"The origin of species"

From a purely objective standpoint, the issue of an organized group seeking to diminish or replace a widely accepted scientific topic with one of pure philosophy and faith fits the description of a "conspiracy".

one of this website's owners

Species are correlated to each other, and may not be causal to each other.

No sane person would ignore the evolution of an individual, a group, a species, a phylum, a theory, or anything else : everything constantly changes and evolves in various ways, and none of it shows speciation to me so far.

I doubt that the origin of all species is primordial soup, and I doubt that our ancestry include fish. Here is partly why:

The idea that the origin of all species is primordial soup, and that species become other species over time, are pushed by public services and their convinced students, and serve key social purposes from inception.

The idea that species become other species, but so slow you can't see it, when presented as fact to youth, can and does have lasting consequences including and unfortunately not limited to -either consciously or not- logically following this idea into its consequences for our own, assuming perennity.

To say this differently, people do not incrementally become different species, which is a racist's and an authoritarian's wet dream.
divide

Other consequences of the idea that fish become people over time include justification of empires as naturally selected to do what empires do, which coincidentally also serves "tptb"'s goals.
conquer

Every child differs from their parents in ways not inclusive of the child's species.

A species is defined biologically as "a group whose offspring is fertile". This is from my university's textbook, any better definition is welcome.
How do you think an animal would have mutant offspring both unable to breed with the herd (a new species) and able to breed with their own new species, examples of which are available somehow?

If the herd's environment prompts similar ATCG syntax change deep enough to preclude interbreeding in enough young, what environments prompt this on people?
In other words, if "junk DNA" activates in fish in times of drought to turn them into frogs (some guy sold books about this), what does the human junk DNA do? Science-fiction has "fiction" in it and it's still cool.

Again, every child differs in some ways from its parents, but giving birth to a different species? Really?
Because in order for fish to become people incrementally, quite a few mothers would have had to give birth to different species, so that would be a recurring thing, which come on.

This theory on the origin of species cut into the popularity of a previous view, according to which people originate from the source of everything else (call it bang if you must, this too shall pass) and definitely not the contrary as opening quote suggests.

The question I ask you is "what makes you think the origin of species is other species?" because I truly wish I knew this.
Even better if you can demonstrate speciation which is not the result of man's activity, because that would be his snip design, and therefore not his origin.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

originally posted by: wisvol
No sane person would ignore the evolution of an individual, a group, a species, a phylum, a theory, or anything else : everything constantly changes and evolves in various ways, and none of it shows speciation to me so far.

So you accept that things evolve. You accept that individuals evolve (not necessarily an accurate description, but I understand what you mean). You accept that populations evolve, you accept that species evolve, you accept phylum evolve, so on and so forth...

But you don't see how this never ending evolution could lead to the accumulation of mutations so much that many generations down the line don't directly depict the genetic makeup of their ancestors?

I'm confused. Do you or do you not accept evolution?

I'm a bit short on time right now, I'll have to address the rest of your questions and statements later on today

a reply to: Ghost147

It seems he is calling bullsh*t on the grand origin of species portrayed by the theory of evolution.
I can't help but agree with him...
Speciation is no more an answer then it is a question...

originally posted by: wisvol
I doubt that the origin of all species is primordial soup, and I doubt that our ancestry include fish.

How then, do you explain the fact that we share a large portion of our genome with fish?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

How do you explain the similarities yet exclude the difference?
Forget fish let's talk chimpanzee with which the number is uncertain but claimed by some to be as much as 99.9% shared.
This is still a vast number on a genetic level and equates to as much as 15 fold....
Shared information other then 100% equates to nothing more than similar information and genetic material...
Go figure we are all from earth and are made from the same things capable of living on earth...
We are not all related nor are we all linked...

a reply to: wisvol

There is something called evidence that science uses to come up with the answers. Science finds these evidences and uses all of them to come up with an answer that fits all the evidence.

Science is never 100% as there could be something out there that might prove that evolution is false.

Sciences best theory that uses all of the evidence is a universal beginning (your primordial soup). Until a better answer (that fits all the evidence) can be found, that will be sciences best explanation.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: wisvol

There is something called evidence that science uses to come up with the answers. Science finds these evidences and uses all of them to come up with an answer that fits all the evidence.

Science is never 100% as there could be something out there that might prove that evolution is false.

Sciences best theory that uses all of the evidence is a universal beginning (your primordial soup). Until a better answer (that fits all the evidence) can be found, that will be sciences best explanation.

You used the word science to start every sentence/paragraph.

Proving the OP statement of - "are pushed by public services and their convinced students, and serve key social purposes from inception".

Go read another textbook and enjoy good "grades".

Copy cat...

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

How then, do you explain the fact that we share a large portion of our genome with fish?

We share our exact atomic composition with specific dirt and water that aren't not our ancestry either.

Genome similarity is akin to other microscopic similarity and does not show speciation.

Please answer the OP's question before asking more of your own.

originally posted by: Elementalist

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: wisvol

There is something called evidence that science uses to come up with the answers. Science finds these evidences and uses all of them to come up with an answer that fits all the evidence.

Science is never 100% as there could be something out there that might prove that evolution is false.

Sciences best theory that uses all of the evidence is a universal beginning (your primordial soup). Until a better answer (that fits all the evidence) can be found, that will be sciences best explanation.

You used the word science to start every sentence/paragraph.

Proving the OP statement of - "are pushed by public services and their convinced students, and serve key social purposes from inception".

Go read another textbook and enjoy good "grades".

Copy cat...

So because I explained by using the word science (which is what it is) I'm pushing something?

I prefer to say the word of what something is more than using the word they/it/them.

a reply to: wisvol

So, you don't believe that we evolved from a primordial soup, but, I'm assuming, that you believe a giant deity went to the primordial cupboard for the ingredients necessary to make "7 Bean Navy Stew" or "Chicken Noodle Soup"
....some kind of a highly stylized soup.

a reply to: windword

So, you don't believe that we evolved from a primordial soup, but, I'm assuming, that you believe a giant deity went to the primordial cupboard for the ingredients necessary to make "7 Bean Navy Stew" or "Chicken Noodle Soup" ....some kind of a highly stylized soup.

Your assumption is incorrect, and one wrong theory does not prove any other theory, it just frees the mind from an error.

a reply to: wisvol

Your assumption is incorrect

I'm curious to know how intelligent design isn't the same as a chef in the kitchen, pulling from ingredients already stocked in the cupboard.

I'm really not a scientist, so can't argue the science, just the concept. It seems like a puzzle, withing a problem within a never ending conundrum!

Just gonna leave this here....
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Experimental evolution is the use of experiments or controlled field manipulations to explore evolutionary dynamics.[1] Evolution may be observed in the laboratory as populations adapt to new environmental conditions and/or change by such stochastic processes as random genetic drift. With modern molecular tools, it is possible to pinpoint the mutations that selection acts upon, what brought about the adaptations, and to find out how exactly these mutations work. Because of the large number of generations required for adaptation to occur, evolution experiments are typically carried out with microorganisms such as bacteria, yeast or viruses, or other organisms with rapid generation times.[1][2][3] However, laboratory studies with foxes[4] and with rodents (see below) have shown that notable adaptations can occur within as few as 10-20 generations and experiments with wild guppies have observed adaptations within comparable numbers of generations.[5]

Fruit flies
One of the first of a new wave of experiments using this strategy was the laboratory "evolutionary radiation" of Drosophila melanogaster populations that Michael R. Rose started in February, 1980.[17] This system started with ten populations, five cultured at later ages, and five cultured at early ages. Since then more than 200 different populations have been created in this laboratory radiation, with selection targeting multiple characters. Some of these highly differentiated populations have also been selected "backward" or "in reverse," by returning experimental populations to their ancestral culture regime. Hundreds of people have worked with these populations over the better part of three decades.

a reply to: windword

I'm curious to know how intelligent design isn't the same as a chef in the kitchen, pulling from ingredients already stocked in the cupboard.
I'm really not a scientist, so can't argue the science, just the concept. It seems like a puzzle, withing a problem within a never ending conundrum!

Someone preparing a meal corresponds with my view of what intelligent design means, absolutely.
I think you may have misunderstood: the OP states

"Even better if you can demonstrate speciation which is not the result of man's activity, because that would be his snip design, and therefore not his origin. "

This means speciation due to man's activity is snip design, snipped to avoid your predicted reaction to seeing the word intelligent next to the word design.

As for arguing the concept, please do.

Again the origin of species not being other species does not equate FSM or biblical or any other theory.

a reply to: wisvol

As for arguing the concept, please do.

It's just, you know, "Who designed the designer?"

Even a chef uses things like Corn Starch, Baking Soda and Yeast, all products of products.........

a reply to: dug88

Both quotes you provide relate to changes within species, which occur as do changes within individuals and show that no matter how much you irradiate drosophilia, they're still the same species.

A tadpole is more different to a frog and a caterpillar more different to a flutterby than all changes observed within these experiments you mention.

I am interested in how species would become other species, if that wasn't clear from the OP.

Oh it was clear from the OP?

Then thank you very much, enjoy the show. And keep your unrelated spam on wikipedia in the future to avoid appearing as a thread drifting nincompoop.

a reply to: Ghost147

I'm confused. Do you or do you not accept evolution?

I tried to get an answer too, in my own thread about a fish. I didn't get one, I got an answer that can only be described as a "don't bother me with your trivial questions, I have far more lofty ideas" which then went off into wooland about grammation???, literally unintelligible to me.

I have no idea what the OP wants to say about evolution, at all. Although I did enjoy his statement to me that "probability is to science what margarine is to butter"...BAM!

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

It seems he is calling bullsh*t on the grand origin of species portrayed by the theory of evolution.

Except the origin of life on earth has nothing to do with the theory of evolution

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
I can't help but agree with him...

Well of course you don't agree. You've admitted in other topics to being a troll who specifically trolls topics on Evolution

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Speciation is no more an answer then it is a question...

It's not an answer or a question. It's a term.

The term used to describe one species diverging into another species.

a reply to: windword

It's just, you know, "Who designed the designer?"

You can choose to think the designer is chance and its designer is an explosion, like wikikid there.
School says so in my neck of the woods these days.

Personally I believe that certain things (ideas for instance) are not affected by spacetime in the same way as baking soda and the cause of spacetime also isn't affected by its product in the same way as either.
But this is biology time, physics gladly discussed when I get the first answer to the OP related to the OP.


The question remains: what makes you think a species becomes another?

a reply to: wisvol

No sane person would ignore the evolution of an individual, a group, a species, a phylum, a theory, or anything else : everything constantly changes and evolves in various ways, and none of it shows speciation to me so far.

Huge misconception on your part, individuals don't evolve they merely adapt to the environment. Keyword ADAPT.

Because in order for fish to become people incrementally, quite a few mothers would have had to give birth to different species, so that would be a recurring thing, which come on.

Absolutely not, your over simplification in this statement shows how ignorant you are(no offense intended)about the hypothesis of abiogenesis... We didn't evolve directly from "fish" life more than likely evolved from micro-organisms or more specifically molecules in a liquid like substance. Your also making the assumption that the mutation of genes to create a different species occurs in one generation...Try several million...Evolution isn't meant to describe the origins of species just the diversity.