"The origin of species"

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: rnaa
Actually, the theory claims fish become people over a zillion tiny baby genetic steps.

That's not speciation though, So why are you bringing it up?

I thought you were wondering what speciation is?

Speciation, as has been stated many times in every page of this topic, is simply when one species diverges into another.

Yes, Humans share a common ancestor with fish, and the process of divergence that lead to the eventual separation of phylum is the same process that occurs at a species to species level. However, I don't see why you keep bringing up your rejection that Humans and Fish had a common ancestor when you first need to grasp the concept of speciation.

If you want to deny the lineage that shows how Humans relate to Fish, that's well within your rights.

But perhaps we should just focus on what the Theory of Evolution defines 'Speciation' to be, as this may be the source of your confusion over the matter

a reply to: rnaa

If species become fuzzier and fuzzier as a concept, does the concept evolve into the concept of being right about evolution?

Because that my friend would be doing to linguistics what you're doing to biology

a reply to: wisvol

No. Because from context you mean transition of species, which just doesn't seem to happen.

No. Because from context I mean transition from an organism with a specific DNA configuration to a child organism with a different specific DNA configuration.

No. Because from context I mean transition from a population in which each individual in the population shares a specific subset of its DNA configuration that controls a specific subset of the biological function in the individuals, to a population in which some of the individuals in the next generation have a mutated version of that DNA configuration - for better or worse - and then to the next generation which either has more individuals with that mutation or fewer. If more individuals have the new mutation, that means it has given those individual advantages the others do not, and the mutation will eventually spread throughout the entire population by becoming more and more prevalent with each generation.

No. Because from context I mean that every population of organisms is always evolving from generation to generation to generation to generation. Every generation is a transition between its parent's generation and its child's generation. EVERY SINGLE GENERATION is a transition from one kind of organism to another slightly modified organism. Each generation is only ever so slightly different, but the differences add up generation after generation. Eventually the individuals in the population may not be able to breed with their nth degree ancestor if they could be brought together, but they can ALWAYS breed with their parents and their children.

There is no such thing as a parent individual giving birth to a child that is another species. The theory DOES NOT claim this and in fact specifically repudiates that possibility. Children are only slightly different to their parents, but they may very well be VERY different to their 10,000 generational grandparents. (It can happen in far fewer than 10,000 generations - that is just an example number).

Fossils are random snapshots of random generations. That is all.

If the snapshots are far enough apart then you get to see the results of the accumulation of the changes. If they are too close together, the changes are likely to to be too subtle to see. Watching a movie (filmed and projected at proper speed), you cannot see the transition between individual frames. But if cut out a hundred frames, keep one, cut out a hundred more, keep one, etc, etc, and then watch the result the changes jump out at you.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: wisvol

If species become fuzzier and fuzzier as a concept, does the concept evolve into the concept of being right about evolution?

Because that my friend would be doing to linguistics what you're doing to biology

In the OP you asked: A species is defined biologically as "a group whose offspring is fertile". This is from my university's textbook, any better definition is welcome.

In the second page of your thread was a response that stated the following:

That's a fair description of what a species is, generally. In many cases it's not so black and white, easy to spot. But for the most part, yes, this is accurate.

So it's not that "the concept of what a species is gets fuzzier and fuzzier" it's that you simply assumed that is the one and only definition of a species, which was based on a false premise.

Perhaps if you didn't choose to ignore specific people whom replied to your topic, you wouldn't still be on this issue.

Of course, many other people have stated that that is not the only defining property of a species, and in some cases that 'rule' doesn't applied.

At this point you're simply rejecting reality to hold on to a false preconception.

If you honestly wanted to learn about a topic you didn't know about, I would have expected this topic to have ended on page two, because all that had needed to be said about your OP was already said by then.

Ten pages later, however, you're still making the same false accusations, using the same false descriptions, claiming the same false information, and denying anything and everything that doesn't abide by your misconceptions.

At this point it's not a matter of who is right and who is wrong, it's just a matter of getting past your willful delusion.

a reply to: wisvol

Actually, the theory claims fish become people over a zillion tiny baby genetic steps.

The theory DOES NOT claim that a individual fish gave birth to a human - or even a mammal - or even a lizard.

The theory claims that fish and humans have a common ancestor. That ancestor may not have been, itself, a fish.

Therefore the theory, to be correct, needs that however many step species there are between fish and man were given birth to by the previous on the list.

First, since fish and humans are only claimed to have the same ancestor, it is possible that there is no direct ancestral path from fish to human, any more than there is from monkey to human. Monkey's and Humans have a common ancestor, but we are not descended from each other in either direction.

It has been explained to you (and you know it intuitively anyway, despite your protestation here) why you will never see the perfect generation by generation map that explains everything the way you want it explained. Such a map will never be available and cannot be available.

The closest thing you are going to get to such ancestral map you so desire is this magnificent achievement:

Scientists Have Drafted A Complete Tree Of Life

Humans, bacteria, daffodils: We’re a diverse bunch on the surface, but trace each and every Earthling back far enough, and you’ll arrive at a common ancestor. For the first time, scientists have built a comprehensive tree of life that binds us all together.

A draft of the One Tree, published Friday (the article was published on 20 September 2015) in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, includes the roughly 2.3 million named species of animals, plants, fungi and microbes. It shows how all of the major branches relate to one another and traces each individual group back to its shared beginnings in a prebiotic soup 3.5 billion years ago.

Here is the beautiful web site: Open Tree of Life

You want to explore the raw data for the map? Its here: The Open Tree of Life. Knock yourself out.

All the measurable tiny steps are there - except that remember that this is version 1.0 and will be updated as new knowledge can be included.

a reply to: rnaa

No. Because from context I mean transition from an organism with a specific DNA configuration to a child organism with a different specific DNA configuration.

If you do then not only are you correct, you also understand that speciation is bull#.

a reply to: rnaa

The theory DOES NOT claim that a individual fish gave birth to a human - or even a mammal - or even a lizard.

And I don't claim it does.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: rnaa

The theory DOES NOT claim that a individual fish gave birth to a human - or even a mammal - or even a lizard.

And I don't claim it does.

So what's the issue then?

a reply to: rnaa

You want to explore the raw data for the map? Its here: The Open Tree of Life. Knock yourself out.

Thanks for the link. Procaryotes don't breed, just divide, so species is irrelevant to Procaryotes.

This is not what the Tree of Life means, just ask the Vikings about Yggdrasill.

This is not even semantic drift anymore, it's remaking the movie 23 or Scarface so the original version loses steam, this is like calling sodomites "gay" even though gay means joyous.

Don't fall for this.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: rnaa

You want to explore the raw data for the map? Its here: The Open Tree of Life. Knock yourself out.

Thanks for the link. Procaryotes don't breed, just divide, so species is irrelevant to Procaryotes.

This is not what the Tree of Life means, just ask the Vikings about Yggdrasill.

This is not even semantic drift anymore, it's remaking the movie 23 or Scarface so the original version loses steam, this is like calling sodomites "gay" even though gay means joyous.

Don't fall for this.

Alright, so you've discovered this deeply ingrained secret conspiracy that nearly every scientist in the world has fallen for.

Congratulations.

Now, perhaps you could explain your hypothesis as to how we share varying percentages of DNA with other species, and that level corresponds directly to our observations within the fossil record? The further back our common ancestor, the less DNA we share.

Perhaps once you tell us this hypothesis of yours you can devise some tests, confirm your hypothesis, present your findings in the form of a peer reviewed study, and if all goes well you will be awarded with the Nobel prize for biology. (no joke, you actually will)

How do you explain how everything in evolutionary biology points to the divergence of species, through speciation?

And friends just for the record:

Extinction isn't evidence of speciation.

There are bones of T-rex in your yard? Or some weird looking bird that's not at the zoo?

Cool, remember not to kill the last cow or Saturday morning breakfast cereal will be mythology.

And yes the last of something is like the last dodo or the last triceratops: the opposite of the first.

Unless you believe Zeus/evolution/tom cruise made the first cows in a group of eight hundred and five, which is your prerogative entirely.

Still, don't kill the last one, and by cow I also mean hummingbird and the species you're not profiteering from.

originally posted by: wisvol
And friends just for the record:

Extinction isn't evidence of speciation.

Who ever concluded that?!?!

originally posted by: wisvol
There are bones of T-rex in your yard? Or some weird looking bird that's not at the zoo?
Cool, remember not to kill the last cow or Saturday morning breakfast cereal will be mythology.
And yes the last of something is like the last dodo or the last triceratops: the opposite of the first.
Unless you believe Zeus/evolution/tom cruise made the first cows in a group of eight hundred and five, which is your prerogative entirely.
Still, don't kill the last one, and by cow I also mean hummingbird and the species you're not profiteering from.

Alright, I'm calling it! The OP is either a lunatic or a troll.

a reply to: Ghost147

Or a trolatic?

So fcking ridiculous.

Look guys, a cow looks a little bit like a horse, but with two horns.

So what happened was five hundred dozen eons ago a cow had a freak unicorn baby as evidence by this fossil of a narwhal and booya: horses.

No

Extinction is not evidence of speciation, and yes people look like monkeys and yes everything is one but no amount of monkey#ing is going to make monkeys relatives.

a reply to: wisvol

So your argument is evolution is false?

Everything has always been the way it is now?

originally posted by: wisvol
So fcking ridiculous.

Look guys, a cow looks a little bit like a horse, but with two horns.

Fantastic observation!

Now, can you tell me if this Hyena is closely related to dogs or not?



Subjective observation means nothing in biology. You want to prove something, do it objectively.

originally posted by: wisvol
Extinction is not evidence of speciation

It's a good thing no one has ever, not even once stated that "extinction is evidence of speciation".

The totality of the content you've provided to this thread is by far some of the most outrageously nonsensical garbage on the topic of speciation that I have ever seen.

Honestly. The conclusions you make, and the accusations that claim, and the words that you shove into peoples mouths are just ludicrous.

How about you start posting quotes so your words actually have some value?

How about you start posting citations that back your claim?

How about you explain to us how diversity occurs without speciation?

How about you explain to us how our DNA matches that of other organisms?

originally posted by: wisvol
and yes people look like monkeys and yes everything is one but no amount of monkey#ing is going to make monkeys relatives.

I see a very short ATS Career in you. I'd suggesting changing your attitude before you get banned.

a reply to: wisvol

So when we try asking questions it's spam?

Nice

As for the rest of it? You haven't offered a single shed of proof. All it is is you going on about how wrong it is.

Show how it's wrong. Use data to prove your case. Just saying something is right or wrong doesn't make it so.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TerryDon79
Terry dear, I don't always read or respond to your spam

Yes, you seem to make a habit of ignoring comments from people who often prove you wrong. Such an adult way to handle life.

I can see this mentality spreads to not only people, but words, paragraphs, examples, citations, and basically everything else that proves your ridiculous conclusions false.

I mean honestly. It's been 12 pages now and you might as well just be copy and pasting your OP to everyone's comments because nothing has changed.

You've presented no evidence for anything

You've explained nothing

You only make wild accusations about the oppositions side

The content you continue to post is 100% identical to that in the OP.

The epitome of a closed mind.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TerryDon79
Evolution is not false, as I argue from the OP on.

Right... Everything evolves, right? It's just that we're not related, speciation doesn't exist, lineages don't exist, DNA doesn't exist (because that is proof that we're related), evolution is the result of a primordial soup, so on and so forth.

It's easy to say "I agree with everything in evolution accept the things I don't understand or that don't follow my preconceived concept of it."

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TerryDon79
The semantically drifted notion that evolution means speciation is yes bull# to me, but since many believe it isn't I'm still curious as to why.

We've been telling you why!

We've been telling you for 12 pages!

We've explained the concept to you countless times and you have yet to even acknowledge those explanations

You've ignored the content within every single response you've gotten, and some people you actually totally skip over their comments all together.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TerryDon79
GTFO

I can hear the ring of the ban hammer on it's way.

enjoy free music and wisdom if you're versed in contemporary field specific Serbian jargon

needng sleep

peace out