Evolution My ToE

[dad]

I can demonstrate that I know. .

We know..but you somehow never can actually do so. Happy pretending. Maybe some delusional folks may even believe you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We know..but you somehow never can actually do so. Happy pretending. Maybe some delusional folks may even believe you.

Now that is a lie. You cannot demand evidence because your fear caused you to disqualify yourself from demanding any and you are too afraid to correct that wrong of yours.

When you get over your fear, I am ready to help you. And then you can demand all of the evidence that your heart desires.

 

[dad]

Now that is a lie. You cannot demand evidence because your fear caused you to disqualify yourself from demanding any and you are too afraid to correct that wrong of yours.

When you get over your fear, I am ready to help you. And then you can demand all of the evidence that your heart desires.

Got it...if people notice you cannot ever post support or substance they are in 'fear'. Ha

 

[Subduction Zone]

Got it...if people notice you cannot ever post support or substance they are in 'fear'. Ha

No, I support my claims with others all of the time. You are a special case. When you get over your fear then you can ask questions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Once again you conflate issues. The nature on earth was likely different, nothing to do with deep space.

There you go. Ignoring the evidence, ignoring the predictions and theories that made the predictions possible, ignoring the fact that such waves were detected as predicted, ignoring the implications of all this.

Just as said previously... you ask for evidence and when you get it, you handwave it away with juvenile and ignorant nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sort of. So that raises the question, does science know? The answer is no. Checkmate.

When reality doesn't agree with some story in a book, it's not reality that is incorrect

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why is that hard to understand?

Because it leads to a faith crisis.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I did not say that there are no variations in populations.
I am having trouble with statements I am not clear about, nor in agreement with... due to their vagueness, and inaccuracies.

You said... "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.

How can I agree when that is not exactly true... depending?
When you say traits, I do not know if you mean every possible difference you can find - like patterns, etc.
Black in peppered moths is a trait, so you can pick out two peppered moths - actually thousands - with the same trait, in a population.
The variation in the traits are basically three, I think.
I am in the dark as to if you are saying, you are going way deeper, and looking for a speck of difference on every possible level. What would that be, and how would it be relevant to your explanation?

I am just not clear on what all this specifics has to do with simply saying that there exist variations in populations.
So I think you are the one creating the problem... when there ought to be none. However, I think I understand why that is.

There will be differences. What you are looking at exactly, is right now the showstopper, I think.
Right now, I am stuck at "all of its traits".

I'm really not sure what you're having difficulty understanding.

Do you or do you not understand that, when looking at the entirety of a population, no two organisms will be exactly identical in every possible way?

 

[ecco]

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.

Even identical twins do not have the exact same DNA. That is something that has been known for over a decade.

Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical

• By Anne Casselman on April 3, 2008

Identical twins are identical, right? After all, they derive from just one fertilized egg, which contains one set of genetic instructions, or genome, formed from combining the chromosomes of mother and father.

But experience shows that identical twins are rarely completely the same. Until recently, any differences between twins had largely been attributed to environmental influences (otherwise known as "nurture"), but a recent study contradicts that belief.

Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants.​

 

[ecco]

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.

Thank God that there are "facts and evidence and testability, observation and etc." showing that evolution is true.

Blame Religious Fundies for willfully ignoring the "facts and evidence and testability, observation and etc." showing that evolution is true.

 

[ecco]

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

Why would Christians be opposed to the bible and what Jesus taught?

 

[ecco]

If time were the same out there, then it would need time. It is UNKNOWN what time is like out there.

what time is involved far far far far far far from earth!

does science know? The answer is no.

I'm sure it's religion against religion, or if you hate that... religion against philosophy. It's just a made up story viole. Not science.

If it is science, it's a kind that includes philosophy and religious thought.

Yep, science is all a bunch of silly hogwash. How really, really sad.

Pretend you know what evidence is

 

[viole]

LUCA is not thought to be the first life on Earth but only one of many early organisms, all the others becoming extinct.

I'm sure it's religion against religion, or if you hate that... religion against philosophy. It's just a made up story viole. Not science.
If it is science, it's a kind that includes philosophy and religious thought.

So, all I need from you is a clear answer to a simple question: do you agree that science overwhelmingly agrees that life started on earth only once?

If not, can you show me papers, conference proceedings, research, etc. showing that this is not the case?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

I did not say that there are no variations in populations.
I am having trouble with statements I am not clear about, nor in agreement with... due to their vagueness, and inaccuracies.

You said... "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.

How can I agree when that is not exactly true... depending?
When you say traits, I do not know if you mean every possible difference you can find - like patterns, etc.
Black in peppered moths is a trait, so you can pick out two peppered moths - actually thousands - with the same trait, in a population.
The variation in the traits are basically three, I think.
I am in the dark as to if you are saying, you are going way deeper, and looking for a speck of difference on every possible level. What would that be, and how would it be relevant to your explanation?

I am just not clear on what all this specifics has to do with simply saying that there exist variations in populations.
So I think you are the one creating the problem... when there ought to be none. However, I think I understand why that is.

There will be differences. What you are looking at exactly, is right now the showstopper, I think.
Right now, I am stuck at "all of its traits".

So from what I can tell, it seems you understand what "variation in a population" means and you agree that it's a real thing.

As for the rest, I'm just making sure you understand that populations of organisms are not made up of exact duplicates (i.e., clones) of each other.

Are we good?

 

[ecco]

do you agree that science overwhelmingly agrees that life started on earth only once?

I have a hard time accepting that the chemical combinations that led to "life" only occurred once.

 

[dad]

There you go. Ignoring the evidence, ignoring the predictions and theories that made the predictions possible, ignoring the fact that such waves were detected as predicted, ignoring the implications of all this.

Just as said previously... you ask for evidence and when you get it, you handwave it away with juvenile and ignorant nonsense.

Sure...we are all ignoring so called evidence you can't post. Not hard to ignore when it doesn't exist.

 

[dad]

When reality doesn't agree with some story in a book, it's not reality that is incorrect

Well, if you thought reality for the future and past was based solely on the present, you got your keys conflated and confused.

 

[dad]

Thank God that there are "facts and evidence and testability, observation and etc." showing that evolution is true.

Blame Religious Fundies for willfully ignoring the "facts and evidence and testability, observation and etc." showing that evolution is true.

Nothing you post about your same nature in the past belief is testable or observed actually. Just a belief. Calling it science would be fraud.

 

[dad]

Why would Christians be opposed to the bible and what Jesus taught?

No idea. Yet many who profess to be Christian do.

 

[dad]

Yep, science is all a bunch of silly hogwash. How really, really sad.

I agree, and yes, it is sad.