"The origin of species"

a reply to: wisvol

What makes you say that? species is a word, with a meaning defined by professionals quoted above, and although all species change constantly, they would, in order to differentiate, change in a specific way over one specific generation: the generation that cannot breed with the previous one. Not even one million years, gestation period of said species.

This may have been answered already, I haven't gotten to the end of the thread yet, but I'll throw in my two cents right here.

This is a MAJOR misconception by those who argue against evolution or natural selection (or what ever subtly nuanced thing you are arguing about).


The most important concept to understand here is: POPULATIONS evolve - not individuals.

Parents don't give birth to a new species that cannot successfully breed with their cohorts. Parents give birth to offspring that are different to themselves, in exactly the same way that you are different from your parents.

What is required for speciation is that a single population splits into two populations in such a way that the two populations cannot breed (usually do to geographic separation, but there are other possibilities). Then these two 'separate but equal' populations continue to breed and evolve - but they cannot cross breed, so they will evolve in different ways. Eventually the differences MAY become so large that they cannot successfully breed even when the geographic barrier is removed.

I'll repeat the key ideas for emphasis:

1) Single populations do not diverge into different species; parents always give birth to offspring that resemble themselves closely and can breed with their cohorts (see the thread on the Stickleback fish for a possible, but as yet unproven, exception). They evolve with each generation, but each generation can breed with the next (and previous for that matter). It will take MANY MANY generations to notice that generation number 432 could not have bred with today's generation 1,234,321,874 (or whatever). This is very slow evolution, and probably not very common, there are a few animals that are called 'ancient' or are said to have 'stopped evolving'. They have not stopped evolving, their populations just haven't physically changed much from their ancient ancestors (but maybe other populations have split from the 'original' while the 'original' just keeps keeping on).

2) Single populations sometimes split into physically separated populations. When they do, the separate populations continue to evolve separately. Because they face different conditions and environmental challenges of all kinds, natural selection acts on them in different ways - they evolve differently.

3) Eventually the changes between isolated populations become so great that they can no longer interbreed even if the physical barrier is removed. Again this 'normally' takes many generations, but it can happen in a relatively few generations and has been observed many times. Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' is an extreme example of this.

Once more for emphasis:

POPULATIONS EVOLVE NOT INDIVIDUALS.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
Referring to the origin of species, as in the source of animal, vegetal and fungal variety we enjoy.

Ok, so you're referring to "origin of species" with variety, just like Darwin. Thanks for clearing that up.

However, this begs the question: Why are you talking about abiogenesis at all?

Especially when you say things like this: I doubt that the origin of all species is primordial soup

You're kind of going back and forth on what your initial intentions were. I suppose we can assume it was his a poor choice of words(?).

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
I do this irl too and can only recommend it: for some teachers' opinion of a tampon commercial I'd cut their wood for five winters with a rusty axe, and some people I wouldn't piss on to extinguish. Saves time in overcrowded situations.

Just to make it official, I am not the go-to guy for science But thanks for the compliment NateTheAnimator.

As for wisvol's odd remark on ignoring anything and everything I say, even after I directly address the questions he has proposed, in which he then asks later in the thread "why is no one addressing my questions"?

It kind of reminds me of this: Maybe if I ignore him he will go away



This kind of behavior isn't expressed by a person who is honestly looking for answers.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
I see you haven't brought his/her point to your response.

Perhaps because it is ridiculous to have to be the child in the middle of two adults having a fight saying "well you tell your mother that I don't care" and the other parent is around the corner saying "When you come over here, let him know that he's an ass!"

Honestly, If he has to literally copy and paste my comment in order for you to read it, why not just read my original comment?

The more I respond with valid information and the less you acknowledge my responses is only serving to make you appear ridiculous.

That being said, anyone is more than welcome to copy and paste the entirety of my responses in order for the OP to read them if you happen to agree with the content within them.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
I expect some people to have even better answers and maybe ghost has one, it just seems too unlikely to go through his writing. Again I'd appreciate you proving me wrong, in which case I would apologize to ghost and use springwater were he to catch fire in my immediate vicinity.

Apology accepted!

Actually, we have personally witnessed a species becoming another species.

If you need some examples of speciation that has been witnessed you can review some of these:

Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905)
Primula verticillata and Primula floribunda(1912)
Tragopogon dubius and Tragopogon pratensis (1950)
Madia gracilis and Madia citriodora (1945)
Drosophila melanogaster (1962)
Drosophila pseudoobscura (1966)
Drosophila willistoni (1980)

To explain it in an analogy, consider this:

Time, as we know it at a basic level, is made up of seconds, minutes, and hours. Think of a second as those small mutations that occur in every generation. Those seconds (mutations) build up and up until a minute is formed (a new species). That same process of seconds building upon one another continue to grow forming more minutes, and in time an Hour is formed (a new family). That Hour (family) is still made up of seconds (mutations) that that very first minute had, however. Yet, an hour was formed in the same way a minute is formed. The difference is only that there is a greater number of accumulated seconds.

The same concept is what evolution takes advantage of in the production of new species, families, and the like.
Here's a dramatically uncomplicated analogy to the whole concept: Time, as we know it at a basic level, is made up of seconds, minutes, and hours. Think of a second as those small mutations that occur in every generation. Those seconds (mutations) build up and up until a minute is formed (a new species). That same process of seconds building upon one another continue to grow forming more minutes, and in time an Hour is formed (a new family). That Hour (family) is still made up of seconds (mutations) that that very first minute had, however. Yet, an hour was formed in the same way a minute is formed. The difference is only that there is a greater number of accumulated seconds.

The same concept is what evolution takes advantage of in the production of new species leading to families, and the like.

a reply to: peter vlar

Continues from above

The question I ask you is "what makes you think the origin of species is other species?" because I truly wish I knew this.

A pretty linear fossil record for starters. Certainly it could be more complete and that's an unfortunate aspect. Of the rarity of fossilization itself and the requirements of specific conditions for it to occur.

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.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Why? didn't he know what he was talking about either?

The body of work that is popularly called the "Theory of Evolution" was finally established as a consensus agreed Scientific Theory at least 50 years AFTER Darwin's death, i.e. in the 1930's.

Its more accurate name is the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis" (MES) - and the MES continues to be improved every minute of every day since its formulation.

Darwin's contribution to the MES is the concept of 'Natural Selection'. There is a lot more to Evolution and the MES than 'just' natural selection - but the concept was a huge advancement.

Evolution was acknowledged to occur before Darwin, but no one had any idea what drove it. Darwin's answer was not the only possibility being considered at the time, Another great biologist (indeed he 'invented' the word 'biology') at the time, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (a generation or two before Darwin), also had an hypothesis of how evolution progressed. And though there are important contributions to the MES in Lamarck's works, it is Darwin's natural selection has proven be the better explanation for the driving force of evolution.

Do you think that when a Scientist makes one breakthrough discovery that all science on the topic ends? Did work stop in Physics when Newton figured out how the planets moved? Or when Einstein figured out why Newton didn't work for Mercury? (What? Didn't Newton know what he was talking about?) Or when Einstein went on to figure out that matter and energy are the same thing? (Why are we still doing physics? Didn't Einstein know what he was talking about?)

Darwin didn't know lots of stuff that we know today, and yet what we know today agrees with Darwin's model. DNA studies demonstrate that Darwin was remarkably correct. And like Newton and Einstein, Darwin never claimed to know everything or be the last word in biology.

Science progresses. That is what it does.

a reply to: wisvol

Referring to the origin of species, as in the source of animal, vegetal and fungal variety we enjoy.

To answer your question,the fossil records is one of the best examples for observable proof on how diverse life is through the process of evolution. That's pretty much what makes me think that the origin of species is other species.
I'm not sure what you mean by other species in your question...Common ancestor...?
If so I believe it's still being debated in academia as to whom or what the common ancestor is to all life and again it's still a hypothesis. Could be dead wrong though.

I do this irl too and can only recommend it: for some teachers' opinion of a tampon commercial I'd cut their wood for five winters with a rusty axe, and some people I wouldn't piss on to extinguish. Saves time in overcrowded situations.

How compassionate of you.

I have to ask,in your OP you touch on this opinionated idea that abiogenesis is being "pushed" by public services.
Are you implying that you distrust academia or any aspect of science because they sometimes self-advertise certain ideas? If so why?

a reply to: peter vlar

Hi

A couple things here... First, you're including examples that do not fall under the auspices of biological evolution which is the actual subject being discussed.

I see it as my prerogative to use the word evolution in any of its dictionary sanctioned forms. Impudent, I know. It is also a way to show how semantic drift makes the proposition "I think evolution is a scam" seem ridiculous because evolution is observable on many levels.

Phylum, theory... Aren't really a part of the discussion.

I made them part of the discussion by writing them into the OP.

but evolution is a change in allele frequency over time leading to a change in traits across a population. It doesn't alter the phylum the organism is in based on taxonomic characterization.

For the sake of argument I will use "evolution" as defined by you until this post is posted.
If all life stems from single celled organisms, then evolution (again, using the exact definition you kindly provided) makes the descendants of these single celled organisms, aka every living thing, differ in phylum also. In other words: a mushroom and a bat, different throughout taxonomy, evolved from singled celled organisms who are of neither phylum, demonstrating that evolution would alter phylum.
Also, I used webster's definition of evolution at that point.

The premise that sound science is pushed as part of a social engineering plan, to me, is ludicrous.

Tell that to a craniology major. They'll swear craniology is sound science too.

Here you're conflating the Hypothesis of Abiogenesis and/or Panspermia into MES.

No. I am studying biology and asking how speciation makes sense to you, and so actually interested in your opinion that I go through the process or reading your comments and responding.

You haven't demonstrated any flaws in the science despite your acerbic attack on it.

Again, the flaw I see is that even though evolution takes unobservable time, speciation does not, because the moment where the first member of a species is born is an moment and not an era. Therefore its parents are a different species: this is what *first member* of any species implies. No first member, no new species.

Despite your protestations, Evolution itself is an indisputable fact.

Anyone thinking there are undisputable facts forfeits all claim to science.

Tell me whee the science is incorrect instead of giving opinion as if it's fact.
Social Darwinism is anathema to e actual science being conducted and is completely unsubstantiated. It was a late 19th century advent that at the time, yes, the above quotes would have applied.

Aren't you the guy who just now said his opinion is undisputable fact?
It's called social what? And your undisputable facts come from whom? Oh ok.

And this is where we get into your misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution doesn't occur from one generation to the next.

You say this, but then evolution would be an undisputable fact that doesn't occur from one generation to the next.
Anything that occurs throughout generations occurs from one generation to the next.
Another user also took it upon their self to write that my stance somehow implies that fish become monkeys in one generation, and it was their mistake, because I don't think this, and avoid implying so through use of chronic adjectives to the tune of "incrementally".
It can take a hundred and five billion generations for all I care: what is interesting to me is the instant, again not a duration, where the prime member of a species pops out. AKA speciation. Again.

As I mentioned earlier, evolution is measured on the scale of populations and not on the individual level. Let's look at the recent appearance of the OCA2 gene 6-10 KA which codes for blue eyes. Even without an extensive genetic study, we know that this began recently and with a singular individual because there is very little variation in the melanin expressed in people with this mutation as compared to MtDNA studies of people with brown eyes. All blue eyed people have the same exact switch in the same exact spot in a gene adjacent to OCA2. This is an example of a neutral mutation as it is neither beneficial nor detrimental to the organism. Even after 6-10 KA, this mutation is still not rampant population wide. Compare that to the morphological differences between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthal which are the result of 600 KA of genetic separation from our common ancestor. Like HSS, they also exhibited traits such as blue eyes and red hair but different genes code for these mutations in our cousins than in us.

Just as there was a first blue eyed bloke (who could breed with brown eyes gals), there was a first cat (who could not breed with not-cats by definition). This isn't a population thing, it's a first timer thing, as your example demonstrates.

Nobody gives birth to a new species. (...) As genetic changes are passed on throughout a given population, the population as a whole changes together thus there is no "new" mutant species born from parents genetically distinct enough that the offspring are incapableofbreeding with therefor their population.

So you're saying (correct me if I'm actually wrong) that since allele miscopy doesn't make for a different species, it does make for a different species over many miscopies. I find this odd. No, I find this turbo debil.
Because one of these miscopies, or a specific group of these miscopies, would be responsible not for eye colour or extra vertebrae, but for the impossibility of breeding with representatives of the original species.
This miscopy, whether or not a combination, would occur in one generation because it would occur in one individual whose fitness will make prosperous sexually.
Like having a kid with an extra chromosome doesn't happen one allele at a time, it's a specific miscopy as would be the specific miscopy leading to breeding incompatibility with original species.

Speciation directly implies species' pioneers, which don't breed with any other species including their ancestors' species, much like monkey #ing today is procreatively speaking a vain endeavour.
And by monkey here I mean the specific individual primate found by the specific archaeologist in your specific textbook and identified by your biology teacher as one ancestor of humanity that isn't human, before you whine that primates aren't monkeys, which they are with the exception of humans. (this is what a monkey is).

I guess we should be thankful that this process took over half a billion years then.

And thankful that you write this, confirming your view that fish become people over roughly a half billion years. Science is knowledge. You don't know fish become people, you didn't even conclude this from experience, you've been told this. And for it to make sense speciation would occur, and not over a half billion years, over individual founders of each intermediary species.

But what is your evidence to support this? You have made several statements of fact that are relegated to the realm of personal opinion and have not supported any of the statements.

Relegated by whom?

a reply to: rnaa

Once more for emphasis: POPULATIONS EVOLVE NOT INDIVIDUALS.

Populations are individuals.

a reply to: peter vlar

" The question I ask you is "what makes you think the origin of species is other species?" because I truly wish I knew this."

A pretty linear fossil record for starters. Certainly it could be more complete and that's an unfortunate aspect. Of the rarity of fossilization itself and the requirements of specific conditions for it to occur.

First poster to address the question, page four. I love you.

Fossils don't make me think the origin of species is other species, personally.
Fossils make me think wow, why is there a fossil of a sea creature on a mountain or some such.

The webpage you link to says birds become another species of birds (unable to breed with original species) within less than fifty years, which is about fifty generations, most migrating birds being seasonal.
Which finch was unable to breed with classic finches, should be not too hard to record since they monitored those generations!
None according to the article.
Ok, what's a species then? And how to justify the title of the article?

These two examples make it clear that the division between species is not a black-and-white issue. Rather, speciation occurs as many different sorts of traits (physical, behavioral, and genetic) diverge from one another along a continuum. Because of this, biologists sometimes disagree about where to draw the line between incipient species — about when a division has become deep enough to warrant a new species name

So yes, this article is about speciation is species aren't defined as species. But since it's an accredited university's website, they can surely call it speciation, as long as their conclusion is the quote here above.
Don't be fooled.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
For the sake of argument I will use "evolution" as defined by you until this post is posted.

I thought the topic was on Biological Evolution? Peter's definition of it is how it is described in scientific terminology. So any other definition and use of the word "evolution" would be misleading as have already been shown by several members questioning your understanding of the theory and what it says while you need to correct them by stating what you 'meant to say' in the OP.

I don't mean to sound cheeky with that, but wouldn't it be a good idea to first establish what we're talking about?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
If all life stems from single celled organisms, then evolution (again, using the exact definition you kindly provided) makes the descendants of these single celled organisms, aka every living thing, differ in phylum also. In other words: a mushroom and a bat, different throughout taxonomy, evolved from singled celled organisms who are of neither phylum, demonstrating that evolution would alter phylum.

I believe the reason why Peter said it was unnecessary for the discussion is because the same process that occurs within a single population of a single species is the same process that occurs at the 'zoomed out' view on the time scale that we see with divergence becoming their own phylum.

Also, the statement that "Evolution alters phylum" isn't really correct in this context. You see, because evolution isn't linear, the 'branching' and divergence of species just goes on and on, continuously branching out. A Phylum is only apparent once there exists an entire group of species, classes, families, orders, classes, and so forth that are all more closely related than they are to the other phylum that has it's own respective and more closely related species, classes, so on and so forth.

As stated before, Evolution occurs at a population based scale. More specifically, a population within a specific environment. It's why we see species, like Humans, being so diverse depending on where their respective populations originated/lived for so long. Each of those populations has adapted to their specific environment.

So, we can see that because of Evolution occurring at a population-based level, it would be unreasonable to state that any given changes within a specific population would affect the entire species that those individual populations make up.

Similarly, it would be unreasonable to state that "Evolution alters by phylum" too.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
No. I am studying biology and asking how speciation makes sense to you, and so actually interested in your opinion that I go through the process or reading your comments and responding.

Then why even bring up Abiogenesis at all? Why bring up "Primordial Soup"?

I've explained Speciation in my last post, I highly suggest reading and responding to it if you have any further questions on the matter

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
Again, the flaw I see is that even though evolution takes unobservable time

It doesn't. We can see and measure Mutation rates at an individualistic level.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
speciation does not

I've given you several examples of personally observed speciation

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
because the moment where the first member of a species is born is an moment and not an era. Therefore its parents are a different species: this is what *first member* of any species implies. No first member, no new species.

This is not how Speciation works. Speciation occurs at a population-based level, not an individual level

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
Anyone thinking there are undisputable facts forfeits all claim to science.

In science, we try to study and explain Naturally Occurring Phenomena.

Germs are a naturally occurring phenomenon
Gravity is a naturally occurring phenomenon
Planetary orbits around the sun are a naturally occurring phenomenon
Atoms are a naturally occurring phenomenon
Evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon

This are all facts.

Germs are a fact
Gravity is a fact
Planetary orbits are a fact
Atoms are a fact
Evolution is a fact

We also Scientific Theories that attempt to explain how these facts of nature function and exist

Germ Theory
The Theory of General Relativity
Heliocentric Theory
Atomic Theory
The Theory Of Evolution

are all our theories on how to explain facts of nature.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
Just as there was a first blue eyed bloke (who could breed with brown eyes gals), there was a first cat (who could not breed with not-cats by definition). This isn't a population thing, it's a first timer thing, as your example demonstrates.

You're talking about the difference between a single minor mutation, and the accumulation of so many genetic mutations that the organism can't feasibly reproduce with it's ancestor. One most certainly can occur at an individualistic scale, the other would be impossible to occur on an individualistic scale.

I think it's about time you start reading my posts wisvol, I have already addressed all these points you've made just now

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
First poster to address the question, page four. I love you.

Correction*

First poster you didn't intentionally ignore that addressed your question (which was addressed on page 1 by the way)

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
Fossils don't make me think the origin of species is other species, personally.
Fossils make me think wow, why is there a fossil of a sea creature on a mountain or some such.

Facepalm.... And you made it to university level biology?

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

To answer your question,the fossil records is one of the best examples for observable proof on how diverse life is through the process of evolution. That's pretty much what makes me think that the origin of species is other species.

Fossils are observable, and proof of diverse life.
Thank you for your answer.

I'm not sure what you mean by other species in your question...Common ancestor...?

By other species I mean life reproductively incompatible with original species, as I have found the definition of species to mean.

Are you implying that you distrust academia or any aspect of science because they sometimes self-advertise certain ideas? If so why?

Yes, I am.
Because as a young child I was taught to sit down and shut up, and realized that this schooling's purpose was for me to sit down and shut up, not know how things work.
Then I realized that some of the kids were not only sharper but wiser and more knowledgeable than their teachers in fields that were being taught. Second red flag was raised.
What really did it though was when I followed the money and understood who funds public education, and why.
This obviously does not mean I distrust individual public servants or that I think all school data is bunk, but I am indeed persuaded through personal experience that key disinformation is purposefully inserted in the programs of public schools, since I took a trip around the world's bookshops looking for current history books.

It is not a lack of compassion to ignore certain people unless one ignores them from the start.
Ignoring known time wasters is actually a key to happiness and efficient time management, freeing space to exert compassion towards selected issues.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
By other species I mean life reproductively incompatible with original species, as I have found the definition of species to mean.

Your definition isn't wrong, it's your conclusion that "in order for that to occur, the only option is for one organism to give birth to another organism of a different species" which is simply not accurate.

Several people have thoroughly explained speciation in detail now, however.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
It is not a lack of compassion to ignore certain people unless one ignores them from the start.

I too learned many things in preschool, fortunately "ignoring people because I don't like their views" was not one of them.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
Ignoring known time wasters is actually a key to happiness and efficient time management, freeing space to exert compassion towards selected issues.

Yes, All my posts that have been addressed to you have nothing to do with the content within this thread at all, do they?

The only thing you're achieving is the welding shut of the metal door of which is your mind.

Changing your perspective on something you have had a tremendous attachment when they have been proven invalid can be frightening and difficult, but it's what allows us to progress as individuals and as a race.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
For the sake of argument I will use "evolution" as defined by you until this post is posted.

I thought the topic was on Biological Evolution? Peter's definition of it is how it is described in scientific terminology. So any other definition and use of the word "evolution" would be misleading as have already been shown by several members questioning your understanding of the theory and what it says while you need to correct them by stating what you 'meant to say' in the OP.

I don't mean to sound cheeky with that, but wouldn't it be a good idea to first establish what we're talking about?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
If all life stems from single celled organisms, then evolution (again, using the exact definition you kindly provided) makes the descendants of these single celled organisms, aka every living thing, differ in phylum also. In other words: a mushroom and a bat, different throughout taxonomy, evolved from singled celled organisms who are of neither phylum, demonstrating that evolution would alter phylum.

I believe the reason why Peter said it was unnecessary for the discussion is because the same process that occurs within a single population of a single species is the same process that occurs at the 'zoomed out' view on the time scale that we see with divergence becoming their own phylum.

Also, the statement that "Evolution alters phylum" isn't really correct in this context. You see, because evolution isn't linear, the 'branching' and divergence of species just goes on and on, continuously branching out. A Phylum is only apparent once there exists an entire group of species, classes, families, orders, classes, and so forth that are all more closely related than they are to the other phylum that has it's own respective and more closely related species, classes, so on and so forth.

As stated before, Evolution occurs at a population based scale. More specifically, a population within a specific environment. It's why we see species, like Humans, being so diverse depending on where their respective populations originated/lived for so long. Each of those populations has adapted to their specific environment.

So, we can see that because of Evolution occurring at a population-based level, it would be unreasonable to state that any given changes within a specific population would affect the entire species that those individual populations make up.

Similarly, it would be unreasonable to state that "Evolution alters by phylum" too.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
No. I am studying biology and asking how speciation makes sense to you, and so actually interested in your opinion that I go through the process or reading your comments and responding.

Then why even bring up Abiogenesis at all? Why bring up "Primordial Soup"?

I've explained Speciation in my last post, I highly suggest reading and responding to it if you have any further questions on the matter

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
Again, the flaw I see is that even though evolution takes unobservable time

It doesn't. We can see and measure Mutation rates at an individualistic level.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
speciation does not

I've given you several examples of personally observed speciation

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
because the moment where the first member of a species is born is an moment and not an era. Therefore its parents are a different species: this is what *first member* of any species implies. No first member, no new species.

This is not how Speciation works. Speciation occurs at a population-based level, not an individual level

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
Anyone thinking there are undisputable facts forfeits all claim to science.

In science, we try to study and explain Naturally Occurring Phenomena.

Germs are a naturally occurring phenomenon
Gravity is a naturally occurring phenomenon
Planetary orbits around the sun are a naturally occurring phenomenon
Atoms are a naturally occurring phenomenon
Evolution is a naturally occurring phenomenon

This are all facts.

Germs are a fact
Gravity is a fact
Planetary orbits are a fact
Atoms are a fact
Evolution is a fact

We also Scientific Theories that attempt to explain how these facts of nature function and exist

Germ Theory
The Theory of General Relativity
Heliocentric Theory
Atomic Theory
The Theory Of Evolution

are all our theories on how to explain facts of nature.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: peter vlar
Just as there was a first blue eyed bloke (who could breed with brown eyes gals), there was a first cat (who could not breed with not-cats by definition). This isn't a population thing, it's a first timer thing, as your example demonstrates.

You're talking about the difference between a single minor mutation, and the accumulation of so many genetic mutations that the organism can't feasibly reproduce with it's ancestor. One most certainly can occur at an individualistic scale, the other would be impossible to occur on an individualistic scale.

I think it's about time you start reading my posts wisvol, I have already addressed all these points you've made just now


(Copy and pasted Ghosts post because, you know, we frendz)

originally posted by: Ghost147First things first. I want to know if you're referring to the origin of life on earth when you state "the origin of species" (Abiogenesis), or if the only reason you're saying "the origin of species" is because of Darwin's book 'On the origin of species' which discusses evolution. You may simply be confusing the two.

In all due respect to all those who don't accept the theory of evolution
Can we never discuss abiogenesis
Ghost doesn't like to deal with issues he finds difficult to explain

Please, please don't call abiogenesis evolution, its in NO way related, its not a foundation for all life, has no intrinsic value to any life and from henceforth should never be discussed in origins again, EVER

I have always wondered though, how could things that exist evolve from dirt and water

evolution is dependent on abiogenesis, without abiogenesis there is no life

Conundrum?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
By other species I mean life reproductively incompatible with original species, as I have found the definition of species to mean.

Your definition isn't wrong, it's your conclusion that "in order for that to occur, the only option is for one organism to give birth to another organism of a different species" which is simply not accurate.

Several people have thoroughly explained speciation in detail now, however.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
It is not a lack of compassion to ignore certain people unless one ignores them from the start.

I too learned many things in preschool, fortunately "ignoring people because I don't like their views" was not one of them.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: NateTheAnimator
Ignoring known time wasters is actually a key to happiness and efficient time management, freeing space to exert compassion towards selected issues.

Yes, All my posts that have been addressed to you have nothing to do with the content within this thread at all, do they?

The only thing you're achieving is the welding shut of the metal door of which is your mind.

Changing your perspective on something you have had a tremendous attachment when they have been proven invalid can be frightening and difficult, but it's what allows us to progress as individuals and as a race.

(My fwendz post again)

originally posted by: Raggedyman
In all due respect to all those who don't accept the theory of evolution
Can we never discuss abiogenesis

Ghost doesn't like to deal with issues he finds difficult to explain

Please, please don't call abiogenesis evolution, its in NO way related, its not a foundation for all life, has no intrinsic value to any life and from henceforth should never be discussed in origins again, EVER

I have always wondered though, how could things that exist evolve from dirt and water

evolution is dependent on abiogenesis, without abiogenesis there is no life

Conundrum?

The issue is that most people whom don't understand the concepts of evolution and/or abiogenesis often conclude they are the same thing. So they equate specific processes and direct specific questions to one theory, when really they are talking about a totally different concept (which is what you've touched up on).

It's not that we don't want to talk about Abiogenesis, it's just that the processes and mechanisms within Evolution, which is what is being asked about, doesn't apply to Abiogenesis at all.

Both can be very complicated subjects, and because their processes aren't related, they are best left for another topic.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I absolutely swore I had already read this...and then I saw this:

(Copy and pasted Ghosts post because, you know, we frendz)

Top Lolz

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: TerryDon79

I absolutely swore I had already read this...and then I saw this:

(Copy and pasted Ghosts post because, you know, we frendz)

Top Lolz

It's because a certain member has difficulty reading another members posts.

I had no idea that ATS had such childish, playground mentality.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I know lol, I have been following the thread. Fascinating use of the ignore function of the brain. Also an inspiring demonstration of patience.

a reply to: wisvol

Yes, I am. Because as a young child I was taught to sit down and shut up, and realized that this schooling's purpose was for me to sit down and shut up, not know how things work. Then I realized that some of the kids were not only sharper but wiser and more knowledgeable than their teachers in fields that were being taught. Second red flag was raised. What really did it though was when I followed the money and understood who funds public education, and why. This obviously does not mean I distrust individual public servants or that I think all school data is bunk, but I am indeed persuaded through personal experience that key disinformation is purposefully inserted in the programs of public schools, since I took a trip around the world's bookshops looking for current history books.

Are you sure none of this distrust is fueled by your inability to fully grasp the concepts you claim they "push"?
This is so baffling...You actually went to university and studied evolutionary biology...I know you stated you don't distrust individual members of academia but,did you ever think to maybe bring up some of your issues and questions with the theory of evolution to your professor? Settle some of these points with someone whose entire profession deals with this topic...? Although I wouldn't be surprised if you ignored your professors lectures because you were "ignoring known time wasters".

Look I tried being nice, many other users were more than happy to oblige in actually teaching you about the mechanisms you're clearly ignorant about. Yet you keep ignoring them due to your refusal,yes refusal to accept that your world view is wrong.
Like demonstrably wrong just based on your posts in this thread. You don't want to learn anything, you made this thread in an attempt to poke holes in the the theory of evolution and failed miserably because your grasp on this concept is a mess. I want to read what your alternative is to the mechanism of evolution.

How did life originate wisvol?

How long did it take?

What is the causality for species diversity?