The Big Bang and Evolution

[jonathan180iq]

A subspecies is not a new species any more than the offspring of a poodle and a bull dog is a new species.

Let's dive into the differences between artificial selection and natural selection later, if you don't mind.
In short - there is a big difference.

I did not call them a subspecies. l That ws the classification of those who did the study. The enviroment cannot change a species. It might make the species infertile or cause it to become extinct, but it is not a mechanism that will change the species.

Read this carefully, please...

How can you make the above statement after you cited a study that objectively demonstrates how environments change species...? Were it not for the geographic differences and environmental factors weighing on the expanding populations and causing them to change both in genotype and phenotype, then what was it?

Not true. That were born salamanders and at the end of the end of the study they were still salmanders.

I certainly called that response, didn't I? You are right - they are still salamanders... But they are salamanders that have markedly changed due to natural causes. They've changed so much, both physically and socially that the two reconnected populations now can no longer mate with one another. The natural development of a new subspecies is part of speciation. I'm sorry that this fact doesn't mesh well with your arguments. But that does not make it any less true.

Starting at the bottom left, and then going clockwise around Central Valley, you'll see drastic color changes among these varying salamanders. Which factor, or force, caused those adaptations to change? You're saying that it wasn't environment - And if you want to stick with that - that's fine. I do expect you, however, to tell me what it was that caused those changes. (Remember, the original population looked like the eschscholtzii)

Also, you've not addressed the crucial question of my last post, which asked what limiting biological factor keeps small changes over time, which you've admitted take place, from continuing indefinitely, eventually creating large changes over longer periods of time. What biological mechanism limits those changes?

 

[Thumper]

Someone here has this quote below their avatar "Reasoning with one who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to a dead man." (Thomas Paine).
It looks good on you.

I love it! Just added it to Quotes from Famous Freethinkers

 

[Valjean]

The main purpose of science is to prove/disprove theories. You dislike the workd "proof" becaue you don't have any.

Omega, you're wrong here, you've been told you're wrong yet you keep making the same wrong statement. Science disproves hypotheses. It never proves them. You're confusing it with mathematics.
Name a single hypothesis science has ever proved.

Sorry but I don't have to. I have told why I quit reading links and I am not going to start again.

You keep demanding evidence, proof &c. You refuse to look at the evidence presented, then you insist there is no evidence.
Don't you see the problem, here?

... I am just a qualified as you are to read and understand or I would not have graduated from college. IMO, my ability is better. You have a problem processing infommatiion as to if it is evidence of opinion.

Christian schools present both sides. However, they are not mandatory to get a HS diploma.

Balderdash.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It Aint Necessarily So said: "Sorry, but you need to meet me half-way here."

Sorry but I don't have to.

No problem.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Can you discuss the subject intelligently or are you here to expose you rude behavior?

I hope that thorn did not hurt to much.

It's a tool among many. You need to know how many folks out here won't even start to deal with you without the threat of force Your science and evolution denial is no problem in and of itself. What's at real issue here is what kind of a person you really are.
Know why?
You conform to a pattern of past interactions i've had with unreasonable people who have often demonstrated a threatening response to being opposed on anything, not just science.
My immediate autonomic physical response to you is a feeling of suffocation. I watch those "feelings" very closely because, to my astonishment they are very accurate. Anyone who wallows in their own ignorance, then tries to force that on others will draw a real life response from me in which there's no way I/m going to share my knowledge of evolution or any other science with you. Instead, you will see my real life response to what i've seen so far in your posts. I'm speaking to you here as if you were physically standing in front of me and that's how i deal with everyone anywhere, any time.
I know of a certain route to speciation that especially fascinates me, but you have to earn your right to be educated as far as i'm concerned. Not rude, just real life. I think, had you seen me at the store the day Nat Geo came out with the story on Homo Nedali. you would have been ready to fight or run for your life. I really had some big fun that day here in my little town full of creatard lazy-brained christians, doped by a sermon or by excessive buybull (bible) consumption.
I see this now. I say lazy-brained because it's no different than people who smoke so much pot they lose their motivation to learn and challenge themselves to betterment.
I am evolution and i am a fact.
Welcome to LIFE In Living Color, little man.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is still the most ignorant statement someone can make about science. I gave you 2 examples of things science has proven. Which one has not been proven?

That's already been refuted, and you chose not to answer the refutation.

 

[Valjean]

A mutation does not change the species. They only alter a characteristic the life form would have gotten without the mutation. The albino was going to get eyes. The mutation only changed the color of its eyes.

That's like saying a slang term or mispronunciation does not change language. Accumulate enough of them and you have a new language.

I can defend what I say. You can't. You must be an evolutionists.

Your defense is mostly disparagement of the opposition, and you admittedly refuse to look at the evidence linked to.

Science has proven thre isd moe than one type of blood and that all living things have DNA.

No it hasn't. It's amassed enough evidence to consider these facts, but it hasn't proved them.

The subject is not about the scientific method. It is about evidence to support what they say is true.

Which you steadfastly refuse to look at, while maintaining your position it does not exist.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

A beautiful rose. Be careful how you handle me, I would hate to stick you.

I grow roses, no problem. The trick is to keep them pruned to leave enough room between the main branches and stems to work between them and the thorns. In some cases, i just take a pair of pliers and gently de-thorn some of the larger branches and stems. It doesn't hurt then and the thorns seem to grow back, so that's good and a sign of good health.

 

[Thumper]

I grow roses, no problem. The trick is to keep them pruned to leave enough room between the main branches and stems to work between them and the thorns. In some cases, i just take a pair of pliers and gently de-thorn some of the larger branches and stems. It doesn't hurt then and the thorns seem to grow back, so that's good and a sign of good health.

Hey, I do too! Gotta watch out for the occasional prick, though.

Last year I found this hybrid call a "Ketchup and Mustard". It's gorgeous --

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Also, you've not addressed the crucial question of my last post, which asked what limiting biological factor keeps small changes over time, which you've admitted take place, from continuing indefinitely, eventually creating large changes over longer periods of time. What biological mechanism limits those changes?

You probably understand that you will never get an answer to that question from any creationist. It's enough just to point that out as you did and note that no creationist can supply a mechanism to put up a barrier to ongoing evolution, or has even tried.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Hey, I do too! Gotta watch out for the occasional prick, though.

Last year I found this hybrid call a "Ketchup and Mustard". It's gorgeous --
View attachment 16523

This is your plant?

 

[Thumper]

Not true. If there is more than one side and only one is presented, the student is not properly educated. ....

But there is not more than one side to biology anymore than there is more than one side to astronomy. We don't teach astrology as an "alternative" to astronomy, and we don't teach creationism as biology for the exact same reason.

You want creationism taught in school as a science, then it need to have some science to support it. Not just words and empty ideas, but real independently verifiable evidence.

Any "alternatives" must address all aspects of our current knowledge of the subject and help us move our knowledge forward in some measurable way.

You want creationism as biology, then explain how creationism accounts for the fact that 99% of all species that have ever lived have become extinct?

You want creationism taught as biology, then explain how creationism can be used to develop new biological disease modifiers to improve human health outcomes? (I'm out of a wheelchair today because of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.)

In fact, why not show us all any healthcare, agricultural, or other biological innovation based on "creationism" research that can improve our lives in any way? Any? Until then you've got squat.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You probably understand that you will never get an answer to that question from any creationist. It's enough just to point that out as you did and note that no creationist can supply a mechanism to put up a barrier to ongoing evolution, or has even tried.

Indeed.

What creationists who dive into these conversations fail to realize is that the moment that they admit that "micro-evolution" occurs, which has been the more reasonable habit of their movement lately since it's observable, they've already lost.

They back themselves into a scientific and logical corner without even realizing what they are doing because of their ignorance of the subject. It takes a lot of talking to get them to get to that point. But somewhere deep inside that pious mind they know they have no answer and, at some point, they have to confront that internally.

 

[Thumper]

This is your plant?

It is! In the front yard right now and I'm looking forward to this year's blooms. I found it at the local nursery last fall.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You keep demanding evidence, proof &c. You refuse to look at the evidence presented, then you insist there is no evidence. Don't you see the problem, here?

That's the game, and increasingly, s/he is having trouble finding people willing to play it. (I'm going to assume that this is a he. Omega can correct me if I am wrong). It's pretty clear that he has no interest in evidence, just giving the impression that he does.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Hey, I do too! Gotta watch out for the occasional prick, though.

Last year I found this hybrid call a "Ketchup and Mustard". It's gorgeous --
View attachment 16523

That's a beauty! Sort of reminds me of the Joseph's Coat of Many Colors i have as a "corner stone" in my front yard. This pic of a single bloom is my favorite because it's so unusual to see with Grandpa Ott morning glories. Very rare sets of colors to see in nature.
The pic below is the Tiffany rose. Super sweet fragrance you can actually follow your nose to from quite a distance!

 

[jonathan180iq]

I like reminders that we're real people, who live in real places, and have real hobbies.

 

[metis]

Last year I found this hybrid call a "Ketchup and Mustard". It's gorgeous --

Beautiful!

My pride & joys are several varieties each of English roses and shrub roses, both of which are hardy here in Michigan.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Ok, this is going to sound kind of dumb, but i don't care.
Just out of amusement, i pulled a small sprig of my Tiffany rose and planted it in some very fertile soil i have. Since i nailed myself on a thorn trying to get it i decided to give my associations between Jesus, Blood, (a possible source of nutrients) and roses a chance, so put some of my blood mixed with a bit of water on the base of the sprig before i planted it. I sure ain't no Jesus, but i'm betting on those nutrients.

 

[Bird123]

How silly. So you're not talking about an actual published scientific paper on the subject, but just some book some guy published. The ONLY way you could calculate how long it would take the universe to form naturally you FIRST have to understand EVERYTHING about how the universe came about. Since we DO NOT know EVERYTHING about how the universe came about, it's IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to make such a calculation. Anyone who claims that they have is lying to you.

This was a Statistical Scientist writing the book. I do not recall if there was a formal paper.

You are right that the guy could not possibly know everything about the universe, however he could figure out the odds of random occurrences and the possibility of something complex being generated within a given time frame.

If I recall, I think this guy was an atheist. How does that change the picture? Instead of working on random beliefs, this guy was using math. When the math adds up, it's usually right.