"The origin of species"

a reply to: wisvol

I would suggest that you stay on topic as your last post violates the forums terms and conditions, however, you've already chosen to ignore any and all of my posts, so you won't be reading my advice.

If you do happen to read this, I am still interested in how "your version of evolution" explains the diversity of life if you reject speciation?

a reply to: wisvol

If you do then not only are you correct,

Yes

you also understand that speciation is bull#.

No

And I don't claim it does.

You assert that Evolutionary theory requires that one species gives birth to a different species from one generation to the next.

Evolution does not require that or claim that can or has happened ever. In fact if it is found to have occurred or does occur in the future it will punch a great big hole in theory.

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

So? They still have DNA changes from generation to generation. Their populations can be separated and their evolution will be different in each of the separated populations.

Clearly the part of the definition of species that relies on sexual reproduction does not apply to Procaryotes.

From Wikipedia: Species:

It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.
...
Most modern textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition, known as the Biological Species Concept (BSC) of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". It has been argued that this definition of species is not only a useful formulation, but is also a natural consequence of the effect of sexual reproduction on the dynamics of natural selection.

Various parts of this definition serve to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:

* Those that as a result of deliberate human action, or occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available)
* Those that involve animals that may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but, for various reasons, do not normally do so in the wild

The typical textbook definition above works well for most multi-celled organisms, but there are several types of situations in which it breaks down:

* By definition it applies only to organisms that reproduce sexually. So it does not work for asexually reproducing single-celled organisms and for the relatively few parthenogenetic or apomictic multi-celled organisms.[31] The term "phylotype" is often applied to such organisms.
* Biologists frequently do not know whether two morphologically similar groups of organisms are "potentially" capable of interbreeding.
* There is considerable variation in the degree to which hybridization may succeed under natural conditions, or even in the degree to which some organisms use sexual reproduction between individuals to breed.[citation needed]
* In ring species, members of adjacent populations interbreed successfully but members of some non-adjacent populations do not.

Among microorganisms, in particular, the problem of species identification is made difficult by discordance between molecular and morphological investigations; these can be categorized as two types:
(i) one morphology, multiple lineages (e.g. morphological convergence, cryptic species) and
(ii) one lineage, multiple morphologies (e.g. phenotypic plasticity, multiple life-cycle stages).

In addition, in these and other organisms, horizontal gene transfer (HGT) makes it difficult to define the term species. All species definitions assume that an organism acquires its genes from one or two parents very like the "daughter" organism, but HGT makes that assumption false. There is strong evidence of HGT between very dissimilar groups of prokaryotes, and at least occasionally between dissimilar groups of eukaryotes. Williamson argues that there is also evidence for HGT in some crustaceans and echinoderms.

(format edited to improve readability)

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

Oh, so now you are the word police too?

Yggdrasill is not the "Tree of Life" it is "Odin's Horse", the gallows from which he hanged himself in sacrifice (holy Messiah, Loki!) - this is the opposite of a "Tree of Life". I call it the "Gallows of Existence" instead, some scholars call it the "Tree of Terror". In myth the roots draw magical sustenance from the three magical wells and the branches rise up to heaven giving access to the gods. We could continue to discuss mythology here but this isn't the place and I'm not going to do it. Suffice it to say that Yggdrassill does not equal "Tree of Life". There are other mythologies where that term is used, however.

The phrase "The Tree of Life" has a very long pedigree as used as a description for the interconnectedness of life.

You are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with this complaint.

No that is not correct. You have gone through the bottom of the barrel and are halfway to the core.

scientists claim that there is no 'higher intelligence' involved in creation of life and yet they are not intelligent enough to create life from scratch (using basic elements - primordial soup) in the lab...

hilarious

what amazes me that today's arrogant scientists (and their fanatical arrogant believers) cannot accept the possibility that this universe may be just a lab for experimentation of some intelligent force (may as well be a scientist) from another parallel universe or dimension...

the 'flat earth', 'machines heavier than air will never fly' mentality still prevails...

originally posted by: wisvol

I'm still not sure why DNA is what makes you think the origin of species is other species, your statements about it apply whether or they are.

I guess the big question is why do you think it is not. Why do you feel that there is no relationship between genomes when it is obvious that there is.

How then does complex life come about if life starts in a very simplistic way? How do we go from RNA forward?

The thing is there actually is a first, no matter how long millions of years are, and here's why:

If beings procreate through spacetime as they do, they are born at one point and die some time later, and their offspring, while they may be albino or shorter or have a sixth finger, do the same.

That just takes a little thought. The reason why there is no "first" like the first human is because there is no sudden change, it is extremely gradual. Take humans today, could they mate with our ancestors a million years ago, maybe, 2 million years ago, most likely not, our ancestors a million years ago most likely could. We can go back doing this 400 million years and once we got there we would see something that is not even close to humans today, or any animal alive.

Therefore if DNA drifts slowly through sixth fingers and albinos until fish become birds, the first creature that you personally, or even the president of the national institute of biology if you prefer, considers to be a bird is the first bird. Of course this raises all the red flags in your mind and mine alike because it's preposterous, yet it's the only logical way that fish would become birds slowly over time: generation 1 is a fish, generation 2 is an albino fish, generation 56987552 is both a bird and the first bird. This allows for the subjectivity of who is human and who isn't, despite the notion of species clearly being logically defined by the reproductive ability of its members. And think about all the stages between fish and bird that would be so completely not adapted to living, seriously.

Looking from the the present to the past we see one line, but if one was to look from the past forward we would see billions of lines with many ending in dead ends. You talk about eyes, and that is interesting. 500 million years ago and older there were creatures with many eyes, as much as six, but today we see everything with two eyes. Earth has reset life a number of times throughout the last 4 billion years. About 400 million years ago was the last reset, but life has shown it continues to come back in full force. Just the fact that all animals have 2 eyes shoes a relationship, other wise why not more? Why not many other differences?

Man is man, cousins are cousins, and monkeys are monkeys.

Where did they come from?

You are right Man is man, and monkeys are monkeys, we did not come from monkeys.

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
scientists claim that there is no 'higher intelligence' involved in creation of life and yet they are not intelligent enough to create life from scratch (using basic elements - primordial soup) in the lab...

The Miller-Urey experiment did just that though. In fact, about 10 years ago additional work and samples from the original experiments was discovered and it turned out that the Miller-Urey experiment created more amino acids than are found in nature.

what amazes me that today's arrogant scientists (and their fanatical arrogant believers) cannot accept the possibility that this universe may be just a lab for experimentation of some intelligent force (may as well be a scientist) from another parallel universe or dimension...

Do you always stereotype and generalize entire groups of people in such an ignorant fashion? There are plenty of men and women of faith who work in Anthropology, Biology, Genetics and on and on and on... Francis Collins who was the head of the Human Genome Project before the company went public is just one example of many. He is a devout Christian and one of the worlds foremost geneticists. He knew where the boundaries would lie, his faith was personal and private and completely separate from his work which followed the scientific method rigorously. Wanna know a secret? He believes in evolution because of the preponderance of evidence. It is hands down, the most widely researched, sourced, cited,evidenced and proven Theory in the history of science. There's more evidence in favor of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis than there is for gravity but I'm willing to bet you don't ever take a long walk off the tops of tall buildings do you?

the 'flat earth', 'machines heavier than air will never fly' mentality still prevails...

That mentality is the sole domain of the scientifically illiterate.

originally posted by: donhuangenaro
what amazes me that today's arrogant scientists (and their fanatical arrogant believers) cannot accept the possibility that this universe may be just a lab for experimentation of some intelligent force (may as well be a scientist) from another parallel universe or dimension...

You do realize things like the "hologram theory", parallel universes, and so forth all came from science.

Besides, what the heck does quantum physics and theoretical physics have to do with Evolutionary Biology? You're clear and obvious bias is preventing you from learning even the most basics on anything that is scientific. It's quite saddening to see.

a reply to: wisvol

You want a stupid troll's take on undisputable science? My oh my, I feel honoured.

Are you admitting that this entire thread you opened up was a ruse...?

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

It was supposed to be an "aha!" thread but it turned into "omg we've been over this" thread. Par for course.

a reply to: rnaa

You assert that Evolutionary theory requires that one species gives birth to a different species from one generation to the next.

No, I assert that if the origin of species is other species, the nature of time demands that each species has a first representative example, and you denying this so repeatedly denotes confirmation bias towards not science, but the school programming you were subjected to.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I guess the big question is why do you think it is not. Why do you feel that there is no relationship between genomes when it is obvious that there is.

Nor ll relations are bloodline relations.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Are you admitting that this entire thread you opened up was a ruse...?

I was saying that you calling me a stupid troll, then asking for my take is risible, and I did laugh when I read it.
Also I was hoping you'd be able to deduce that what ever my own opinion is is irrelevant to whether or not Darwin's is correct. Oh well, I had to spell it out.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It was supposed to be an "aha!" thread but it turned into "omg we've been over this" thread. Par for course.

Thanks for sharing.

While some contributions lean this way, others have been interesting. Which you focus on of course is your prerogative.

No, they come from imagination and are accepted by science

Here is a word from science
EVIDENCE


a reply to: Ghost147


It's just a child's faith to suggest otherwise


Stalk, stalk

a reply to: rnaa

The phrase "The Tree of Life" has a very long pedigree as used as a description for the interconnectedness of life. You are really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with this complaint. No that is not correct. You have gone through the bottom of the barrel and are halfway to the core.

That phrase does have this pedigree, and therefore calling speciation Tree of Life with upper-case and all clearly is an attempt to re-appropriate it.

You not seeing it does not change this.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: TzarChasm

It was supposed to be an "aha!" thread but it turned into "omg we've been over this" thread. Par for course.

Thanks for sharing.

While some contributions lean this way, others have been interesting. Which you focus on of course if your prerogative.

questions being answered, answers being ignored. Did you know there is an ats index for research in evolution? Every time this thing happens, its because someone hasnt done their homework. Theres your "aha!"

#omgwevebeenoverthis

a reply to: Xtrozero

How then does complex life come about if life starts in a very simplistic way? How do we go from RNA forward?

Great question. One attempt at explaining this being wrong does not mean I have to have the correct answer, and although there is an explanation that does make more sense to me, I wish to explore the possibility that fish would indeed become people. And maybe the start of life isn't so simplistic, otherwise why aren't we in contact with the neighbourhood?

And if neighbours we have, what's to preclude them from originating here? Ask Neil Armstrong.

The reason why there is no "first" like the first human is because there is no sudden change, it is extremely gradual.

In a million steps journey, one is the start and one is the arrival. Same with other journeys.

You talk about eyes, and that is interesting. 500 million years ago and older there were creatures with many eyes, as much as six, but today we see everything with two eyes. Earth has reset life a number of times throughout the last 4 billion years. About 400 million years ago was the last reset, but life has shown it continues to come back in full force. Just the fact that all animals have 2 eyes shoes a relationship, other wise why not more? Why not many other differences?

I mentioned eyes after someone said blindness in fish is somehow evidence of them becoming monkeys.

The rest of your statement doesn't go through the right side of Occam's.

a reply to: TzarChasm

questions being answered, answers being ignored. Did you know there is an ats index for research in evolution? Every time this thing happens, its because someone hasnt done their homework. Theres your "aha!" #omgwevebeenoverthis

I do know this.

I haven't seen people asking what makes you think speciation is a thing so far so took it upon myself to read most of the answers kindly volunteered here, with the exception of those coming from people whose minds I think aren't fit to discriminate between fact and fiction based on previous conversations.

But since this it cut and clear to you, why insist?

The claim that my question was answered in a way you think should be satisfactory either in this or another thread is yours, and I don't know how saying so helps one point of view or another.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Take humans today, could they mate with our ancestors a million years ago, maybe, 2 million years ago, most likely not, our ancestors a million years ago most likely could.

Most sensible argument so far.

Two pieces of scientific evidence pointing to the contrary are that mules and ligers are barren, as are all hybrids.

Also, no "primitive" people are able to even hybridize with non-human primates at all.