Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[leroy]

No , this is where you are wrong.
RNA creates protein and that is usefull somehow to coding new genes.
We find the evidence in the activities in which proteins are used to code genes.
We can see that in a computer language through one's and zero's.
We can compare different individual's and we can see simular sequences.

If you stretched the DNA in one cell all the way out, it would be about 2m long and all the DNA in all your cells put together would be about twice the diameter of the Solar System.

We have evidence of DNA in every branch of Science , be it formal , natural or social.



Well , we have different criterion,that's for sure.

RNA creates protein and that is usefull somehow to coding new genes.

aja

And where did RNA came to be in the first place? How did that mechanism evolved?

Answer:

Who knows, there are many competing hypothesis

Do you suggest a different answer?

 

[leroy]

I asked if apes could "Evolve" to fish, and the answer from one poster who believes in evolution was yes, as if it could happen. But then -- just as some declare that humans are fish, if apes evolved to fish, those fish would therefore be classified as apes. By evolutionists. So, humans are fish (according to evolutionary thinking), but fish are not humans. And if humans were to evolve to fish, those fish would be humans.

That would be wrong since fish is not a “true clade” fish is just a generic term ,

The thing is that according to how we currently classify animals, once you are part of a “clade” your descendants never stop being part of that clade.

For example, if you are already a mammal ………………your descendants will always be “mammals” by definition, it doesn’t matter if they have nipples and placentas or not.

This is not correct nor incorrect. This is just the way we happen to classify animals in this specific date/place/context .

 

[gnostic]

You forget the flying cockroaches, upside down flies, and the actual experiments I've cited. you've forgotten dozens of examples.

You are changing the subject.

Cockroaches are insects, hence animals, and therefore capable of being conscious.

i am talking about non-animals, like plants, fungi, bacteria or archaea.

you use "trees" in your previous post, so let’s stick with trees.

can you show evidence that trees are conscious organisms?

 

[YoursTrue]

That would be wrong since fish is not a “true clade” fish is just a generic term ,

The thing is that according to how we currently classify animals, once you are part of a “clade” your descendants never stop being part of that clade.

For example, if you are already a mammal ………………your descendants will always be “mammals” by definition, it doesn’t matter if they have nipples and placentas or not.

This is not correct nor incorrect. This is just the way we happen to classify animals in this specific date/place/context .

I realize that, so thank you. Yet some apparently believe humans could possibly evolve to fish.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are changing the subject.

Cockroaches are insects, hence animals, and therefore capable of being conscious.

i am talking about non-animals, like plants, fungi, bacteria or archaea.

you use "trees" in your previous post, so let’s stick with trees.

can you show evidence that trees are conscious organisms?

Can you show they are not? Many humans are not conscious that they will be victims of a crime, for instance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then summarize it in your own words even my 10 year old mind can understand.

Why? I already explained it multiple times and you have been given a link to a page explaining it once again.

What good would it do to repeat it yet another time?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You mustta missed the post where I suggested humans have been devolving at least since the tower of babel.

No we didn't miss that. It's one of those bizar claims you make that make no sense at all.
There is no such thing as "devolving".
There was no such thing as "the tower of babel".

Today bad characteristics favor reproduction

Such as?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've followed (or tried to follow) all relevant experiment in biology since I first understood what the word meant.

And yet 50 years since the introduction of PE (that's half a century), you still have no clue what it is about.

This is equivalent to gainsaying. Rather than say "no" you're saying there's nothing to say "no" to. This is evasion, not an argument.

You mean like how you cut out 80% of the points in the post you are now replying to?

Ever hear of "peppered moths"?

What about them?

How can you read my posts and miss everything except your opportunities to respond with what you believe?

Says the guy who literally ignored almost all points in the post he's replying to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Evidence" is irrelevant in science except in hypothesis formation which is done by... ...drumroll please... ...individuals.

"Theory" is by definition an interpretation of a group of experiments called a "paradigm".

You really need to better understand the basis of science (metaphysics).

Says the guy who doesn't know what evidence, hypothesis and theories are in science.

This is getting more ridiculous with every post.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then do it! Tell me what any individual's Survivability Quotient" is and how it was defined and measured.

Just do it! You're welcome to summarize in a sentence or two. You can't because it's an absurdity.

It was explained in the link how to do it.
I have no interest in putting in time and energy in a post that will be equally ignored.

You have been given these explanations already. I see no reason to do it again and assume the outcome to be different.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Athesits / Naturalist from this forum often surprise me and support nonsense things……….. but if I where to bet ill bet that nobody is too naïve to use fitness in the literal sense of the word.

For example using the actual/literal definition of fit…..a 80 woman that smokes is probable less fit than a 80 woman that doesn’t smoke…………….. but from the point of view of evolution both are equally fit………..none can reproduce

Nobody has ever suggested that "fitness" in context of biology means anything close to the colloquial definition. Except perhaps @cladking.

Fitness in biology: quantitative representation of reproductive success.

It's not hard. I have no idea why this is apparently so controversial.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would you quote a specific claim made by cladking that you think is wrong?

"there is no such thing as fitness"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I realize that, so thank you. Yet some apparently believe humans could possibly evolve to fish.

Nobody has ever said such.

 

[cladking]

Why? I already explained it multiple times and you have been given a link to a page explaining it once again.

What good would it do to repeat it yet another time?

Pathetic. I have to repeat everything a million times (when I use the word "metaphysics" I mean basis of science) and you just say you've already said it.

That's no argument it's an evasion. And modern theory is still based on experiment not claims of already having proved something.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Pathetic. I have to repeat everything a million times (when I use the word "metaphysics" I mean basis of science) and you just say you've already said it.

That's no argument it's an evasion. And modern theory is still based on experiment not claims of already having proved something.

I can only repeat myself. If you are actually interested in the information, go read the link that was provided.

 

[cladking]

And yet 50 years since the introduction of PE (that's half a century), you still have no clue what it is about.

I don't believe in PE , Evolution or survival of the fittest. I have better things to do than to read the books through which you learned everything and that form the basis of your lectures and one way communication. Life is too short to waste it.

You mean like how you cut out 80% of the points in the post you are now replying to?

The only things I don't respond to are things I've responded to a million times or that ignore the point at hand.

Says the guy who doesn't know what evidence, hypothesis and theories are in science.

This is getting more ridiculous with every post.

This is essentially the root of the problem here. You think science is what you read in books and that it's best exemplified by the Peers who write them. Therefore books are gospel and the Peers are Gods which leaves me as less than a heretic. I'm a word salad tossing lettuce munching worn to be dealt with. You don't ask a worm about its diet selections and certainly not how science works.

t was explained in the link how to do it.
I have no interest in putting in time and energy in a post that will be equally ignored.

Incredible! I have to define metaphysics in almost every post in threads that go on for thousands of pages but you can't define SQ a second time on the basis of the claim you did it once!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My guess is you don't understand it yourself so a simple explanation is impossible for you. Since you ignore all this I'll respond to what I'm sure you'd say if you did understand it. "What you are presenting does not apply to individuals because there is no way to predict what constellation of traits will be beneficial in an environment".

I'm sure you'll want me to repeat this thousands of times since you won't read it now and you won't read it in the future,.

 

[cladking]

Fitness in biology: quantitative representation of reproductive success.

Then SQ is not predictive but rather counts offspring.

Remarkable! You don't see a problem with lack of experiment, lack of predictive capabilities, or an understanding that doesn't explain!

 

[cladking]

Nobody has ever said such.

Read Vonnegut's "Galapagos". ...so it goes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't believe in PE , Evolution or survival of the fittest. I have better things to do than to read the book

Uhu.
Willful ignorance.

This is why I have no reason to take you seriously.
So you don't believe science you willingly are ignorant of.

Watch me care.

There is zero reason to seriously engage a mind like that.

 

[cladking]

Nobody has ever suggested that "fitness" in context of biology means anything close to the colloquial definition. Except perhaps @cladking.

I fear to ask but what colloquial definition is that. I wager my dictionary has dozens of definition and I won't get a straight answer.

As I've explained many times every individual is different. These differences are exactly as complex as each of their genes and their individual experience because these differences "all" affect consciousness. Nature sometimes generates defective individuals through happenstance and these aren't really relevant because for the main part they are just food for other plants and animals which cooperate to maximize the efficiency of their destruction. Of those who are not defective each is more likely to survive under different conditions and different sets of events. But defining this difference as "fitness" is simply ignoring the fact that they are each capable of surviving and procreating in the real world or they wouldn't have the genes they do. They wouldn't even think the way they do if they were another species. Toads don't act like birds and if they tried they'd be eaten almost immediately; very very efficiently. It's very easy to predict which toads will act like birds because none will but it's wholly impossible to predict which toad will prosper in any given environment and it's impossible to predict what traits will be passed down by toad-kind. The cart is placed before the horse. Reproductive success is just as unpredictable as which traits will facilitate it and all those toads that are off spring from the most successful are still just toads and the exact same species as their parents. At least they would be the same species if there were such a thing so it's better to think of them as individuals who are as different from their parents as they are from one another.

Speciation actually occurs when toads that act a lot like frogs are the only individuals that survive a bottleneck. They act this way because of consciousness and peculiar genes that underlie it. All these "toad-frogs" get together and voila in a short time what ya' got is a brand new species.

Nature is always experimenting (unlike Evolutionists) and comes up with mutations, hybrids, and whatnot. Some of these, like Adam's ability to consciously manipulate language proved highly beneficial in a social species that already succeeded through cooperation.

Peoples ability to believe they know everything has been absolute since the "tower of babel". Homo omnisciencis. Our species has been lecturing anyone who will listen for 4000 years. We don't even need to listen to other people because they are salad tossing worms until they agree with us for the same reasons to every decimal point.