Telekinetic,More lies, dogbert- The genes aren't similar, they are FROM the Neanderthal.
You don't know that. Humans have similar DNA to many animals.
Personal attacks are the hallmark of the insecure and unsure. You cannot logically support your assertions so you attack personalities.
Telekinetic,
Calling someone a liar is a personal attack.
Such personal attacks are indicative of the insecure and unsure.
You should try to argue on facts rather than innuendo.
Evolution as taught by crack scientists is that genes actually change over time ... We have never observed this anywhere. Anytime. Or in any form.
More lies, dogbert- The genes aren't similar, they are FROM the Neanderthal. And what does "close relative" mean? Are you saying you can't mate with a cousin?
Selection can drive a lot of diversity within a species (witness dogs), but it is not evolution. Even mutation which does not cause the creation of a new species is not evolution.
Calling someone a liar is a personal attack.
The liger will be sterile meaning that its genes will never be passed on.
No, it is not. Does that make you a liar?
Those people did not become a separate species.
Evolution by definition leads to speciation. No speciation, no evolution.
If you want to define the word evolution to mean the absence of evolution, don't let me stop you.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
All dogs are dogs. Nothing new.
It is certainly possible that something not dog will evolve from dogs. That has not happened, however. Dogs remain dogs in their various forms.
Evolution, by definition, results in new organisms.
I understand that the inability to demonstrate evolution
Human skin color is an example of selection, not evolution...ಠ_ಠ Evolution is based on selection. The classical Darwinian evolution is even based on sexual selection nearly exclusively.
You are calling selection evolution. It is not.Nope, I wrote that evolution is based on selection. Check it yourself, it's still visible in the thread. Do you have some example of selection, which doesn't result into evolution (other than artificial breeding of domestic plants and animals)?
jacky750,
I have no problem with the theory of evolution. I have a problem with people claiming that selection is evolution.
I did not say we have no evidence of evolution. I said evolution has not been demonstrated.
I have a problem with people claiming that selection is evolution.
Evolution theory posits that selection and mutation may result in the emergence of a new organism.
There are no such things as species in nature. There are merely individual organisms, more or less closely related to one another.Yah this a typical philobabble interpretation which thankfully most all of science disagrees with.
Evolution posits the emergence of a new organism(s) as a result of selection and/or mutation.
No it has not.YES it has.
Dogs are not examples of evolution. Human beings with diverse traits are not examples of evolution.
And otto, go back under your bridge. Your variant Scientologial religion based on Asimov instead of Hubbard is still only half-baked.-And you did not visit the site which lists all the mainstream scientists who think that your amorphous voodoo is unscientific. Which it is.
No, it doesn't. Mere reproduction is sufficient to result in a new organism.-But as most any scientist will tell you, this cannot happen among members of different species. The rest of your post is crapola.
Evolution is about the distribution of traits in a population of organisms. It postulates a change in distribution as a result of selection and reproduction. It doesn't matter how you select the organisms to be members of your original population. Your continuing population is always going to be surviving members of the original population plus their offspring. The distribution of traits within that population will change, and some members may come to possess traits or lack traits that would have disqualified them from being included in the original population. That's all that "speciation" is.-See? I was right.
there is no problem with any modern theory of biology if you simply abandon the old-fashioned concept of "species."And this is the same thing as saying that there would be no gender bias if we just eliminated the notion of gender.
Actually, the references were my favorite part. Particularly this one:Who this guy?
Mishler, BD; Donoghue, MJ (December 1982). "Species concepts: A case for pluralism". Systematic Zoology (Society of Systematic Biologists) 31 (4): 491–503.
Who this guy?
http://ucjeps.ber...ler.html
-He looks like a hippy.
RealScience,
Correct. As I have been saying, evolution has never been observed.
get your digs in against people who know you for the fraud you are and aren't afraid to call you out on it? You're among the most egregious trolls on these boards.And I have often noted what appears to be a complete lack of a sense of humor in there trashy. May we see this as an actual hole in your head or is the damage somewhat less obvious? Scary at any rate.
I don't know how many times I have to spell this out for you anti-evolution idiots...There are no such things as species in nature.-when with only a little research we find the MAJORITY of the scientific community disagrees with you.
Correct. As I have been saying, evolution has never been observed.You say this despite the 3 examples I gave you.
And I said I agree. We have never demonstrated evolution.And that's complete bull. Evolution has been demonstrated by any definition of demonstration you care to give, multiple times.
No. We have demonstrated selection. We have demonstrated mutation. We have not demonstrated evolution. Saying that we have multiple times does not change reality.
I only note that evolution has not been demonstrated. You even agree, but then say I should not point that out.
The evolution should lead into formation of new species - so far we never observed any
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
Are you afraid that if you admit to evolution that would somehow threaten your spiritual beliefs?He's not afraid. There is great comfort in a faith which simply requires that you IGNORE any evidence which would make you feel uncomfortable.
human races a product of artificial human breeding. For example, the black people are black because they were selected with their owners in the distant past. And of course, white people have pale color from the same reason.Human change has indeed been driven by artificial, as opposed to natural, influence. Skin color is of course driven by natural influence; but brain function, body shape, digestion, and immune system function have been artificially influenced.
-zephir/natelloCreationists shouldn't comment on science, it is hilarious and it helps makes deconverts from superstitionThe censors of any opinion have absolutely no place in EVERY scientific discussion, no matter which paradigm this discussion is based on.
For example, the recent http://imgur.com/a/UsgY2 the presence of fossil vertebrates on Mars. In this way the terrestrial evolution could be infected with higher life forms from Mars or external space and violate the evolutionary mechanisms at the Earth in this way.
The evolutionary theory is just a theory, now matter how well supported it appears by now. The people, who are confusing the theories with facts aren't scientists in my eyes in the same way, like the censors.
We have not grown a third eye, a huge skull and much larger brain than what we already have, nor have we evolved to reproduce by splitting into two equal parts similar to amoebae.-As did many other large vertebrates and even a few primates. This is why we are unable to find bigfoot placentas in the forest. Unless they eat them. Bwahaaahaaahahahahhaaaaaaa!!
I firmly believe that humans are not the first sentient beings with intelligence to have been created and then evolved on our planet. I believe this because of the age of the Earth and other factors.-Says the NASA engineer (consultant, contract.) Correction - says the fucking dimwit.
Biology is not only the most well tested science we have, due to its complex processes, it is observed in _all_ of the million species seen today. The universal common ancestry is the best observed fact in all of science, more than 10^2000 times likelier than creationism random assembly of organisms.
Thrasymachus,
I say that evolution has not been demonstrated because it has not. I do not argue that evolution does not happen.
You say that evolution is really just selection, denying the theory entirely.
Why you argue about a theory you deny is a mystery.
depth,
To redefine evolution to mean variation, reproduction and selection just means that evolution has no real meaning. It leaves no theory to account for the diversity of life, since evolution is not the path for diversity, it is just the diversity itself along with reproduction and selection.
Selection is not evolution.
Diversity in a population is not evolution.
Changes in the diversity of a population is not evolution.
Selection is not evolution.
You may insist that it is, but you will continue to be wrong. The process is not the result.
To redefine evolution to mean variation, reproduction and selection just means that evolution has no real meaning.
It leaves no theory to account for the diversity of life, since evolution is not the path for diversity, it is just the diversity itself along with reproduction and selection.
In the end they are still the same species.
I think what dogbert is looking for is an example of speciation.
In the end they are still the same species.
That is a tautological error. Dogs are of the same species only because we define them to be.
Even when there are great enough differences between the phenotypes of dogs to warrant splitting them into subspecies, like a chihuahua and a great dane for example, we still insist calling them the same species partly because our definitions of species are vague enough to allow that.
Yet if you try to breed a chihuahua with a great dane, it wouldn't be possible. Not naturally and not even artifically because it would only work one way around - the chihuahua as the bitch would die.
Irrelevant as the genetic material would still produce a viable embryo.
What do you call it when the process of "evolution" is cut-short before a new species emerges?
He's not looking for anything. He's just dodging the question by applying false definitions of evolution.
Where am I going wrong here?
That is an irrelevant requirement. A tiger and a lion will produce a viable embryo, yet we don't consider them the same species.
If "we" don't then "we" need a verifiable example of speciation in action.
What dogbert is doing is claiming that evolution is not evolution until it produces visible results, because he defines that evolution is not a process.
The "problem" I think is one of what's "admissible evidence", and yes one of definitions too. However if we considered the fact that there ARE different species and that no god exists to create them at once and whole-cloth the situation is CRYSTAL clear. If "we" don't then "we" need a verifiable example of speciation in action.I'm not playing devils advocate, I'm just saying if you really are interested in convincing someone you have to understand where their convictions come from at the root.
What he is asking for a dog become a dinosaur during the time period of human, which is not possble, because we can study only what was in the fossil record.
What dogbert is doing is claiming that evolution is not evolution until it produces visible results, because he defines that evolution is not a process.And he is using the same empty argument that kevin does, that no one has actually ever 'seen' it happen. This disregards all the equally valid EVIDENCE available in the fossil and genetic records, which shows us that evolution is a real thing and has been operating since life began.
I would think that evolution qua evolution wasn't evolution either unless it produced different species. This is in fact the central theme of the theory. To deny it is to deny what the theory proposes. It IS a process that PRODUCES specific results or it isn't.
The problem is the semantic difference between "different species", and "difference in a species", which by all accounts really just mean the same thing.
It's actually called the continuum fallacy - that grains of sand won't eventually become a heap.
But then again, at any point along the way there, when was it not evolution?
We have not grown a third eye, a huge skull and much larger brain than what we already have, nor have we evolved to reproduce by splitting into two equal parts similar to amoebae. (Edit: These would have been proof of further evolution of homo sapiens)-As did many other large vertebrates and even a few primates. This is why we are unable to find bigfoot placentas in the forest. Unless they eat them. Bwahaaahaaahahahahhaaaaaaa!!-Blotto
That from Blotto who believes that a gearshift from his old Camaro is jutting out from a rock on Mars.
"TheGhostofOtto1923 Feb 20, 2013 Rank: 3/5 after 12 votes Quit screwing around. Get back to that gearshift thing sticking out of that rock, and figure out what the heck it is.
http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"
Blotto also believes that it could be a beach umbrella or an artifact from a '68 Impala.
Bwahaaahaaahahahahhaaaaaaa!!
It leaves no theory to account for the diversity of life, since evolution is not the path for diversity, it is just the diversity itself along with reproduction and selection. You may choose to say that we no longer have a theory about how diversity emerges...
I firmly believe that humans are not the first sentient beings with intelligence to have been created and then evolved on our planet. I believe this because of the age of the Earth and other factors.-Says the NASA engineer (consultant, contract.) Correction - says the fucking dimwit. -ThegoatsofBlotto
Blotto also believes that it could be a beach umbrella or an artifact from a '68 Impala.Pussytards 2D personality has no room at all for sarcasm but plenty of room for wondering about human agamogenesis.
Additionally, I have NEVER said that I am an employee of NASA.Yeah check my profile page for instant confirmation you liar.
sock puppets (SEE MY PROFILE)-most of which are not me. And has nothing to do with the crap you post, the possibility that unrestricted evolution would have produced an eye in our foreheads, or that intelligent life arose here previously.
but relies on Google Search info.-and you rely on buzzle search info so -?
Oh, by the way, I have created two new user names for commenting on this Physorg and I will be using them in the threads that I find interesting.Yah sickpuppets are temporary but stupid is forever. What makes you think you can hide? This has never worked has it?
lies such as saying that I said anything about the above definition, which I never have...ever....nor have we evolved to reproduce by splitting into two equal parts similar to amoebae. ...Right??
As to my hypothesis, only one person on this Physorg has been informed as to its basic details.-Uh, yourself maybe?
The origin of diversity in life is not evolution. Diversity is caused by DNA and RNA and how they transcribe proteins. Evolution does not create DNA or RNA, it merely reorganizes them.
Let me state it another way. Evolution posits that selection, mutation, reproduction, etc. results in new kinds of organisms.
We have not demonstrated evolution, but we do see the elements which are posited to result in evolution.
No, I have not confused the issue. I believe that evolution theory posits that selection, mutation, reproduction, etc. will result in, as you say "to new kinds of organisms".
Novel traits come from mutation in DNA/RNA coding.
Imagine this (Part 2). One of the outcasts falls in love with one of the normal humans and they have a child. This child grows up and falls in love and tries to have children but to no avail. it turns out that his parents DNA have too many differences to be able to produce fertile offspring.(Possibly why IVF is so common for people of today's world). Through human history man has played god by not allowing people with mutations such as down syndrome to survive let alone reproduce and evolve.
That a reordering of existing traits within the organism results in novel traits is to be expected.
"Yet you seem to have escaped Man's clutches."
Sorry if I have offended you Telekinetic with the IVF thing. All I am saying is that you might not be shooting blanks after all. Your wife an youself may just not be that genetically compatable.
The experiment is all good. But it has nothing to do with evolution. There is large variation within our genes and this makeup can change generation to generation. But this is not evolution.
It does not say anything about a new gene being formed
But no, they do not prove anything about evolution.
.ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.Curious.
Evolution has never been demonstrated in the pederasty of Vatican Priests because they've always been and always will be pederasts.-Telekinetic
Islam...its believers think that their God is superior to the Christian and Jewish God...not realizing that all three religions have belief in the same God-And this is of course true for all 2B of them. Percentage-wise, believers of the other 2 are just as ignorant. Just like YOU, pussytard.
The concept of ONE GOD and ONLY one is an ancient memory that could be built into the brain-which was a very speedy installation, as monotheism didnt emerge until a few thousand years ago.
and yet, punishes us when we disobey...just like a loving Dad would do.-And your dad would whup you for disrespecting people the way you do, and pretending to be what you most obviously are not, and he would tell tk and the others here not to encourage you to do so.
I don't object to "spirituality" either, but it's an extremely private pursuit, and it's no one else's business meddling in your own meditations."Belief without evidence is evil." -dawkins
"There is but one answer, and that is prayers have been answered, lives have been saved, illnesses have been healed, and guidance has been given...not by church leaders, but by a genuine one-to-one relationship with God."- O.S.-Telekinetic
OR... Things just work themselves out.
And I believe that at the moment of death, those who lived a righteous life will rise out of the body and be taken to a nice place; while those who lived an evil life remain in their dead body and are able to FEEL.-But evidence indicates, as anyone here can see, that you will not make it to that happy place because you cannot help but lie.
jacky 750
Feb 19, 2013This is a great study lending experimental support to mathematical models of frequency-based diversification.