Evolution My ToE

[dad]

Wouldn't you say that a scientist would be sane to accept the only concept that is supported by evidence?

More than just their beliefs can fit evidences. Sanity is not confined or defined by how we limit ourselves to try and fit evidence to foolish pagan beliefs.

 

[Valjean]

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.
- viole

Apparently they didn't know much about goats, either.
The Bible reports that placing peeled branches in the watering trough will result in spotted or streaked kids.

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods. 38He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink. 39So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. -- Genesis 30: 37-39.

 

[dad]

Apparently they didn't know much about goats, either.
The Bible reports that placing peeled branches in the watering trough will result in spotted or streaked kids.

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods. 38He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink. 39So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. -- Genesis 30: 37-39.

Jacob did stuff...nowhere in the bible are we told to. I can't fault God for working within the confines of the way Jacob thought or operated.

 

[Valjean]

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?

Good explanation, but I'm afraid you're wasting your time.
This has already been explained to him a hundred times. It just doesn't sink in. He's either so obtuse he cannot grasp it, or he's trolling.

 

[Valjean]

Jacob did stuff...nowhere in the bible are we told to. I can't fault God for working within the confines of the way Jacob thought or operated.

The Bible clearly reports this as cause and effect; as an effective way of selective breeding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More than just their beliefs can fit evidences. Sanity is not confined or defined by how we limit ourselves to try and fit evidence to foolish pagan beliefs.

their beliefs can be tested and found to be accurate. Yours can be tested and found to be false. By the way since you believe in a make believe friend you are in no position to call other beliefs "pagan".

 

[dad]

The Bible clearly reports this as cause and effect; as an effective way of selective breeding.

No. Don't think so.

 

[dad]

their beliefs can be tested and found to be accurate. Yours can be tested and found to be false. By the way since you believe in a make believe friend you are in no position to call other beliefs "pagan".

Their beliefs are beliefs. There is no test for a first lifeform or creator hot soup singularity where physics did not apply, or...a same state past on earth.

That is why you offer none and never have and cannot link to where you claim to have.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry if you thought what some people think much matters.

It doesn't. Incidently, that's why your opinions don't matter either. ;-)


What matters, is what people can demonstrate.
And as such, you can't demonstrate that in the past physics was different - so there's no reason to think it was.
There's much data to think it wasn't different.

If you assume physics in the past was the same as today, then you an make accurate predictions about the world.

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.

Being able to make testable predictions that check out when tested, seems to fit pretty well with the idea of evidence, testability and observation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not true.

Yes true.
Seen it myself.
I actually have posted such myself and saw you ignore it.

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

Heavy case of projection again....

 

[nPeace]

@Jose Fly You know from this post, that what @Valjean is claiming is false. Anyone can make up stuff about someone, especially when they are afraid to answer simple questions, for fear they paint themselves in a corner.
You can even prove his claim is a lie, by asking him to show you where it has been explained to me. If it has been explained a hundred times, then surely he can find one... but I am sure you don't want to put a friend on the spot.
Once you can be crystal clear in your explanation, no one can fool around with it.... and I know you know how to expose someone who is messing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

I don't wish to complicate your back and forth with Jose here by butting in, but I just wished to ask:

Do you genuinely believe that any pair of twins can be absolutely, 100% identical to each other? Can you confidently say that there are absolutely no differences, not even in the tiniest bit, between some pairs of twins?

 

[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.

How life started is still a mystery, true. However, how many times it started is not a mystery. There were some scientists who looked for some evidence of a second start, but found nothing.

So, again, if your religion says that life started many times (one per kind), religion is against science. What could be simpler than that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dad]

It doesn't. Incidently, that's why your opinions don't matter either. ;-)

I agree. My opinion doesn't matter much either. What matters is what is known and what science claims that is belief.

What matters, is what people can demonstrate.
And as such, you can't demonstrate that in the past physics was different - so there's no reason to think it was.

Every reason from bible and history, no reason either way from science.

There's much data to think it wasn't different.

Post it!

If you assume physics in the past was the same as today, then you an make accurate predictions about the world.

Example?

Being able to make testable predictions that check out when tested, seems to fit pretty well with the idea of evidence, testability and observation.

. Then predict when a worm will result in a Marilyn Monroe? We'll check your work.

 

[dad]

Yes true.
Seen it myself.
I actually have posted such myself and saw you ignore it.



Heavy case of projection again....

Link!? Ha Looks like you're pulling a SZ on us here.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable moving on if you do not agree that populations vary in their traits.

What exactly is it that you're having trouble with? To me, it's obvious that any population has variability of traits. The only way a population wouldn't, would be if it was entirely composed of identical clones.

So is it your understanding that populations are usually made up of identical clones?

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jose Fly You know from this post, that what @Valjean is claiming is false. Anyone can make up stuff about someone, especially when they are afraid to answer simple questions, for fear they paint themselves in a corner.
You can even prove his claim is a lie, by asking him to show you where it has been explained to me. If it has been explained a hundred times, then surely he can find one... but I am sure you don't want to put a friend on the spot.
Once you can be crystal clear in your explanation, no one can fool around with it.... and I know you know how to expose someone who is messing.

It's okay....everyone has their own take on things. I'd rather just focus on helping you understand some of the material you've been asking questions about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Interesting that you would mention twins.
I'm sure you are aware of the difference between identical twins and non-identical twins, right?
So, can you tell us how they are different in a technical way?

Why are some twins identical in physical appearance while others aren't?

Besides that, it depends on what traits you are considering.

All of them. From bone density to eye color to immunity for certain pathogens to....

In context of evolution, the traits and variation that are relevant, are those that can be inherited by off spring.
Can you tell us how a trait can be inherited by off spring in a technical way?
How does this work bioligically? Does it have anything to do with genes by any chance?

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.

If you don't agree with the definition of variation, it is of no use to move on to talking about how natural selection acts on variation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Example?

Gravitational waves.

Then predict when a worm will result in a Marilyn Monroe? We'll check your work.

 

[dad]

Gravitational waves.

No. That is not something telling us about earth nature long ago. Keep trying.