The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rational experiences]

Over the decades and nearly 2 centuries (1835), biologists would still visit and studied the species on Galápagos Islands, and how accurate Darwin’s framework of Evolution, like the mechanism Natural Selection.

How different environments can cause divergence.

How highlands and lowlands (terrains), of how humidity and dryness (climate), how abundance and scarcity of food (resources), which separated one island from another, by narrow stretch of water, can change the courses of populations of subspecies.

On one island, the higher humidity of highland, produce abundance of plant that are low enough for larger dome-shaped shells, where tortoises with short legs and necks can readily reach their food without a problem.

But on nearby island, the dry lowlands, where smaller tortoises’ food are higher off the ground, this population of tortoises need longer necks and legs, and since they must stretch legs and cranked their necks upward, a different type of shells are required, known as the saddleback shells.

The saddleback shelled tortoises were originally like their sister species, have dome shaped shells, but such shape were insufficient for their survival.

But their shells didn’t change shape, and they didn’t grow extra inches of necks and limbs, overnight. By natural selection, after some generations of breeding with other tortoises that have slightly longer necks and legs, and gradually the changes occurred enough for them to survive.

View attachment 36580​

The saddleback shells even allowed these tortoises to stand on their hind legs to reach edible leaves that no dome-shaped tortoises could possibly reach.

Natural life, was always just natural.

Males as scientists, with machines and reactions, not natural, artificial radiation changers. Who became the studiers of natural life seeing science changed it in the past, in the very ancient past, and as first life owners a long time ago....archaeological proven...artefacts found inside coal.

Life on the ground he said got attacked by the ground radiation hit of the Ark that landed on the ground, burnt/scorched it to a carbon conversion, caused land mass fusion to release as sink hole cause, plates broke apart and animal life was shifted away.

As landfall of the Ark carbon attack from UFO mass metal irradiated the species, it diversified its form by mutation of genetics to adapt to the climatic event.

As a victim of land hit radiation fall out....my dog/cats were affected, but my husband DNA different historically seemed not to be affected, except in his emotional reactive behaviour. I was being irradiated burnt, he seemed oblivious to it. Trees on my property showed mass leaf scorch in patches.

My dog died. My cat gained an unnatural eye condition that the specialist had never seen, and still today I get attacked by the scientific study of radiation and natural genetics for some evil scientific theme, where my tongue unnaturally burns on its tip and my skin overheats in the same attack.

Knowing that scientists are doing it on purpose.

Evolution is a fact for science knows that humans once lived on Earth before the dinosaurs, and ICE saved the Earth heavenly cold gases. For you cannot evolve back into the original Nature of life as origin forms unless it was already pre existing before being irradiated mutated.

 

[cladking]

Oh my, you do not understand the scientific method either.

Where do you want to start?

Spoken like a believer in Look and See Science and Peer review.

I'm not going to argus semantics with you.

 

[rational experiences]

Spoken like a believer in Look and See Science and Peer review.

I'm not going to argus semantics with you.

If a rational human male mind said to his science self, inventor of the state science, observation of his belief as a human upon natural existence.

It was only after he attacked it by his machine reaction did he then observe that he changed everything.

Would have made him feel very powerful as that male human self.

A man with his machine.

Now natural life says, a man is partnered in natural life with a female, and they have sex.

What does science say about life continuance with a machine partner?

A male told a story, I was a life equal with a female human being, life itself, life by the acts of sex, a newly born baby. Holy human life.

So a male says I cannot control my sexual desire...for if I could and not have sex...we both would live and die, and no more human suffering or owning the forced human choice for huge human populations....simple matter of fact.

He irradiated his natural life, then became a sexual partner with his male brother.

Then he irradiated destroyed all natural life on Earth by his machine invention.

Today in human life, here he is, unnaturally partnered with his machine body...claiming Genesis in scientific theories of a male human with a machine reaction.

Surely you must realize you are our life Destroyer by now?

Especially when an astute male scientist named STephen Hawkings said you were trying to give the machine the status and placement of a human life in the evilness of your science theories.

Evolution of a human species or an animal species by the act of life continuance, the act of sexual copulation...if any scientist wants to argue...ask why all historic life is deceased? And ask self why you personally inherit death in your owned future!

Surely it proves you all liars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Spoken like a believer in Look and See Science and Peer review.

I'm not going to argus semantics with you.

No, you seriously have no clue as to how science is done. That might be why your posts are so often filled with nonsense. A person that actually understood the sciences would not be afraid. Peddlers of woo woo usually insult others to cover up their own ignorance and run away.

 

[tas8831]

I might add that there will be found simple mechanisms that allow specific birds to survive these bottlenecks.

blah blah blah

Say - remember that time that you really, really tried to produce "evidence" for your absurd ignorant claim that ALL biological change is sudden, and you referred to mink 'changing' in a single generation?


And how you were not only totally wrong on the species (it was fox, not mink) and it actually took dozens of generations for even 10+% of the population to exhibit the desired traits?

No wonder you never try to present evidence for your silly, naive claims - on the rare occasions you do, you make an even BIGGER fool of yourself!

My gosh man, get a clue.

 

[tas8831]

Until it is shown that "population genetics" is causally related to a change in species it is simply irrelevant.

So precious how you ignore refutations of your dopey claims only to declare an entire field of genetics that you are wholly unaware of to be irrelevant.

You are looking at the wrong end of horses before the carts. What makes a horse alive is chiefly at the other end; the end you have pointed right at the cart.

You are just trying to cover up your ignorance and lies.

You claimed that there was no examination of the genetics of individuals before and after change, and I referred to population genetics.

Now you just dismiss it due to your own spectacular ignorance and self-absorption.

I am curious - do you think anyone actually thinks you have ever made a legitimate point about anything?

Say - remember that time that you really, really tried to produce "evidence" for your absurd ignorant claim that ALL biological change is sudden, and you referred to mink 'changing' in a single generation?


And how you were not only totally wrong on the species (it was fox, not mink) and it actually took dozens of generations for even 10+% of the population to exhibit the desired traits?


That was hilarious, because it demonstrated how clueless you are - even with regard to your OWN 'ARGUMENTS'!

Or how about when you claimed to have "predicted" that life expectancy had gone down? And I easily showed it wasn't, then you replied that it will go down soon?
Hilarious AND pathetic, all at once!

 

[tas8831]

Please present EVIDENCE for that assertion [that ALL change is sudden].

I can't prove a negative. It is YOUR JOB to show some change that is gradual.

Please take a look at that.

That is the level this one operates at - when asked to provide evidence FOR his claim that 'ALL change is sudden', he tries to dodge it by claiming he cannot prove a negative.

Which means this guy is just a troll.

 

[tas8831]

You are merely assuming there was a gradual change in species.

You are merely assuming that there wasn't.

What is your evidence for this implicit assumption of yours?

I believe that if there were evidence it would show the domed tortoise right up until the saddle shaped shell emerged after a population bottleneck.

Here you go again...

I just demonstrated over the course of a few posts that you do not even know what a bottleneck is, yet here you are, yammering away about bottlenecks.

Amazing...

 

[tas8831]

"Population" exist only in our minds. Only individuals exist.

Profound.

So... what did the speakers of the Ancient Language that only you understand yet cannot read, call groups of individuals that can interbreed?

 

[tas8831]

If we're so damn smart and science is so omniscient than why is life expectancy now decreasing exactly as I predicted 15 years ago?

Where did you make this false prediction - at that Graham Hancock alt-history forum?

It is so cool to watch you make these absurd claims, have them demolished, and then to see you first try to rescue them (often by repeating the same false claims again, or by altering your original false claim) and/or just ignoring the refutations, only to make the same false claims time and time again.

 

[tas8831]

This is what I'm talking about.

You don't see evidence. Just like everyone else you see what you believe. You can't even see that the brocca's area is, in a sense, bifurcated since it's on two sides of an anatomic structure.

Correct - I cannot see this. YOU cannot see this. NOBODY can see this, because this is false information - you are just plain old Wrong-Again-Cladking.

But it is precious how you try to use grown-up science talk. You fail, of course, but you try so hard!

Reality tramples everyone who tries to predict the future because it always shows just how little we know individually and collectively..

And yet you boasted of having predicted a decrease in life expectancy 15 years ago.

That was wrong, of course, fantastically wrong, but you still claimed to have done so.

So I guess you are just a datum point in the folly of lunkheads trying to predict the future.

 

[tas8831]

Is the narrative above illustrative of what you learned about evolution in school? Were you taught to mix the origin of life with the evolution of life?

This is especially odd since he claimed to have studied biology/evolution in college.

I am pretty sure that while the origin of life may be mentioned in biology texts, it is not claimed to be part of evolution.

 

[cladking]

Life expectancy in the US keeps going down, and a new study says America's worsening inequality could be to blame

This will accelerate. We've been making a lot of bad choices. The article is wrong in most ways just like almost everything published now days. It comes from Look and See Science, statistics, and political correctness.

There are as many causes as there were deaths and every death was sudden.

 

[tas8831]

Life expectancy in the US keeps going down, and a new study says America's worsening inequality could be to blame

This will accelerate. We've been making a lot of bad choices. The article is wrong in most ways just like almost everything published now days. It comes from Look and See Science, statistics, and political correctness.

Oh my goodness yes - why, those evil do-gooders wanting people to stop referring to people by derogatory slurs are to blame!

There are as many causes as there were deaths and every death was sudden.

Yup - just like speciation.

Where did you make your prediction about human life expectancy going down 15 years ago? In particular, where you claimed only that the U.S. population's life expectancy would be going down? Because as I showed the other day, world-wide life expectancy is going up.

Life Expectancy

"Estimates suggest that in a pre-modern, poor world, life expectancy was around 30 years in all regions of the world.

Life expectancy has increased rapidly since the Age of Enlightenment. In the early 19th century, life expectancy started to increase in the early industrialized countries while it stayed low in the rest of the world. This led to a very high inequality in how health was distributed across the world. Good health in the rich countries and persistently bad health in those countries that remained poor. Over the last decades this global inequality decreased. No country in the world has a lower life expectancy than the countries with the highest life expectancy in 1800. Many countries that not long ago were suffering from bad health are catching up rapidly.

Since 1900 the global average life expectancy has more than doubled and is now above 70 years. The inequality of life expectancy is still very large across and within countries. in 2019 the country with the lowest life expectancy is the Central African Republic with 53 years, in Japan life expectancy is 30 years longer."​

Remember when you claimed to have predicted a decrease in life expectancy 15 years ago?

And you SPECIFICALLY referred to "worldwide" life expectancy:

"It will begin a sharp drop and accelerate. My mid-century it will be down to 76.5 for men and beyond this it is unpredictable and largely dependent on decisions not yet made.

World wide life expectancy will probably continue to increase for many years yet."​

Looks like your phony If-I-Can-Dream-It-Up-It-Must-Be-totally-True pseudoscience blows.


Like I said - I will continue debunking your absurd claims because it takes very little effort - in fact, all one typically needs to do is search your posts for the keyword in question, and one will likely find you contradicting yourself. Because you can't seem to keep your insane yammering nonsense straight.

 

[tas8831]

We must remember, @Dan From Smithville , since when people die, they die suddenly, we must extrapolate this biosphere-wide, and just admit that the great Ancient Language expert, he who knows how the pyramids were REALLY built despite never studying them nor performing experiments to test his counterfactual claims, that speciation, too, is "sudden" is actually correct.

 

[cladking]

Like I said - I will continue debunking your absurd claims because it takes very little effort - in fact, all one typically needs to do is search your posts for the keyword in question, and one will likely find you contradicting yourself. Because you can't seem to keep your insane yammering nonsense straight.

How is it possible I say "Look and See Science isn't science at all and you see "science is nonsense". How is it I say "Peer review is irrelevant to reality" and you see "science is nonsense". Just once it would be nice if you respond to what I say rather than what it sounds like to you.

Where is your evidence for a gradual change in species. I've shown numerous species and all life change suddenly but you're still talking about unrelated ideas about "evolution".

I know I owe you and this thread a few posts but i'm in read only mode now. Later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is it possible I say "Look and See Science isn't science at all and you see "science is nonsense". How is it I say "Peer review is irrelevant to reality" and you see "science is nonsense". Just once it would be nice if you respond to what I say rather than what it sounds like to you.

Where is your evidence for a gradual change in species. I've shown numerous species and all life change suddenly but you're still talking about unrelated ideas about "evolution".

I know I owe you and this thread a few posts but i'm in read only mode now. Later.

Because technically all science is what you mistakenly call "Look and See Science". Your claim is an indication that you do not even understand the basics of science and as all peddlers of woo woo do you ran away from an offer to discuss the basics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is especially odd since he claimed to have studied biology/evolution in college.

I am pretty sure that while the origin of life may be mentioned in biology texts, it is not claimed to be part of evolution.

Many people can take a course, pass the course, and not understand the subject material. Especially courses that are not at the majors level. People that take "rocks for jocks" really do not understand geology at all.

 

[cladking]

Because technically all science is what you mistakenly call "Look and See Science". Your claim is an indication that you do not even understand the basics of science and as all peddlers of woo woo do you ran away from an offer to discuss the basics.

Then you obviously have no understanding of metaphysics or the scientific method.

This is a very common ailment now days even among real scientists. Frankly I believe there have been a mere handful of good metaphysicians in the last century and a half. Most scientists don't know what they know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you obviously have no understanding of metaphysics or the scientific method.

This is a very common ailment now days even among real scientists. Frankly I believe there have been a mere handful of good metaphysicians in the last century and a half. Most scientists don't know what they know.

Wrong again. And let's leave "metaphysicis" out of the conversation for now. Metaphysics is another excuse that woo woo peddlers use. Let's go over what you do not understand first.