Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently the only sane scientists are those who believe anything that does not conflict with the belief in the idea that all life came from LUCA.
Any scientists that says anything contrary to the beliefs surrounding that, is not a scientist.
Feel free to look through your special lens. I am not complaining. I'm just saying it as I see it.

Actually, I will wait until the news comes out when they say that there was more than one LUCA, then I will send you a special PM. I'm happy to wait.

Wouldn't you say that a scientist would be sane to accept the only concept that is supported by evidence? Wouldn't you say that a scientist would be sane to reject ideas that have no evidence and in fact are refuted by evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Apparently the only sane scientists are those who believe anything that does not conflict with the belief in the idea that all life came from LUCA

Sane scientists are those who follow the evidence instead of trying to run in the opposite direction.

This is why creationists, flat earthers, geocentrists and stork theorists aren't sane scientists.

The evidence happens to point to common ancestry of life.
A sane scientist would accept that fact.

Any scientists that says anything contrary to the beliefs surrounding that, is not a scientist.

Not a good one, anyway.

Feel free to look through your special lens.

There's really nothing special about using scientific goggles in a scientific environment.

The one with the "special" glasses is YOU, appealing to "special" knowledge of some "special" deity, which is contradicted by the actual data of the world.

I am not complaining. I'm just saying it as I see it.

Perhaps you see it that way, because your biblical goggles are blurring your vision.

Actually, I will wait until the news comes out when they say that there was more than one LUCA, then I will send you a special PM. I'm happy to wait.

If evidence comes up that suggests life comes from multiple common ancestors, it is very likely that it will be posted here by us before you even know about it.

Because I doubt your JW pastors are so up and close following the latest developments in the natural sciences.


Here's the thing though: only when that news comes up, will it be the time to consider multiple LUCA's. At this point, there is no data that suggests such. The data at our disposal today, suggests common ancestry for all living things. So that's what we provisionally land on.

The moment to provisionally land on something else, is when data surfaces that suggests otherwise.

I'm happy to wait to.

 

[viole]

Apparently the only sane scientists are those who believe anything that does not conflict with the belief in the idea that all life came from LUCA.
Any scientists that says anything contrary to the beliefs surrounding that, is not a scientist.
Feel free to look through your special lens. I am not complaining. I'm just saying it as I see it.

Actually, I will wait until the news comes out when they say that there was more than one LUCA, then I will send you a special PM. I'm happy to wait.

Sure. I hope you indulge me if I do not hold my breath.

But what did you mean then, when you said that the idea of thousands of independent starting of life on this planet, is compatible with science? What science? The one creationists make up? I am sure that if science is defined to accept any myths, then the flat earth is also compatible with science.

And yes, if someone approaches the (true) scientific community with claims that are in the same league of the earth being flat, just because they believe an ancient book written by people knowing vastly more about goats than real science, then it is obvious that they will go nowhere.

And that persecution complex is really ridiculous. Gaah, they do not accept my paper about talking snakes....evil scientists.

If you bring evidence, comparable with the claim, things may change. If a hero like Newton also succumbed to more accurate theories, that tells us two things:

1) if you have enough evidence, then you might change things. We don’t have dogmas (another reason why religion has nothing to do with science)
2) you obviously have no evidence. Actually, whoever claims that life started independently on earth several thousands times in the last few thousands years, and think it is science, provides the sole evidence of not understanding anything about the discipline they want to challenge,

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

Believing in creation as per the Scripture Jesus confirmed was true is anything but ignorance, it is the light of God.
Believing that you are kin to worms and came from the same relatives is deliberate belief.

Many Christians would look at your fundamentalist beliefs as silly. Many more would look at them as willful ignorance.

 

[ecco]

Oh. These are papers available only to scientists?
So the public cannot get access to these charts for their own personal research?

I've been waiting for just such a comment. Right on cue.

 

[ecco]

Actually, I will wait until the news comes out when they say that there was more than one LUCA, then I will send you a special PM.

I have no idea why you expect there would be more than one LUCA. Are you suggesting that humans and tigers and worms came from a different starting point? Like maybe the Genesis God Story.

Or perhaps you are referring to the fact that there are many other origin concepts like...

8 Interesting African Creation Myths The World Should Know About
In the beginning, all that existed were the water, land and sky, which was ruled by Olorun. Another god named Obatala went to Olorun to ask if he could create land for living things to exist. When he was granted permission, Olorun visited Orunmila, Olorun’s first son, to consult with him about his wish. In response, Orunmila told him that he must obtain a gold chain, a snail’s shell filled with sand, palm nuts, corn and a special egg that encompassed the essence of both the men and women orishas. Obatala hung the long gold chain from the sky and climbed down to earth, only to find that he could only go so far due to the chain’s length. When he reached back to pour the sand from the snail’s shell to form dry land, he dropped the special egg and released Sankofa. When he reached the earth, Obatala spread the sand and planted the pine nuts. He even founded a hill and called it Ife. After a while, he decided to fashion human beings to keep him company because his task was quite lonely. He founded the city of Ife, and the gods and goddesses visited him and his creations on earth frequently.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly Hey coming at ya.
We have agreed so far that natural selection is the combination of variation, heredity, and differential reproduction.
You were trying to explain how natural selection acts on variation in a population.
So to make it simple, that I can follow you, could you first explain, what exactly you mean by "variation in a population", and then explain as simple and clearly as you can, how natural selection acts on it?

Sure.

In any population of organisms, no two individuals are exactly alike, both genetically and physically/outwardly (in their actual physical traits). In a population of deer for example, some individuals will be bigger, some will be smaller, some will be fatter, some will be thinner, some will be faster, some will be slower, some will be stronger, some will be weaker, some will reach sexual maturity later, some will reach sexual maturity earlier.....and so on.

That's what "variation in a population" refers to...the fact that if you surveyed the population, there will be variation of all sorts of traits (and the genetic sequences that code for those traits).

Before we move on, are we good on this?

 

[nPeace]

@viole

But what did you mean then, when you said that the idea of thousands of independent starting of life on this planet, is compatible with science?

Where did I say that? When?

 

[nPeace]

Sure.

In any population of organisms, no two individuals are exactly alike, both genetically and physically/outwardly (in their actual physical traits). In a population of deer for example, some individuals will be bigger, some will be smaller, some will be fatter, some will be thinner, some will be faster, some will be slower, some will be stronger, some will be weaker, some will reach sexual maturity later, some will reach sexual maturity earlier.....and so on.

That's what "variation in a population" refers to...the fact that if you surveyed the population, there will be variation of all sorts of traits (and the genetic sequences that code for those traits).

Before we move on, are we good on this?

I'm good with the strong weak, fat thin, fast slow part, but not the 'blame genetics' part.
Is a person fat, slim, strong, weak, fast, slow, merely because of genes?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm good with the strong weak, fat thin, fast slow part, but not the 'blame genetics' part.
Is a person fat, slim, strong, weak, fast, slow, merely because of genes?

Well remember, we're talking about deer, so for the most part....yes, such variation in traits is typically genetically-oriented. It's not always the case, but oftentimes it is.

 

[nPeace]

Well remember, we're talking about deer, so for the most part....yes, such variation in traits is typically genetically-oriented. It's not always the case, but oftentimes it is.

Well "sometimes" is a inconsistent result, isn't it. So we need to get this clear to proceed. I understand there are variations in everything. As regards what causes the variation, that may be another story.
It appears you want to deal only with genes, so in that case, you may have to refer to some mutation that created a defect, perhaps?

So do you want to go with variation in the trait, say color for example, which would lead back to what I was saying - Natural selection acting on the same variation it depends on to exist?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well "sometimes" is a inconsistent result, isn't it. So we need to get this clear to proceed. I understand there are variations in everything. As regards what causes the variation, that may be another story.

Well yeah, I think it's rather obvious that not every bit of variability is genetically-oriented. In the deer population there may be an individual or two who are injured from a car collision, but that's obviously not genetically caused.

It appears you want to deal only with genes, so in that case, you may have to refer to some mutation that created a defect, perhaps?

Remember the larger context of our discussion....evolution. Evolution, i.e. changes in a population over time, involves heritable traits. So in the context of this discussion, genetically caused traits are relevant (because they can be passed on to the next generation), and non-genetic traits aren't (a deer that's been injured by a car isn't going to pass on its injured leg to its offspring).

So do you want to go with variation in the trait, say color for example, which would lead back to what I was saying - Natural selection acting on the same variation it depends on to exist?

Well remember, we're still just clarifying what "variation in a population" means. We haven't yet gotten to how selection acts on that variation.

So to recap, are you clear on what is meant by "variation in a population"? I know this may come across as odd, but if you are clear on it, could you please describe what it means in your own words, so we can ensure there aren't any misunderstandings?

 

[nPeace]

Well yeah, I think it's rather obvious that not every bit of variability is genetically-oriented. In the deer population there may be an individual or two who are injured from a car collision, but that's obviously not genetically caused.


Remember the larger context of our discussion....evolution. Evolution, i.e. changes in a population over time, involves heritable traits. So in the context of this discussion, genetically caused traits are relevant (because they can be passed on to the next generation), and non-genetic traits aren't (a deer that's been injured by a car isn't going to pass on its injured leg to its offspring).


Well remember, we're still just clarifying what "variation in a population" means. We haven't yet gotten to how selection acts on that variation.

So to recap, are you clear on what is meant by "variation in a population"? I know this may come across as odd, but if you are clear on it, could you please describe what it means in your own words, so we can ensure there aren't any misunderstandings?

Ha ha. Smart move Fly. No it's not odd. I kinda expected it.
You tried to explain using a river and erosion, remember? That did not work, because the river is acting on something other than what caused it.
You are the one explaining how variation in a population, is different to variation that makes natural selection exist... eventually.
Remember, my question is two fold.
Could you first explain, what exactly you mean by "variation in a population", and then explain as simple and clearly as you can, how natural selection acts on it?
Do you understand the questions, or is there a problem with the way I asked? Can you answer?

 

[viole]

@viole

Where did I say that? When?

Ok, I am happy you did not, and that you agree that life started on earth only once. Ergo, that we all (humans, pigs, carrots, etc.) necessarily share that common origin.

However, I think that you are a bit confused.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

Ha ha. Smart move Fly. No it's not odd. I kinda expected it.
You tried to explain using a river and erosion, remember? That did not work, because the river is acting on something other than what caused it.
You are the one explaining how variation in a population, is different to variation that makes natural selection exist... eventually.
Remember, my question is two fold.
Could you first explain, what exactly you mean by "variation in a population", and then explain as simple and clearly as you can, how natural selection acts on it?
Do you understand the questions, or is there a problem with the way I asked? Can you answer?

I understand the questions just fine, which is why I'm addressing it one item at a time. The first part is "what exactly is 'variation in a population'", which is what I'm hoping to help you understand.

"Variation in a population" simply means that within any population of organisms, no two individuals are exactly alike. If you picked one individual out of the population and examined all of its traits, then did the same with another individual, the two of them would differ.

Is that part clear?

 

[nPeace]

Ok, I am happy you did not, and that you agree that life started on earth only once. Ergo, that we all (humans, pigs, carrots, etc.) necessarily share that common origin.

However, I think that you are a bit confused.

Ciao

- viole

Huh?
Do you usually do this - that is, make up stuff and say that people said it, and believe it, as opposed to asking?
I guess it's your clever way of prompting a debate.

How life started on earth is a mystery to science Even if they speculate about it. Yeah yeah. That's Abiogenesis. Not evolution. Yet science knows that life started once on earth. and yet they can't tell us the origins of viruses - which existed before the so-called LUCA "spreads its so-called branches - or how many times they evolved... or if they did evolve multiple times.

Viole. I have no need of that hypothesis. Nor the primary one either.
Those hypothetical can be all yours.

Whatever you make up that I agree with you on, is a joke. I can't force you to speak truth, and I won't.

 

[nPeace]

I understand the questions just fine, which is why I'm addressing it one item at a time. The first part is "what exactly is 'variation in a population'", which is what I'm hoping to help you understand.

"Variation in a population" simply means that within any population of organisms, no two individuals are exactly alike. If you picked one individual out of the population and examined all of its traits, then did the same with another individual, the two of them would differ.

Is that part clear?

It seems technical.
For example we can say that two individuals have the same traits, or two individuals have different traits.

It is quite obvious that the offspring would not have the same exact genes as their ancestor, but that is not the case for the "siblings" necessarily. They can have the same traits... exactly. Just look at twins.
Besides that, it depends on what traits you are considering.

So I don't agree with what you said... exactly, but that doesn't matter. What you have said is clear.
Just move on Fly... please.

 

[dad]

There's no reason to think otherwise.

Sorry if you thought what some people think much matters. No. What matters is what science knows. It is not a demonocracy as far as science goes, where clueless so called peers can add their beliefs to a steaming pile! There must be facts and evidence and testability, observation and etc.

 

[dad]

Or..... it was posted over and over again and you just ignored it or failed to recognize it.

Not true. Sorry you either could not comprehend or are making stuff up.

 

[dad]

Many Christians would look at your fundamentalist beliefs as silly. Many more would look at them as willful ignorance.

So?? I would view many practices and actions of professed bible believers as clearly opposed to the bible and what Jesus taught.