Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you cite any specific experiment carried out over millions of years? Thousands?

It is hard to take you seriously when you ask such bad faith questions.

What you mean ids that you have no experiment and all observed change in life is sudden.

No. What I mean is just what I said: that every evolution experiment shows gradual change which eventually results in speciation.


If you are aware of any instance whatsoever, experimental or otherwise, where a member of species A gave birth to a member of species B, I'ld be most interesting in hearing about it.

I won't hold my breath, because I'm certain there is no such instance or experiment. If there were, it would have turned evolutionary biology on its head and I'ld already know about it.

 

[cladking]

You mean, it's a common strawman used by the anti-science squad.

I don't know anybody who thinks that scientific consensus means that whatever there is consensus about is therefor the Truth (tm).

I only ever see anti-science people make that claim.

You are free to link to a post from a "science believer", as you call it, where that person says that consensus means "Truth (tm)" instead of merely "best available explanation".

Almost every post made by many believers show that what they have is a belief system rather than true knowledge. Believers always slip up because they'll refer to what is and beat heretics over the head with it. Even the best of us forget that all experiment and all knowledge is dependent on axioms and definitions so we end up mistaking our assumptions for reality.

We reason in circles by nature.

 

[cladking]

It is hard to take you seriously when you ask such bad faith questions.

In other words you have an indefensible position and pointing this out is rude.

If you are aware of any instance whatsoever, experimental or otherwise, where a member of species A gave birth to a member of species B, I'ld be most interesting in hearing about it.

I won't hold my breath, because I'm certain there is no such instance or experiment. If there were, it would have turned evolutionary biology on its head and I'ld already know about it.

Every observed change is sudden. In other words think about every "experiment", observation, or known instances of change in species or any kind of change in life on the individual or any other level and it was sudden. Walking whales didn't die out over millions of years any more than any whale ever took a long time to die. A whale might not fully recover from an accident but it still won't take millions of years or even hundreds to die.
Agriculture was invented by selecting individuals through consciousness and behavior. It's a good thing the inventors didn't believe in modern science, or modern omniscience, or have the modern ability to reason only in circles or the species mightta gone extinct. Oh wait... ...I think they did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems I have to repeat this fact regularly as a correction. All change in all living things is not sudden. It has not been demonstrated to be entirely and universally sudden. Equating the recording and reporting of observations as some sort of indicator of the sameness of speed is ridiculous. Where do people come up with that sort of nonsensical claim? It sounds to me like a belief system where whatever is claimed is fact regardless of how irrational the claim is.

 

[McBell]

It seems I have to repeat this fact regularly as a correction. All change in all living things is not sudden. It has not been demonstrated to be entirely and universally sudden. Equating the recording and reporting of observations as some sort of indicator of the sameness of speed is ridiculous. Where do people come up with that sort of nonsensical claim? It sounds to me like a belief system where whatever is claimed is fact regardless of how irrational the claim is.

um...
To much Pokemon exposure?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Almost every post made by many believers show that what they have is a belief system rather than true knowledge. Believers always slip up because they'll refer to what is and beat heretics over the head with it. Even the best of us forget that all experiment and all knowledge is dependent on axioms and definitions so we end up mistaking our assumptions for reality.

We reason in circles by nature.

"almost every post", yet you seem unable to link to just one of them like I asked.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In other words you have an indefensible position and pointing this out is rude.

No. At no point did I ever say that there have been experiments that lasted millions or thousands of years. Nor has anything been said or shown that this is somehow required.

At best, this question of you is loaded with a strawman. At worst, it's bad faith intellectual dishonesty

Every observed change is sudden. In other words think about every "experiment", observation, or known instances of change in species or any kind of change in life on the individual or any other level and it was sudden. Walking whales didn't die out over millions of years any more than any whale ever took a long time to die. A whale might not fully recover from an accident but it still won't take millions of years or even hundreds to die.
Agriculture was invented by selecting individuals through consciousness and behavior. It's a good thing the inventors didn't believe in modern science, or modern omniscience, or have the modern ability to reason only in circles or the species mightta gone extinct. Oh wait... ...I think they did.

And yet again just a repeat of the bare claims with no links to any experiments or real world examples in the wild that actually support this, like I asked.

 

[cladking]

"almost every post", yet you seem unable to link to just one of them like I asked.

You quoted the entire sentence but you didn't read it. Perhaps you parsed it wrong when I referred to "many posters". What I meant was "many posters" obviously believe in science and their words betray them. It's easy to see words that show the author believes he knows everything. I'm not going to quote other posters who might not even be in this thread to show you because it's not fair to them. Besides we all do it to a greater or lesser extent. Even existentialists and metaphysicians think they know everything because this is the nature of our species; homo omnisciencis.

And yet again just a repeat of the bare claims with no links to any experiments or real world examples in the wild that actually support this, like I asked.

Read my sentence again!!! I said EVERY OBSERVATION and experiment. I do not need to list every star in the sky in order to pronounce them spots of light. Every star in the sky is a spot of light. You need to find a star in the sky that is not a spot of light.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You quoted the entire sentence but you didn't read it.

I did read it. There were no links to such posts. So it was just a repeat of your claims, like usual.
And since it, as per your claim, concerns "almost very post" by "many posters", I would think it wouldn't be hard for you to produce some examples thereof.

But alas. Can't say I'm surprised.

Perhaps you parsed it wrong when I referred to "many posters". What I meant was "many posters" obviously believe in science and their words betray them. It's easy to see words that show the author believes he knows everything. I'm not going to quote other posters who might not even be in this thread to show you because it's not fair to them.

Nice cop-out.
Excuse me while I dismiss your bare claims at face value.

Read my sentence again!!! I said EVERY OBSERVATION and experiment.

Ok. Give an example and explain how it only shows "sudden" change.

 

[cladking]

Ok. Give an example and explain how it only shows "sudden" change.

I've tried this before. I've listed dozens and dozens of sudden observed changes in life. It's like water off a duck's back to those who believe in Darwin so it's your turn to list any change in any life of any sort that is gradual. Don't try that tired old refrain of "Evolution" because it is interpretation and because it is the assumption that led to this conclusion that is being scrutinized here. Don't assume Evolution exists and tell me one change in any life or species that is observed or shown by experiment to not be sudden.

Of course you can't do it. Without the assumption that individuals are all the same but some are fitter than others there can be no "Theory of Evolution". Your assumption is even self contradictory just like the definitions which say every individual is the same species as its parents but they still "speciate" anyway.

You still haven't addressed agriculture either.

 

[Argentbear]

In other words you have an indefensible position and pointing this out is rude.

No he was saying it was a really bad question. And I am sure you knew just how inane it was when you typed it out.

Every observed change is sudden.

Right now astronomers are observing the death process of the star star Betelgeuse in the constellation of Orion the change isn't sudden it's been going on for years and could go on for centuries more.

In other words think about every "experiment", observation, or known instances of change in species or any kind of change in life on the individual or any other level and it was sudden.

Bull. The Siberian silver fox experiment has been going on for 70 or more years and will likely be ongoing for another 70 years. THE changes observed in the foxes are not and have not been sudden happening over dozens of generations.

Walking whales didn't die out over millions of years any more than any whale ever took a long time to die. A whale might not fully recover from an accident but it still won't take millions of years or even hundreds to die.

Evolution of whales

 

[wellwisher]

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?

The study of the formation of life before evolution is called abiogenesis. This is where the basic building blocks for life form like amino acids that from protein and the nucleic acids for DNA and RNA. Since DNA and RNA are polymers, like plastics, once you get the basic units, then you polymerize these to make long chains. RNA and DNA have four basic units and once the four basic units of each appear, building the long chains is not hard. The trick is adding the four units in specific combinations, so the RNA and DNA can define consistent templates needed for life.

Nucleobases​

Nucleobases, such as guanine and adenine, can be synthesized from simple carbon and nitrogen sources, such as hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia.[119] Formamide produces all four ribonucleotides when warmed with terrestrial minerals. Formamide is ubiquitous in the Universe, produced by the reaction of water and HCN. It can be concentrated by the evaporation of water.[120][121] HCN is poisonous only to aerobic organisms (eukaryotes and aerobic bacteria), which did not yet exist. It can play roles in other chemical processes such as the synthesis of the amino acid glycine.[60]

The nucleic acids needed for DNA and RNA, seem to be dependent on hydrogen cyanide and ammonia or formamide and water, both of which are common to the universe. Formamide is pictured below. It looks like the peptide linkage of protein.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How about consciousness? What is it and did it just spring from the mind? How?

All available evidence indicates that minds are products of brains. That minds are inseparable from brains. That the mind is an algebraic sum of the many functions of the brain.
When the brain is damaged, the mind is also damaged.

So yes, minds come from brains. Where do you think they come from and why?

 

[Dimi95]

All available evidence indicates that minds are products of brains. That minds are inseparable from brains. That the mind is an algebraic sum of the many functions of the brain.
When the brain is damaged, the mind is also damaged.

So yes, minds come from brains. Where do you think they come from and why?

We know two things in the domain of science and everything else is just a speculation.

1.We know that we have no real evidence of consciousness existing without a brain.
2.We don't actually have a whole lot of evidence of consciousness existing within a brain, either.

This area is open to study and all we know for now is that they go together and that's it.


-It could be that the relation between brain and consciousness is something akin to a TV - you definitely need one to watch.But everything that you see on it exists, for some definition of the word, even if you don't have a TV, and asking where actually resides is the wrong sort of question altogether, as is the question of where it goes when you turn the TV off.
-It could also be that it's simply an effect of a brain that's in good working order, and it's got nothing to do with anything that isn't the actual matter inside the skull.

You can put electrodes on the scalp and say whether the brain inside is conscious or not, but that doesn't actually explain what it is we're looking for; when you try to define exactly what it is, you get lost in a maze of circular definitions.

We know also that:
-We can recognise it in ourselves
-we can infer that other people have it too
-we can be quite certain that a chimpanzee has something that is, at the very least, very similar to ours, and that a rabbit has some aspects of it but maybe not the whole set, as it were.

But that is really as far as it goes.

-It could also be that it's all an illusion, but that sort of raises the question of who it is that's having the illusion in the first place, and if so, why.

You could actually read a small library of more or less popular science books on the subject, and be none the wiser.

 

[cladking]

Evolution of whales

I couldn't be bothered to read this to see if it contradicted your opinion. Please read it carefully and let me know how wrong you really are.

Wadi al Hitan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No he was saying it was a really bad question. And I am sure you knew just how inane it was when you typed it out.

It's no worse than the nonsense that believers use to support their arguments. It is not I who ponder the fossil record and see only survival of the fittest and gradual change.

Pondering is NOT experimenting. this was my point ALL OBSEVED CHANGE IS SUDDEN.

 

[cladking]

All available evidence indicates that minds are products of brains.

Absolutely NOT. This is derived from assumptions and definitions. You do not know the mind of a squirrel or its acorn. You can only assume they have a mind or do not have a mind.

When the brain is damaged, the mind is also damaged.

Not necessarily.

Even were this true the simple fact is many serious injuries of the non-brain body damage the mind.

So yes, minds come from brains. Where do you think they come from and why?

As I've said many times minds spring from complex abstract symbolic analog language. Only homo omnisciencis have minds. Everything else has consciousness.

 

[cladking]

Right now astronomers are observing the death process of the star star Betelgeuse in the constellation of Orion the change isn't sudden it's been going on for years and could go on for centuries more.

We were talking about living things. I said all observed change in all life at all levels and of every type is sudden.

 

[Argentbear]

We were talking about living things. I said all observed change in all life at all levels and of every type is sudden.

your exact words were Every observed change is sudden.

And even if you were only talking about living things changes are not sudden.

 

[Argentbear]

Even were this true the simple fact is many serious injuries of the non-brain body damage the mind.

Examples?

As I've said many times minds spring from complex abstract symbolic analog language. Only homo omnisciencis have minds. Everything else has consciousness.

So an individual who has suffered a stroke that left the peach centers damaged no longer has a mind?

 

[Pogo]

The study of the formation of life before evolution is called abiogenesis. This is where the basic building blocks for life form like amino acids that from protein and the nucleic acids for DNA and RNA. Since DNA and RNA are polymers, like plastics, once you get the basic units, then you polymerize these to make long chains. RNA and DNA have four basic units and once the four basic units of each appear, building the long chains is not hard. The trick is adding the four units in specific combinations, so the RNA and DNA can define consistent templates needed for life.



The nucleic acids needed for DNA and RNA, seem to be dependent on hydrogen cyanide and ammonia or formamide and water, both of which are common to the universe. Formamide is pictured below. It looks like the peptide linkage of protein.

Your point? Chemistry happens.
Yes we will admit water mediates many reactions.