Evolution My ToE

[gnostic]

Thanks. When I started here I wanted to know what people think about the process of evolution, including the conjectures about how life in the sense of evolution began. I found my answers from you in the aggregate sense, and I thank you all for that. While recognizing that many do not believe abiogenesis relates to the process of evolution, I realize that many do believe whatever scientists say about the process.

When majority of students in universities & colleges, enrolled in biology-related courses, they are mainly focusing on current living and extant species of life-forms, not many go the palaeontology-route researching on fossilised remains of different species that differed from current species.

Those that do go, the palaeontology, they have to also study the minerals and rocks and strata of rocks of different geological periods and eras.

But even if biology students don’t seek careers as paleontologists, learning evolution is still essential to all areas of biology fields, as people can still learn how extant species are related to each other.

The Genome Project is one area, where researchers don’t have to look at single fossil. They take samples of DNA of every known extant species of animals, of plants, of fungi, of archaea and of bacteria, mapping every sequences of DNA in each chromosome and mapping of sequences protein-coded genes.

it is similar to have DNA tested for how one person related to another, like between a parent & a child, between siblings, or between close or distant cousins, etc, Some DNA tests can determine where their ancestors come from.

The Genome Project worked on the same principles, but in this areas of research, they are working on species-level.

So, they might compare how the Giant Pandas are related to the brown bears or black bears. Or they might calculate how far back the divergent point between the polar bears and other bears; what they found out that the polar bears are more closely related to brown bears than to the black bears.

Or they find how related are the species of Atlantic salmons to those species in the Pacific Ocean or those in the Indian Ocean. There are more different species within the genus Salmo, 12 of these species lived in the North Atlantic region.

As to Abiogenesis. This is even more specialised field than those in the paleontology field, except that students wouldn’t be studying Abiogenesis, as it is still a hypothesis, so it wouldn’t be available to bachelor-degree courses. Only researchers who advanced knowledge of chemistry in biology, and advanced knowledge in chemistry of Earth environments would be actively research the origins of organic matters (eg the origins of biological macromolecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, and other biological substances).

They (Abiogenesis researchers) are looking at different areas of finding out how these biological compounds can form into the earliest cells.

Whereas Evolution is science, Abiogenesis isn’t, at least not yet. Abiogenesis need more work.

Evolution is about researching the diversity of life, not the origin of earliest life.

 

[John53]

OK, obviously you don't want to expand your thinking. That's ok. No problem, as they say. Take care and so long.

So long for good, I'm sick of your trolling. I've never put anyone on ignore, you are my first.

 

[YoursTrue]

When majority of students in universities & colleges, enrolled in biology-related courses, they are mainly focusing on current living and extant species of life-forms, not many go the palaeontology-route researching on fossilised remains of different species that differed from current species.

Those that do go, the palaeontology, they have to also study the minerals and rocks and strata of rocks of different geological periods and eras.

But even if biology students don’t seek careers as paleontologists, learning evolution is still essential to all areas of biology fields, as people can still learn how extant species are related to each other.

The Genome Project is one area, where researchers don’t have to look at single fossil. They take samples of DNA of every known extant species of animals, of plants, of fungi, of archaea and of bacteria, mapping every sequences of DNA in each chromosome and mapping of sequences protein-coded genes.

it is similar to have DNA tested for how one person related to another, like between a parent & a child, between siblings, or between close or distant cousins, etc, Some DNA tests can determine where their ancestors come from.

The Genome Project worked on the same principles, but in this areas of research, they are working on species-level.

So, they might compare how the Giant Pandas are related to the brown bears or black bears. Or they might calculate how far back the divergent point between the polar bears and other bears; what they found out that the polar bears are more closely related to brown bears than to the black bears.

Or they find how related are the species of Atlantic salmons to those species in the Pacific Ocean or those in the Indian Ocean. There are more different species within the genus Salmo, 12 of these species lived in the North Atlantic region.

As to Abiogenesis. This is even more specialised field than those in the paleontology field, except that students wouldn’t be studying Abiogenesis, as it is still a hypothesis, so it wouldn’t be available to bachelor-degree courses. Only researchers who advanced knowledge of chemistry in biology, and advanced knowledge in chemistry of Earth environments would be actively research the origins of organic matters (eg the origins of biological macromolecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, and other biological substances).

They (Abiogenesis researchers) are looking at different areas of finding out how these biological compounds can form into the earliest cells.

Whereas Evolution is science, Abiogenesis isn’t, at least not yet. Abiogenesis need more work.

Evolution is about researching the diversity of life, not the origin of earliest life.

Seeing what is is not defying science. Evolution is based on conjecture, as you likely understand. Students are not taught possibilities or negatives, but what scientists have concluded for the most part based on whatever they consider as evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

So long for good, I'm sick of your trolling. I've never put anyone on ignore, you are my first.

Very good. !!

 

[gnostic]

OK, obviously you don't want to expand your thinking. That's ok. No problem, as they say. Take care and so long.

The problem with Mary’s pregnancy, it is biologically improbable for any woman, or any mammal for that matter, to asexually reproduce via parthenogenesis.

Only some species of reptiles, some species of amphibians and some species of fishes are capable of parthenogenesis; these are all vertebrates, I’ve left out invertebrates, as mammals are vertebrate animals, not invertebrates.

That modern biology have explored human biology more than any other nonhuman animals, there are no evidence that humans are capable of asexual reproduction.

The gospels about Mary’s pregnancy happened without fertilisation, is a myth, as parthenogenesis reproduction is improbable and impossible.

You can open your mind all you want, but such pregnancy would be supernatural occurrence, like magic or miracle, and supernatural have only occurred in fictions and myths.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem with Mary’s pregnancy, it is biologically improbable for any woman, or any mammal for that matter, to asexually reproduce via parthenogenesis.

Only some species of reptiles, some species of amphibians and some species of fishes are capable of parthenogenesis; these are all vertebrates, I’ve left out invertebrates, as mammals are vertebrate animals, not invertebrates.

That modern biology have explored human biology more than any other nonhuman animals, there are no evidence that humans are capable of asexual reproduction.

The gospels about Mary’s pregnancy happened without fertilisation, is a myth, as parthenogenesis reproduction is improbable and impossible.

You can open your mind all you want, but such pregnancy would be supernatural occurrence, like magic or miracle, and supernatural have only occurred in fictions and myths.

I'm really not the one to talk to about this. Because I believe it was a MIRACLE from God. And obviously not in harmony with evolution, natural circumstances, or anything like that.

 

[gnostic]

Seeing what is is not defying science. Evolution is based on conjecture, as you likely understand. Students are not taught possibilities or negatives, but what scientists have concluded for the most part based on whatever they consider as evidence.

Students are not experts, they are just learning. To be expert, would require years of knowledge and experiences, and they have to test hypotheses and any modification to current theories, so they are capable of refuting hypotheses or theories that are incorrect or flawed.

Scientists do have to test any model with experiments, evidence & data.

Evolution isn’t based on conjecture, and you are ignorant and closed minded, if you don’t see they are working with evidence.


As I keep telling you, the unfertilised ovum or egg, only have half of the number of chromosomes. For human embryos, to develop and grow, it required the sperm with the other half of chromosomes to fuse with ovum. The human ovum won’t conceive by itself. Without the fertilisation of two different haploid gamete cells (fusion of a sperm and ovum), the zygote cell cannot form, then there would be no cell divisions, no embryo, no fetus, no human baby at birth.

it funny how you can say people being closed-minded about Mary’s pregnancy without fertilisation, something that there are no evidence for humans to reproduce via parthenogenesis, and yet you reject completely the evidence that support evolution. The only one who doesn’t understand biology, is you.

 

[Jimmy]

So where is your evidence that the world is NOT 4.6 bn years old?

And how old do you think the universe is, if not the nearly 14 bn years indicated by astronomy? And again, on the basis of what evidence?

Evidence? Nope! The universe has been here for about 45 years in real time and 14 billion yrs in scientific time imo. You and I will both die, knowing what we know. It’s all good.

 

[gnostic]

I'm really not the one to talk to about this. Because I believe it was a MIRACLE from God. And obviously not in harmony with evolution, natural circumstances, or anything like that.

Human reproduction has nothing to do with Evolution, because we not discussing about biodiversity & speciation, here, YoursTrue. Human reproduction has everything to do with human anatomy and human physiology. They are naturally occurring reproduction, via sexual intercourse, requiring a sperm from a man’s testes and ovum from woman’s ovary, and fusion of these 2 gamete cells, before the zygote cannot form grow into human embryo.

it is just basic understanding of human reproduction, not evolution.

Human reproduction is just human biology, and what the 2 gospels say & claimed about Mary, couldn’t have happen. The human unfertilised egg alone, cannot reproduce. It is that simple. Humans are not capable of asexual reproduction like parthenogenesis. Adding god into mix, only demonstrated your superstition, not your knowledge in biology.

That you reject human reproduction in favour of gospel myths about Mary’s miraculous conception & pregnancy, only demonstrated that you don’t understand much about human biology at all.

Believe all you want, in this make-believe miracle, because I am tired of explaining very basic human reproduction to you.

enjoy your weekend.

 

[YoursTrue]

Students are not experts, they are just learning. To be expert, would require years of knowledge and experiences, and they have to test hypotheses and any modification to current theories, so they are capable of refuting hypotheses or theories that are incorrect or flawed.

Scientists do have to test any model with experiments, evidence & data.

Evolution isn’t based on conjecture, and you are ignorant and closed minded, if you don’t see they are working with evidence.


As I keep telling you, the unfertilised ovum or egg, only have half of the number of chromosomes. For human embryos, to develop and grow, it required the sperm with the other half of chromosomes to fuse with ovum. The human ovum won’t conceive by itself. Without the fertilisation of two different haploid gamete cells (fusion of a sperm and ovum), the zygote cell cannot form, then there would be no cell divisions, no embryo, no fetus, no human baby at birth.

it funny how you can say people being closed-minded about Mary’s pregnancy without fertilisation, something that there are no evidence for humans to reproduce via parthenogenesis, and yet you reject completely the evidence that support evolution. The only one who doesn’t understand biology, is you.

You miss the point. Students are learning from so-called experts. And in general, students are to repeat and believe what these people say.

 

[YoursTrue]

Human reproduction has nothing to do with Evolution, because we not discussing about biodiversity & speciation, here, YoursTrue. Human reproduction has everything to do with human anatomy and human physiology. They are naturally occurring reproduction, via sexual intercourse, requiring a sperm from a man’s testes and ovum from woman’s ovary, and fusion of these 2 gamete cells, before the zygote cannot form grow into human embryo.

it is just basic understanding of human reproduction, not evolution.

Human reproduction is just human biology, and what the 2 gospels say & claimed about Mary, couldn’t have happen. The human unfertilised egg alone, cannot reproduce. It is that simple. Humans are not capable of asexual reproduction like parthenogenesis. Adding god into mix, only demonstrated your superstition, not your knowledge in biology.

That you reject human reproduction in favour of gospel myths about Mary’s miraculous conception & pregnancy, only demonstrated that you don’t understand much about human biology at all.

Believe all you want, in this make-believe miracle, because I am tired of explaining very basic human reproduction to you.

enjoy your weekend.

Certainly human reproduction has plenty to do with evolution. I am amazed you actually claim it does not.

 

[blü 2]

Evidence? Nope! The universe has been here for about 45 years in real time and 14 billion yrs in scientific time imo. You and I will both die, knowing what we know. It’s all good.

Go well, then ... but be careful about believing things without evidence ─ you could end up goodness knows where with that!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sooo there are those who go along with evolution as the means of lifeforms like the Pope gives his ok to. Plus non-Catholics also who go to church and staunchly believe in evolution.

This is poorly formed. Educated people do not "believe" in evolution. They know that it is a fact. And tell me, what is better, accepting reality or calling God a liar?

I have never understood why creationists think that it is a good idea to call their own God a liar.

 

[Jimmy]

Go well, then ... but be careful about believing things without evidence ─ you could end up goodness knows where with that!

Go well, then ... but be careful about believing things with evidence ─ you could end up goodness knows where with that!

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, after asking questions I believe you are innately attacking the theory of evolution and will not admit your lack of understanding. Fishmen, men-fish, and more. Fish-gorillas, gorillas evolving to water dwellers, why not??

Why not? because the above is from a bizarre unintelligible ancient tribal agenda with complete intentional ignorance of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Go well, then ... but be careful about believing things with evidence ─ you could end up goodness knows where with that!

Evidence and knowledge leads to more evidence and knowledge as with ALL the sciences. Intentional ignorance leads to intentional ignorance, and "ou could end up goodness knows where with that!."