Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

NO, it is complex, but you don't need new genes for everything, changes in the ones you have is more than adequate. New genes are a rarity and except for things like horizontal gene transfer and the like they are usually the result of modification of already existing DNA.

I think you've forgotten that generally life requires both a male and female progenitor.

This is just word salad, species exist, common definition is interfertility between individuals. They don't come with name tags and they can be defined in different ways, but that doesn't make them an abstraction. Go to a zoo and you will find several species of apes, the most populous one will be homo Sapiens but there will be several others that even your average 5 year old can differentiate without trouble. I don't know what this business about life is, biological evolution only applies to living things though exactly what constitutes life at the margins is murky, alive or not alive is fairly simple for the majority of organisms.

Life, "a viable conscious individual with a genome". Now who is creating unnecessary complexity. You are just creating weird personal definitions. Acorns cease to be alive if they have worms, is that due to some abstraction you call consciousness that has migrated to the slime mold on the oak leaf.
Please show us this entity consciousness?

Anything that can't be palpated or put under a microscope is an abstraction. A snow flake is real. The rabbit named "Bunny" is real, but "rabbits do not exist. It is a word that symbolizes Bunny, her family, and those with whom we believe she might mate. No species exist and it's impossible to step into the same river twice. These are simple facts and reductionistic science recognizes them as facts. It is relevant that they ignore these facts especially as it applies to "change in species'.

Bunny has her own unique consciousness that drives her behavior and her chances of survival and procreation. She is no more and no less selectable than every other individual of her "species".

 

[cladking]

Another person who can't read the literature and doesn't know what an experiment is.

I seriously doubt you'd say that if you understood consciousness or the nature of life. "Experiment" has a broad definition but not so broad as to include expert opinion or hunches you get looking at the fossil record. Founding a "science" on the 19th century thought of Charles Darwin was not a good idea.

It has been presented and as with the last question, you just go right back to misrepresenting it and so we repeat the lecture.

So why do you believe that an "experiment" with microbes is relevant to how whales used survival of the fittest to return to the sea? Do you think a microbe is equivalent to a whale because they are both "species???! Compare their size, consciousness, and life span then get back to me if you think they are the same thing. Be sure to let me know exactly what metrics you used to compare their consciousness and exactly which two individuals you chose.

You are using words to reduce reality to something observable and understandable but our species needs experiment because we see what we believe.

Mice and men, germs and whales.

 

[cladking]

The definitions are plenty concrete and useful, they are just not in your made up language.

These are just more words that don't address my arguments.

No words are concrete. Even "concrete" has many definitions. Your pretense that they don't notwithstanding.

 

[Valjean]

Biological similarities often back many assumptions found in evolutionary theory. While a similarity doesn't always clarify a connection, within evolutionary theory, this idea appears to be the sole foundation for linking various species. Is this method grounded in science, or does it lean so heavily on subjectivity that it borders on being classified as superstitious?

Perceived similarities may or may not correspond to actual relationships or correlations between the perceived things.
I see no actual sky-sea link based on a caveman's observations.

Apophenia is the perception of relationships where there are none. In my experience, religious apologists often see apophenic connections between established science and religious myth, and frequently see these as evidence supporting their religion.

 

[gnostic]

This whole post is just a word game to not address the fact that there is no "survivability quotient" by any name at all. It's like saying I'm wrong about change in species because I think Darwin went by "Chuck" instead of "Charles". Let's see your "electability quotient" then and not more clouds of obfuscation and smoke and mirrors.

You have nothing but word games.

it isn’t a word game, it is fact that Herbert Spencer who coined “survival of the fittest” originally for his sociological works, prior to reusing it for Darwin’s Natural Selection.

It isn’t a word game that Natural Selection is one of the 5 mechanisms in evolutionary biology, not “survival of the fittest”. The “survival of the fittest” is description to the more favourable adapted traits are more likely to increase the population’s ability to reproduction.

The adapted and adaption, in the case for Natural Selection, are changes to physical and genetic traits that are fit to selective pressures from the changed environment.

So the driving forces in Natural Selection is the environment itself, so when the environment changes, selective pressures what drive organisms to adapted.

Reproduction is the key for all sustainable growth in the population, whether there are selective pressures or not.

For example, when the environment is stable, then there are little to no selective pressures applying to populations of organisms, “to adapt”. It is only when environment have become either unstable or changed dramatically, that selective pressures applied to organisms living through the environment, that adaptability plays more important role in this mechanism. Changes to populations of organisms occur during these periods, so the more adapted populations are more likely to sustain population growth than those populations that are less adapted to the changed environment.

That’s where Punctuated Equilibrium comes in. Selective pressures occur only when the environment have changed or become unstable and specuat occurs, but no selective pressures when the environment is stable.

When the environment is stable, the other mechanisms may applied, eg Gene Flow (when two populations capable of intermix, resulting in hybrid species), or Genetic Drift (change in frequencies of the alleles), or Mutations (more inherent ability for genes to mutate).

You often bashed Natural Selection, but what do you think of the other 4 mechanisms in evolutionary biology?

Mutations? Genetic Drift? Gene Flow? Genetic Hitchhiking?

 

[Eli G]

I think you've forgotten that generally life requires both a male and female progenitor. ...

Exactly.

When evolutionists compare humans to animals, they often disregard human consciousness and the traditional concept of family as it has been recognized throughout history in human societies. Even among the less developed human tribes, the notion of family persists.

It makes me question whether the phrase "changes in a population" aims to erase the concept of family from our minds. Confusing contemporary ideas of "morality" with the natural progression of human populations poses a risk. Altering the moral perspective of humanity differs from accurately portraying historical human realities.

A genuine sexual partnership is essential for a family to produce offspring, and only then can a human population develop.

 

[Valjean]

A caveman believing the sky to be a vast ocean due to its uniform blue color and white wave-like clouds is as superstitious as a contemporary person thinking that cows and whales are connected simply because they both nurse their offspring.

The relationship is based on a great deal more than just nursing behavior.

 

[Eli G]

Perceived similarities may or may not correspond to actual relationships or correlations between the perceived things.
I see no actual sky-sea link based on a caveman's observations.

Apophenia is the perception of relationships where there are none. In my experience, religious apologists often see apophenic connections between established science and religious myth, and frequently see these as evidence supporting their religion.

My comparison was imaginary, illustrating the absurdity of believing that a cow and a whale are related merely because they have some shared biological traits.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've been catching hell for saying this. Thank you.

The fire has been chasing you...?

 

[YoursTrue]

My comparison was imaginary, illustrating the absurdity of believing that a cow and a whale are related merely because they have some shared biological traits.

they both have skin covering their inner parts...

 

[firedragon]

My comparison was imaginary, illustrating the absurdity of believing that a cow and a whale are related merely because they have some shared biological traits.

Yep. Everyone goes back to "no life" so we and all species in the universes have "no life". Pun intended.

 

[gnostic]

Thank you for your honest answer regarding your belief about Mary conceiving Jesus.

it is a myth.

The only animals capable of parthenogenesis asexual reproduction, are found more frequently among the invertebrate families, but on the vertebrate side, parthenogenesis more frequently among fishes and amphibians than with reptiles & birds.

No known parthenogenesis have ever occurred among the mammal kingdom, and certainly no evidences to support any type of asexual reproduction, especially parthenogenesis.

Mammals can only sexually reproduce, meaning it required ovum (unfertilised egg) from a female, and sperm from a male, reproduction happened when these 2 gamete cells fused, hence fertilisation, thereby zygote cell (or fertilised egg) is formed.

Bacteria, archaea, fungi and plants are capable of asexual reproduction, but not via parthenogenesis.

i have already told you this before.

i have also told before that in human reproduction, that sperm only has 23 chromosomes and ovum also only 23 chromosomes. It is only when fertilisation occurred, that zygote will have 46 chromosomes.

This is just basic biology without speciation.

Mary’s ovum would only have 23 chromosomes. With only half the number of chromosomes, then fertilisation, cell divisions, embryonic development & growth, they all wouldn’t occur, hence Jesus wouldn’t be born.

Thats exactly why the whole “immaculate conception” and “virgin birth” concept is a myth. It biological improbable for humans being capable of parthenogenesis type of asexual reproduction.

 

[Valjean]

I seriously doubt you'd say that if you understood consciousness or the nature of life. "Experiment" has a broad definition but not so broad as to include expert opinion or hunches you get looking at the fossil record. Founding a "science" on the 19th century thought of Charles Darwin was not a good idea.

Yet his observations ramified into many other observations, by many more investigators, as well as numerous tests and applications.
His simple observation underlies the whole science of biology.

So why do you believe that an "experiment" with microbes is relevant to how whales used survival of the fittest to return to the sea? Do you think a microbe is equivalent to a whale because they are both "species???! Compare their size, consciousness, and life span then get back to me if you think they are the same thing. Be sure to let me know exactly what metrics you used to compare their consciousness and exactly which two individuals you chose.

The mechanism by which whales changed to fit into their new environment is the same as the mechanism the bacteria used to fit into theirs. It's analogous.
The bacterial growth illustrates just one of the mechanisms involved, natural selection, at work.

You are using words to reduce reality to something observable and understandable but our species needs experiment because we see what we believe.

Which is why science has been the most productive investigative modality in human history.

 

[Eli G]

they both have skin covering their inner parts...

For those who support evolution, the shared traits among various species suggest a common ancestry. However, believers interpret these resemblances as evidence of a single Creator behind everything that exists.

Every mathematical programmer understands that the foundational rules across all programming languages are consistent. Consequently, algorithms are expressed similarly across all languages, despite any formal differences. Algorithms, no matter which programming language they utilize, are crafted by humans. Meanwhile, everything in both the material and spiritual realms is a creation of the same God.

A vivid illustration is the chemical elements and their structures. Their arrangement on the periodic table is remarkable; it clearly shows that although they differ greatly, they possess similar traits because the One who designed these elements was a very organized Intelligent Being.

 

[YoursTrue]

For those who support evolution, the shared traits among various species suggest a common ancestry. However, believers interpret these resemblances as evidence of a single Creator behind everything that exists.

I'm not sure what you mean here by that. When you say believers interpreting those resemblances as evidence of a single Creator, do you mean that they believe in the theory and also a Creator of the organisms and the process of evolution?

Every mathematical programmer understands that the foundational rules across all programming languages are consistent. Consequently, algorithms are expressed similarly across all languages, despite any formal differences. Algorithms, no matter which programming language they utilize, are crafted by humans. Meanwhile, everything in both the material and spiritual realms is a creation of the same God.

A vivid illustration is the chemical elements and their structures. Their arrangement on the periodic table is remarkable; it clearly shows that although they differ greatly, they possess similar traits because the One who designed these elements was a very organized Intelligent Being.

I have no doubt that the One creating these things did so in an organized manner, using unique forces beyond human understanding, not in the sense of understanding differences of skins and gills or air breathers, but yes, according to His will.

 

[YoursTrue]

These are just more words that don't address my arguments.

No words are concrete. Even "concrete" has many definitions. Your pretense that they don't notwithstanding.

Hmm, I was thinking about your discussion of consciousness. Today I was passing some little lizards (I don't like them, but they're there, I guess they have a purpose for enhancing somehow the environment). They like the sun, I suppose. They are smaller than my foot, less than 1/4 of the size of my foot. And when I get close to them because they are in my path they are still, very quiet. But the MINUTE I look away in general they run out of sight quickly, very quickly, so quickly that when I look again they are gone. (Thank goodness.) Amazing. Now I do not think they think like we do. But something is "going on..." Oh, and they don't refer to encyclopedias or Google.

 

[Eli G]

For those who support evolution, the shared traits among various species suggest a common ancestry. However, believers interpret these resemblances as evidence of a single Creator behind everything that exists.

I'm not sure what you mean here by that. When you say believers interpreting those resemblances as evidence of a single Creator, do you mean that they believe in the theory and also a Creator of the organisms and the process of evolution?

I meant that proponents of evolution determine the relationships between different animal species by examining basic anatomical resemblances, rather than through direct observation of changes, or the presence of transitional species. Consequently, their findings are merely conjectures founded on these physical likenesses.

 

[cladking]

Yet his observations ramified into many other observations, by many more investigators, as well as numerous tests and applications.
His simple observation underlies the whole science of biology.

Yes.

The mechanism by which whales changed to fit into their new environment is the same as the mechanism the bacteria used to fit into theirs. It's analogous.
The bacterial growth illustrates just one of the mechanisms involved, natural selection, at work.

Yes. A better term for microbes is "adaptation". Whales would have a hard time getting used to soaring rates of being murdered in an "experiment".

But not because they are both "species". It's because they are each conscious. Every whale, every microbe, and they are each individuals because there are no species.

Which is why science has been the most productive investigative modality in human history.

Yes.

But there's not only one single monolithic science. There used to be but now every scientist has his own models and sees something a little different.

There are many types of science but only homo omnisciencis science REQUIRES experiment.

 

[cladking]

The fire has been chasing you...?

Today it feels more like it's been overtaking me.

...but then we might mean different things by the word.

 

[cladking]

Exactly.

When evolutionists compare humans to animals, they often disregard human consciousness and the traditional concept of family as it has been recognized throughout history in human societies. Even among the less developed human tribes, the notion of family persists.

It makes me question whether the phrase "changes in a population" aims to erase the concept of family from our minds. Confusing contemporary ideas of "morality" with the natural progression of human populations poses a risk. Altering the moral perspective of humanity differs from accurately portraying historical human realities.

A genuine sexual partnership is essential for a family to produce offspring, and only then can a human population develop.

Yes. Family is even more important than tribe or clan. It is also critical to understanding change in mankind. However, I do believe change in species concerning homo omnisciencis is wholly distinct from change in every other species because we do everything based on beliefs and this includes even procreation.

Humans are also different because we have such vast knowledge compared to other species as well as instruments, devices, and processes that can be brought to bear on everything from marriage to geriatrics. Other species choose mates on acceptability and good health while we choose based on unique and individual parameters. Humans seem more to be "devolving" rather than each generation being more suited to the environment. We are becoming dim witted, gullible, and narcissistic. Greed is good, hedonism is even better. Of course with our species it is far more difficult to differentiate between innate traits and learned ones.