “fish” is a very wide and flexible term ……… docens of independent phylogenetic clades have already walked that path……….. so to say that one extra clade walk through that path one more time is not “that unlikely”



In oder words…………….if 20 (or so) independent phylogenetic branches evolved in to something that we call “fish”…………. What is so unlikely about the idea of having one extra branch that evovles in a fish, within the next 100M years?.................. given enough time what magical force prevents a modern specie to become the 21th in evolving in to a fish?............... why is it possible to repeat the same path 20 times………..but impossible to repeat it 21 times?

Don’t worry these are all rhetorical questions, we both know that you won’t answer them, but rather you will make a reply with insults and/or a change the topic……………..or simply lie and claim that you already answered to those questions

 

[leroy]

Why is it impossible? If fish could Evolve to humans, why could humans not evolve to -- something like water-dwelling animals? Please do explain WHY you maintain that humans could not evolve to water-dwellers.

The bets are open………… do you bet on that you will get an answer within this year?

 

[Pogo]

Ok, so then it is unlikely (but not impossible) for whales to evolve in to fish.



But as I said before, given enough time, luck and selective pressure………..whales can evolve in to fish………agree

Besides you are overestimating the complexity of the path with your Tijuana and NY example……….. “fish” is a very wide and flexible term ……… docens of independent phylogenetic clades have already walked that path……….. so to say that one extra clade walk through that path one more time is not “that unlikely”



In oder words…………….if 20 (or so) independent phylogenetic branches evolved in to something that we call “fish”…………. What is so unlikely about the idea of having one extra branch that evovles in a fish, within the next 100M years?.................. given enough time what magical force prevents a modern specie to become the 21th in evolving in to a fish?............... why is it possible to repeat the same path 20 times………..but impossible to repeat it 21 times?

Don’t worry these are all rhetorical questions, we both know that you won’t answer them, but rather you will make a reply with insults and/or a change the topic……………..or simply lie and claim that you already answered to those questions

Because if you wanted to make a 21st tree you would have to start with the3 equivalent progenitor of the other 20, There were probably hundreds or more that did start from that point, of which 20 to use your number are still around, but there is no way to go backwards from where mammals are now to get to that starting point again. Maybe it is not infinity, but so large as makes no difference. This of course assumes that you are not calling a whale a fish because the term is flexible.


This is just basic.

 

[leroy]

Because if you wanted to make a 21st tree you would have to start with the3 equivalent progenitor of the other 20, There were probably hundreds or more that did start from that point, of which 20 to use your number are still around, but there is no way to go backwards from where mammals are now to get to that starting point again. Maybe it is not infinity, but so large as makes no difference. This of course assumes that you are not calling a whale a fish because the term is flexible.


This is just basic.

Each of these 20 branches had a different starting point, they are independnet, (they don’t share a close common ancestor) as you seem to be claiming

If we went from 19 to 20 at some point in the past, what magical force prevents us from going from 20 to 21 whithin the next 100M years?

, but there is no way to go backwards from where mammals are now to get to that starting point

Nobody has to go backwards,

 

[Pogo]

That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, which is done, according to the theory, by mutations and survival by whatever makes it according to the circumstances.

It is an analogy to the sequence of mutations and selections that would be necessary to go from our genome to a fish genome without just globally creating a fish genome with the chemicals in a mammal's. Now if you want to use your alternate of a water dwelling mammal, then Whales and Porpoises have already done it and seals are part way there.

Each of these 20 branches had a different starting point, they are independnet, (they don’t share a close common ancestor) as you seem to be claiming

If we went from 19 to 20 at some point in the past, what magical force prevents us from going from 20 to 21 whithin the next 100M years?



Nobody has to go backwards,

You do if you are on a different highway to a different city because you can't go cross country,

 

[leroy]

It is an analogy to the sequence of mutations and selections that would be necessary to go from our genome to a fish genome without just globally creating a fish genome with the chemicals in a mammal's. Now if you want to use your alternate of a water dwelling mammal, then Whales and Porpoises have already done it and seals are part way there.

You do if you are on a different highway to a different city because you can't go cross country,

Again if it already happened 20 times in the past………..why not once more in the future…………why do you keep avoiding the question?...........................

A proper analogy would be

“X” person walking form a town to a city

And

“Y” person walking form some other town to some other city

Nether do the starting point nor the end point has to be the same………..this is why a new type of “fish like” creature could evolve in the future and it “wouldn’t be too unlikely” (given that this has already happened dozens of times in the past)........do you understand this?

 

[YoursTrue]

The bets are open………… do you bet on that you will get an answer within this year?

Ha, good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is an analogy to the sequence of mutations and selections that would be necessary to go from our genome to a fish genome without just globally creating a fish genome with the chemicals in a mammal's. Now if you want to use your alternate of a water dwelling mammal, then Whales and Porpoises have already done it and seals are part way there.

And so in your mind it could be possible these may evolve to landrovers.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Humans have done so many things that are stupid and counterproductive to the individual and the commonweal for 4000 years it's difficult to single out any one of them that is most destructive.

Ecclesiastes 8:9 agrees with you: MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, MAN's injury

 

[YoursTrue]

Because if you wanted to make a 21st tree you would have to start with the3 equivalent progenitor of the other 20, There were probably hundreds or more that did start from that point, of which 20 to use your number are still around, but there is no way to go backwards from where mammals are now to get to that starting point again. Maybe it is not infinity, but so large as makes no difference. This of course assumes that you are not calling a whale a fish because the term is flexible.


This is just basic.

Meantime with the possibilities of chance mutations with regard to the theory of evolution, it's possible that chimpanzees could evolve to water dwellers. Best to be honest about this.