Evoultion: Motivation With A Purpose
All-seeing-I
Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
Take the virus for instance. The mutations appear to be part of the
virus' innate drive for survival. Call it 'survival instinct' for lack
of a better term. IOW it seems the motivation is to survive and not to
change exactly what it is via some sort of evolutionary process. Not
even when facing it's own demise has the virus been shown to diverge
in all these many thousands of years.
If a specific kind of ape is surviving in multiple environments what
intricate purpose does it serve for part of the population of those
apes to diverge into humans in the context of all life? None.
So for a species to diverge there should be a good motivation and a
useful purpose to do so that goes beyond what the blind random-
selection, genetic drifts and mutations offer; Else the divergence is
purposeless.
I qualify this need for a motivation with purpose to exist first in
order for species to diverge because everything on the planet seems to
serve a purpose or originate with a purpose in one way or the other;
And, they all appear to be interconnected in grand scheme.
Evolution to the point of speciation divergence lacks motivation with
purpose. Therefore divergence as a concept is useless in relation to
all of the other processes on the earth that do serve a useful
interrelated purpose.
This lack of motivation with purpose also makes the idea of divergence
a hindrance to science, destructive to mankind's spiritual beliefs,
and misleading in general.
However. There is information that leads to work within the special
theory of evolution that plays a vital role in serving mankind. This
research should not be confused with speciation and should be
considered on it's own merits. Simply put; not all of the ToE is in
err. So there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Only the parts that serve no real purpose.
Conclusion: In the context of life on earth the idea that species can
diverge and form new and separate species is irrelevant to mankind's
endeavors ---at all levels.
Burkhard
> Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
Evolution has no motive, purpose or goal whatsoever.
> Take the virus for instance. The mutations appear to be part of the
> virus' innate drive for survival. Call it 'survival instinct' for lack
> of a better term. IOW it seems the motivation is to survive and not to
> change exactly what it is via some sort of evolutionary process.
The virus has no purpose or motive. Those that don't adapt are
eliminated, those that do survive.
Not
> even when facing it's own demise has the virus been shown to diverge
> in all these many thousands of years.
>
> If a specific kind of ape is surviving in multiple environments what
> intricate purpose does it serve for part of the population of those
> apes to diverge into humans in the context of all life? None.
Indeed. Evolution has no purpose or goal. But small changes _inevitably_
add up to big changes over time, in the same way in which I might loose
one hair daily, and after a couple of years am bald.
>
> So for a species to diverge there should be a good motivation and a
> useful purpose to do so that goes beyond what the blind random-
> selection, genetic drifts and mutations offer; Else the divergence is
> purposeless.
Indeed. And you show once again that you don't have the faintest clue
what the ToE actually says. Evolution is not an intentional agency, it
does not have plans, goals or purposes
>
> I qualify this need for a motivation with purpose to exist first in
> order for species to diverge because everything on the planet seems to
> serve a purpose or originate with a purpose in one way or the other;
Question possibly for religion, not for science.
> And, they all appear to be interconnected in grand scheme.
>
> Evolution to the point of speciation divergence lacks motivation with
> purpose.
Evolution does not have a motive or purpose
Therefore divergence as a concept is useless in relation to
> all of the other processes on the earth that do serve a useful
> interrelated purpose.
Science describes _all_ these processes without reference to purpose.
When the apple falls from the tree, it doesn't do this because gravity
has a purpose for it.
>
> This lack of motivation with purpose also makes the idea of divergence
> a hindrance to science, destructive to mankind's spiritual beliefs,
> and misleading in general.
But observed, so, though.
>
> However. There is information that leads to work within the special
> theory of evolution that plays a vital role in serving mankind. This
> research should not be confused with speciation and should be
> considered on it's own merits. Simply put; not all of the ToE is in
> err. So there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
> Only the parts that serve no real purpose.
>
> Conclusion: In the context of life on earth the idea that species can
> diverge and form new and separate species is irrelevant to mankind's
> endeavors ---at all levels.
ConclusionL why don't you read a beginners guide to the ToE?
>
All-seeing-I
Don't you guys get it? The default answers no longer work. Saying "You
don't understand" because the hard questions cannot be answered just
doesn't cut it.
Divergence does not happen for a real verifiable purpose.
Everything a species needs can be achieved through variations while
staying within the same kind of life, including survival traits, and
those traits are acquired with and for a motivated purpose.
Neither does refusing to make the connection between evolution and
mankind's spiritual beliefs. It don't wash. Because man is both
spiritual and physical or the entire concept of spirituality would not
even exist on this planet. The very fact that man conceived
spirituality makes it an addressable issue. You can no longer keep
separate departments for explanations. They all must be addressed and
they must make sense in the entire picture of what we witness on this
planet.
Divergence lacks originating for a motivated purpose. Divergence lacks
the connection to man's innate spiritual makeup. Divergence is not
even observed like variation is.
Divergence is a man made construct based on inferences of subjective
data.
Divergence fails on all levels to coincide with what is observed
happening elsewhere on this planet and the universe.
If lacking changes motivated by a "purpose" is not enough to discredit
divergence, then not knowing "Why" should be. There is not a reason
why some life diverges while others remain the same with only
variation for millions of years. Divergence is a targeted strike upon
only some kinds of life while leaving others untouched. So how can it
even be an origins of species if it does not even have the same effect
on all species?
Divergence does not make sense and it reads like a B-Grade Sci-Fi
movie script.
Only those with a total suspension of disbelief can accept it as an
origins for species.
VoiceOfReason
> Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>
> Take the virus for instance. The mutations appear to be part of the
> virus' innate drive for survival.
You just answered your own question about motivation - survival.
> Call it 'survival instinct' for lack
> of a better term. IOW it seems the motivation is to survive and not to
> change exactly what it is via some sort of evolutionary process. Not
> even when facing it's own demise has the virus been shown to diverge
> in all these many thousands of years.
Viruses evolve. Read up on influenza.
> If a specific kind of ape is surviving in multiple environments what
> intricate purpose does it serve for part of the population of those
> apes to diverge into humans in the context of all life? None.
True, evolution is purpose-less. We've known that for a very long
time.
> So for a species to diverge there should be a good motivation and a
> useful purpose to do so that goes beyond what the blind random-
> selection, genetic drifts and mutations offer; Else the divergence is
> purposeless.
See above re: survival.
> I qualify this need for a motivation with purpose to exist first in
> order for species to diverge because everything on the planet seems to
> serve a purpose or originate with a purpose in one way or the other;
> And, they all appear to be interconnected in grand scheme.
>
> Evolution to the point of speciation divergence lacks motivation with
> purpose. Therefore divergence as a concept is useless in relation to
> all of the other processes on the earth that do serve a useful
> interrelated purpose.
>
> This lack of motivation with purpose also makes the idea of divergence
> a hindrance to science, destructive to mankind's spiritual beliefs,
> and misleading in general.
>
> However. There is information that leads to work within the special
> theory of evolution that plays a vital role in serving mankind. This
> research should not be confused with speciation and should be
> considered on it's own merits. Simply put; not all of the ToE is in
> err. So there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
> Only the parts that serve no real purpose.
>
> Conclusion: In the context of life on earth the idea that species can
> diverge and form new and separate species is irrelevant to mankind's
> endeavors ---at all levels.
If science followed your "conclusion" we wouldn't have immunizations
to prevent evolving strains of influenza. Thank God science isn't run
by religious zealots.
Burkhard
You did not pose a hard question, you displayed shocking ignorance of
what the ToE actually says. In particular the idea that natural
processes need a purpose for them to happen.
> Divergence does not happen for a real verifiable purpose.
>
> Everything a species needs can be achieved through variations while
> staying within the same kind of life, including survival traits, and
> those traits are acquired with and for a motivated purpose.
Evolution doesn't care what a species needs, and the individuals in the
species don't care either.
>
> Neither does refusing to make the connection between evolution and
> mankind's spiritual beliefs. It don't wash. Because man is both
> spiritual and physical or the entire concept of spirituality would not
> even exist on this planet. The very fact that man conceived
> spirituality makes it an addressable issue. You can no longer keep
> separate departments for explanations. They all must be addressed and
> they must make sense in the entire picture of what we witness on this
> planet.
well, if it is a unified framework you want, there are lots of
evolutionary theories about the origins of religion, I cited some of
them to you not that long ago.
see e.g.
Johnson, D. D. P. & Bering, J. M. (2006) Hand of God, mind of man:
punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary
Psychology 4: 219�233.
Johnson, D. D. P. (2008) Gods of War: The Adaptive Logic of Religious
Conflict. In The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, and Critiques
(ed. J. Bulbulia, R. Sosis, C. Genet, R. Genet, E. Harris & K.
Wyman), pp. 111-117. Santa Margarita, CA: Collins Foundation Press.
>
> Divergence lacks originating for a motivated purpose. Divergence lacks
> the connection to man's innate spiritual makeup. Divergence is not
> even observed like variation is.
>
The distinction is meaningless.
> Divergence is a man made construct based on inferences of subjective
> data.
>
The data is observed, the inferences tested.
> Divergence fails on all levels to coincide with what is observed
> happening elsewhere on this planet and the universe.
>
> If lacking changes motivated by a "purpose" is not enough to discredit
> divergence, then not knowing "Why" should be. There is not a reason
> why some life diverges while others remain the same with only
> variation for millions of years.
Depends. you'd have to give a specific example of the species you have
in mind, and there may or may not be detailed studies that explain it.
Mark Evans
>
> Don't you guys get it? The default answers no longer work. Saying "You
> don't understand" �because the hard questions cannot be answered just
> doesn't cut it.
>
SNIP
You do not get it. Things happen. That is it. No purpose, none
needed. The are reasons, which are not the same are purpose. I
suspect that you really are incapable of understanding this. You long
history of posting indicates a fundamental problem on your part. Your
clear lack of an education shows in almost every post. Your childish
refusal to even try to understand simple arguments does not speak well
of your maturity. And your rapid move to insults when challenged
shows your basic, and seemingly justified, feelings of inferiority.
Mark Evans
Ron O
> Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
SNIP:
Even you could be trained to collect the data necessary to demonstrate
that certain mutations affect the survival and reproduction of a
species. There is no mystery. The better allele (variant) will be
selected for and increase in the population under the environmental
conditions where it is favored. You can't keep this from happening.
You can also demonstrate that certain traits have no detectable
selective advantage, but just by chance will take over the
population. The big brains have done the math and produced a theory
to explain this and reality indicates that the numbers work out and
these types of events will happen with a certain regularity in any
reproducing population. We can't keep that from happening either
unless you introduce artificial selection.
These variants are occurring constantly in the population. You have
inherited around 200 new mutations from your parents. There are over
7 billion people on the planet. They represent around 1,400 billion
new mutations just in the extant population. There are only 3 billion
sites to change in the human genome. So every such site in the human
genome has been mutated hundreds of times just in the people that are
alive today. Most of these mutations do not do much of anything, some
are bad and a few will do something interesting. This is going on
every generation.
Ron Okimoto
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:79a7d15c-058e-4f37...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>
Since when is a purpose required for evolution?
.
Dan Listermann
> On Dec 15, 5:34 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Divergence lacks originating for a motivated purpose. Divergence lacks
> the connection to man's innate spiritual makeup. Divergence is not
> even observed like variation is.
>
Divergence needs no purpose. Your superstitious religious mindset searches
for purpose and cannot grasp the possibility that no purpose is needed for a
system to function.
.
John Harshman
> Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
If your misunderstanding of evolution is this fundamental, why should
anyone pay the slightest attention to anything you claim?
> Take the virus for instance. The mutations appear to be part of the
> virus' innate drive for survival. Call it 'survival instinct' for lack
> of a better term. IOW it seems the motivation is to survive and not to
> change exactly what it is via some sort of evolutionary process. Not
> even when facing it's own demise has the virus been shown to diverge
> in all these many thousands of years.
First off, "the virus"? There are huge numbers of viruses, and many
types that are fundamentally different from others. Second, no,
mutations are not part of any drive for survival; they just happen, and
there's no way for the virus to prevent them. There is no motivation.
And viruses diverge very quickly.
> If a specific kind of ape is surviving in multiple environments what
> intricate purpose does it serve for part of the population of those
> apes to diverge into humans in the context of all life? None.
No purpose. It just happens. Mutations have no purpose. Natural
selection can be metaphorically considered to be a purpose, but it acts
for immediate advantage only. However, immediate advantage can result in
indefinite divergence, if piled up over a long time.
> So for a species to diverge there should be a good motivation and a
> useful purpose to do so that goes beyond what the blind random-
> selection, genetic drifts and mutations offer; Else the divergence is
> purposeless.
When you say "so", that implies that your conclusion follows in some way
from what went before. But what went before is just nonsense. GIGO.
> I qualify this need for a motivation with purpose to exist first in
> order for species to diverge because everything on the planet seems to
> serve a purpose or originate with a purpose in one way or the other;
> And, they all appear to be interconnected in grand scheme.
I don't think you know enough about life (or the world) to say anything
of the sort. What purpose does malaria serve, exactly? What purpose does
chert serve, exactly?
> Evolution to the point of speciation divergence lacks motivation with
> purpose. Therefore divergence as a concept is useless in relation to
> all of the other processes on the earth that do serve a useful
> interrelated purpose.
What purpose? You're making this up. Speciation doesn't have a purpose.
It just happens.
> This lack of motivation with purpose also makes the idea of divergence
> a hindrance to science, destructive to mankind's spiritual beliefs,
> and misleading in general.
But divergence is necessary to explain the data. How can it be a
hindrance? What other explanation do you have for the nested hierarchy
of life?
> However. There is information that leads to work within the special
> theory of evolution that plays a vital role in serving mankind. This
> research should not be confused with speciation and should be
> considered on it's own merits. Simply put; not all of the ToE is in
> err. So there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
> Only the parts that serve no real purpose.
But all the parts serve a real purpose: they explain data. Evolution
itself serves no purpose, but neither does the world.
> Conclusion: In the context of life on earth the idea that species can
> diverge and form new and separate species is irrelevant to mankind's
> endeavors ---at all levels.
Even if this were true, why should it be a reason to think evolution is
false? A neutron star 10,000 light years away from us is irrelevant to
mankind's endeavors too. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
slothrop
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 5:34 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> All-seeing-I wrote:
<snip>
> well, if it is a unified framework you want, there are lots of
> evolutionary theories about the origins of religion, I cited some of
> them to you not that long ago.
>
> see e.g.
>
> � Johnson, D. D. P. & Bering, J. M. (2006) Hand of God, mind of man:
> punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary
> Psychology 4: 219�233.
>
> Johnson, D. D. P. (2008) Gods of War: The Adaptive Logic of Religious
> Conflict. In The Evolution of Religion: Studies, Theories, and Critiques
> (ed. J. Bulbulia, R. Sosis, C. Genet, R. Genet, E. Harris & K.
> Wyman), pp. 111-117. Santa Margarita, CA: Collins Foundation Press.
>
Burkhard,
Thanks for citing these...where do you find this stuff? A Google
search?
slothrop
John Harshman
> Don't you guys get it? The default answers no longer work. Saying "You
> don't understand" because the hard questions cannot be answered just
> doesn't cut it.
>
> Divergence does not happen for a real verifiable purpose.
That isn't an argument against divergence unless you first show that
everything must happen for a real verifiable purpose.
> Everything a species needs can be achieved through variations while
> staying within the same kind of life, including survival traits, and
> those traits are acquired with and for a motivated purpose.
What do you mean by "kind"? Is a whale the same kind as a cow? If so,
then I agree with you. But whales and cows are descended from a common
ancestor. One of the descendants of that ancestor took to the water,
which "motivated" (scare quotes because it's a poor description of
natural selection) a number of major changes. One of the descendants
took to eating grass, which "motivated" a different set of major changes.
> Neither does refusing to make the connection between evolution and
> mankind's spiritual beliefs.
What connection, exactly?
> It don't wash. Because man is both
> spiritual and physical or the entire concept of spirituality would not
> even exist on this planet.
And man is therefore also a vampire, or the entire concept of vampires
would not even exist on this planet. Right?
> The very fact that man conceived
> spirituality makes it an addressable issue. You can no longer keep
> separate departments for explanations. They all must be addressed and
> they must make sense in the entire picture of what we witness on this
> planet.
If spiritually is addressable, does that mean anything about it is true?
Why must evolutionary biology address spirituality, and in what way must
it do so?
> Divergence lacks originating for a motivated purpose. Divergence lacks
> the connection to man's innate spiritual makeup. Divergence is not
> even observed like variation is.
Many things happen without a motivated purpose, so you first claim is
irrelevant. Many things happen withotu a connection to man's innate
spiritual makeup (if there is such a thing); again, irrelevant. And of
course divergence is observed. There is no other explanation for the
difference between humans and chimps, for example.
> Divergence is a man made construct based on inferences of subjective
> data.
In what way are the DNA sequence data subjective?
> Divergence fails on all levels to coincide with what is observed
> happening elsewhere on this planet and the universe.
Be more specific. What exactly is observed that it fails to coincide with?
> If lacking changes motivated by a "purpose" is not enough to discredit
> divergence,
And it isn't.
> then not knowing "Why" should be. There is not a reason
> why some life diverges while others remain the same with only
> variation for millions of years.
That was not a comprehensible sentence. If you're asking about the
reasons why some populations change more than others, we have some ideas
about that. If you're asking about the reasons why some lineages
speciate more than others, we have some ideas about that. (And they're
two different things, by the way.) Nor does not knowing why something
happens prevent us from knowing that it happens.
> Divergence is a targeted strike upon
> only some kinds of life while leaving others untouched. So how can it
> even be an origins of species if it does not even have the same effect
> on all species?
Why should it have the same effect on all species?
> Divergence does not make sense and it reads like a B-Grade Sci-Fi
> movie script.
>
> Only those with a total suspension of disbelief can accept it as an
> origins for species.
I'm not even sure what you think "divergence" means.
Boikat
<snip ignorance>
There is no "aim", "purpose" "goal" or "motivation" to evolution. It
just happens.
>
> Conclusion: In the context of life on earth the idea that species can
> diverge and form new and separate species is irrelevant to mankind's
> endeavors ---at all levels.
Unless mankind want's to understand how life diversified through
time. It's a damned good thing you do not speak for mankind,
Monnnkeey-boy.
Boikat
Tim DeLaney
<snip>
> Even if this were true, why should it be a reason to think evolution is
> false? A neutron star 10,000 light years away from us is irrelevant to
> mankind's endeavors too. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
Ah, but *two* neutron stars orbiting each other could have
a significant effect on us, even at 10,000 ly if we were in
their metaphorical crosshairs.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gamma/milkyway2.html
Tim
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
A: Differential reproductive success.
Science won; superstition lost; get over it.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Burkhard
These two I happened to have read, and had the reference on my computer
I "think" I got them initially from this very interesting website:
http://evolution-of-religion.com/
A Google
> search?
>
> slothrop
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dan Listermann
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:ka8fi558kmutsr30i...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:17:46 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
>> as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
>> at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>
> A: Differential reproductive success.
>
> Science won; superstition lost; get over it.
>
Their mumbo jumbo isn't superstition, ask them, they will tell you.
.
John Harshman
Fortunately, we aren't. So they must not exist. In fact there is no such
thing as a gamma ray burster, anywhere. Because what purpose could they
serve?
richardal...@googlemail.com
I suggest that some at least of us "guys" get it rather better than
you do - which is why some of us "guys" have bothered to obtain an
education in the subject and made a contribution to the science of
evolutionary biology.
>The default answers no longer work. Saying "You
> don't understand" �because the hard questions cannot be answered just
> doesn't cut it.
Bearing in mind that your posts demonstrate not only that you don't
understand, but are dogmatically determined not to learn anything
about evolutionary biology it seems a perfectly appropriate response.
>
> Divergence does not happen for a real verifiable purpose.
Well, no. It happens in response to selection pressures. Things don't
fall to the ground for any "verifiable purpose". They do so because
gravity acts on them.
>
> Everything a species needs can be achieved through variations while
> staying within the same kind of life, including survival traits, and
> those traits are acquired with and for a motivated purpose.
...which is an unfounded assertion not backed by any evidence.
The people who have actually taken the time and effort to *educate*
themselves in the subject disagree with you.
What to you know that they don't?
>
> Neither does refusing to make the connection between evolution and
> mankind's spiritual beliefs. It don't wash.
Why not? Mind you, one could argue that "spiritual beliefs" arose in
mankind because they serve a useful evolutionary purpose.
> Because man is both
> spiritual and physical or the entire concept of spirituality would not
> even exist on this planet. The very fact that man conceived
> spirituality makes it an addressable issue.
Quite so., However, the fact that man conceived spirituality does not
mean that spirituality exists. Human imagine the existence of many
things.
> You can no longer keep
> separate departments for explanations.
Why not?
> They all must be addressed and
> they must make sense in the entire picture of what we witness on this
> planet.
Because you demand it?
Why on earth should anyone treat your demands as anything other than a
joke?
>
> Divergence lacks originating for a motivated purpose. Divergence lacks
> the connection to man's innate spiritual makeup. Divergence is not
> even observed like variation is.
Actually, it is as has been explained to you previously. What do you
think it tells us about the validity of your arguments that you
persist in such outright falsehoods?
>
> Divergence is a man made construct based on inferences of subjective
> data.
What is subjective about the measurement of the genetic makeup of
different populations of organisms?
>
> Divergence fails on all levels to coincide with what is observed
> happening elsewhere on this planet and the universe.
Not according to the people who have taken the time and effort to
*educate* themselves in the subject.
What to you know that they don't?
>
> If lacking changes motivated by a "purpose" is not enough to discredit
> divergence, then not knowing "Why" should be.
As we have observed divergence in populations numerous times both in
nature and in the laboratory, how on earth can it be "discredited"?
> There is not a reason
> why some life diverges while others remain the same with only
> variation for millions of years. Divergence is a targeted strike upon
> only some kinds of life while leaving others untouched. So how can it
> even be an origins of species if it does not even have the same effect
> on all species?
Has it ever occurred to you that if you took the time to educate
yourself in the subject of evolutionary biology you
would be less likely to make yourself look both ignorant and
dishonest?
>
> Divergence does not make sense and it reads like a B-Grade Sci-Fi
> movie script.
Well, according to evolutionary biologists it happens.
What do you know about evolutionary biology that evolutionary
biologists don't?
> Only those with a total suspension of disbelief can accept it as an
> origins for species.
...or, it might just be the case that virtually every biologist on the
planet is right, and you are wrong.
Who do you think we should believe? Those who has devoted their
working lives to studying biology or an ignoramus whose every post is
full of outright falsehoods?
RF
Dan Listermann
"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:_-2dnc6voLz...@giganews.com...
You are forgetting "mysterious ways."
.
slothrop
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Very nice, thanks...
Boikat
> On Dec 15, 5:34�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
> > ConclusionL why don't you read a beginners guide to the ToE?
That would still be too complicated for ASS-I(diot). He needs to
start at the very beginning with
"Basic Science for Idiot's"
"Basic Science for Dummies"
"Basic Science for Imbaciles"
"Basic Science for Morons"
"Basic Science for Half-wits"
"Basic Science for God-Smacked 'tard-boys"
"Basic Science for Technophobes"
"Basic Science for Ludites"
"Basic Science for Those with the Mental Disposition of Bronze Aged
Goat Herders"
And,
"Basic Science for idiots who think 'Ancient Texrs' are sources for
the 'Ultimate Truth' (whatever that hell that means)"
>
> Don't you guys get it? The default answers no longer work. Saying "You
> don't understand" �because the hard questions cannot be answered just
> doesn't cut it.
Excuse me. You are the low-brow that said, and I quote,:
"It is literally easier to believe "God Did It" and takes far less
effort."
Sorry, Monnnkeey-boy, but you're the one who is afraid of, and
mentally incapable of, addressing "hard questions".
>
> Divergence does not happen for a real verifiable purpose.
No. It happens without purpose. It happens due to events that effect
the selective pressures on the individual within the population of
species within an enviornment.
<snip imbacilities>
>
> Only those with a total suspension of disbelief can accept it as an
> origins for species.
How would you know? You admitted that you are unwilling to put forth
the efforet needed to understand something as simple as natural
selection. You've chosen to remain not only ignorant, but you've also
chosen to embrace stupidity with a death grip. I have no problem with
that, except you want to drag the rest of humanity down to your level
of ignorance and stupidity.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
Sorry. That does not add up to divergence just because you acquire 200
mutations from your parents. And at those numbers times (read
multiplied) over just a thousand years there should be some noticeable
change in the human population that suggest a segment of the
population may be diverging away from the main population. But there
is nothing ---anywhere in nature. Not one single example can be
pointed to and said here is an example of species (X) diverging.
Why can't you guys face the truth. You cannot show anything on this
planet diverging or that has diverged with clear indisputable
evidence.
The best you can do is make assumptions from your data. Data that is
probably incomplete and probably inaccurate in some places.
Dan Listermann
>
> The best you can do is make assumptions from your data. Data that is
> probably incomplete and probably inaccurate in some places.
>
>
The best you can do is make assumptions from your scripture. "Data" that is
usually incomplete and highly inaccurate in most places.
.
Boikat
Your proclaimations, based upon your willful ignorance, are
insufficient grounds for disregarding the evidence which supports the
ToE. Sorry, monnnkeey-boy, you an squeak and throw all the poo you
want, that's not going to change the basic facts: Evolution has
support from several independant lines of evidence, and your ignorance
is not a problem for the ToE.
Besides, you are too intellectually lazy to understand even the basic
principles involved, as you believe it's easier to say "Goddidit" than
to put forth the effort to learn about the ToE. Since that clearly
shows you are pig-ignorant about the ToE, what makes you think you're
even *qualified* to pass judgement.
That's as stupid as writing a book review of a book after you've
glanced that the cover, and didn't like the cover, and then saw how
thick it was, and decided it had too many pages to read, and based on
that, decided it was a boring and poorly written.
Your judgments agains the ToE are both arrogant and stupid.
Boikat.
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> > as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> > at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>
> If your misunderstanding of evolution is this fundamental, why should
> anyone pay the slightest attention to anything you claim?
The same could be said for a scientist. If you cannot explain your
work in a clear understandable manor so that all can see you are
correct,why should anyone pay attention to the claims of divergence
being part of nature?
That is the problem BTW. Divergence is not observed in nature.
Divergence is a pink elephant in nature that can only be observed by
those drunk on evolution.
Caranx latus
> On Dec 15, 8:16�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> > > as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> > > at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>
> > If your misunderstanding of evolution is this fundamental, why should
> > anyone pay the slightest attention to anything you claim?
>
> The same could be said for a scientist. If you cannot explain your
> work in a clear understandable manor so that all can see you are
> correct,why should anyone pay attention to the claims of divergence
> being part of nature?
Scientists *do* explain their work. You can find those explanations in
any of dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed journals, all of which are
accessible to the public by subscription or through an appropriate
library perhaps. The people who read those journals can judge whether
or not the information presented is logical or not, and if it isn't,
they generally have no problem saying why. You seem to have an
expectation that the information should be presented in a manner that
appeals directly to your ignorance of the subject, and I don't know
why anyone would want to do that. If you want to pretend that common
ancestry has no basis in fact, that's your right but don't bind the
rest of us to your cross.
> That is the problem BTW. Divergence is not observed in nature.
> Divergence is a pink elephant in nature that can only be observed by
> those drunk on evolution.
Have you managed to make yourself believe this yet? Go ahead: say it a
few more times.
Boikat
> On Dec 15, 8:16�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> > > as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> > > at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>
> > If your misunderstanding of evolution is this fundamental, why should
> > anyone pay the slightest attention to anything you claim?
>
> The same could be said for a scientist. If you cannot explain your
> work in a clear understandable manor so that all can see you are
> correct,why should anyone pay attention to the claims of divergence
> being part of nature?
So, you're saying that scientists should write at your third grade
level of understanding?
>
> That is the problem BTW. Divergence is not observed in nature.
It is. It's called "speciation" and has been observed, whether you
like ot or not, whether you accept it or now, and if you are too
willfully ignorant to accept the fact, that's a problem for you, but
not a problem for science or the ToE.
> Divergence is a pink elephant in nature that can only be observed by
> those drunk on evolution.
As opposed to those who can only see that god-thing when their
perceptions are altered when they are high of crack, like you?
Sorry, but you are still not qualified to judge the validity of the
ToE, since you have not put forth the effort to actually learn about
thr ToE because it takes less effort to sit back on your fat ass, and
provlaim that "Goddidit" is a sufficient explaination. That may have
been good enough for your typical bronze age goat herders, but that's
not good enough for modern man.
Boikat
Dan Listermann
Silly, Darwin found the theory of evolution by observing divergence
happening in front of him in the Galapagos. You will babble that it did not
go "poof" in front of him, but that will be stupid and unsurprising.
.
John Harshman
> On Dec 15, 8:16 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
>>> as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
>>> at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>> If your misunderstanding of evolution is this fundamental, why should
>> anyone pay the slightest attention to anything you claim?
>
> The same could be said for a scientist.
Only if that scientists misunderstanding of evolution were that
fundamental. Two things suggest your fundamental misunderstanding: your
importation of "motivation" and "purpose" into evolution, where neither
is required, and the phrase "for survival of the species", which
suggests some mystical view of group selection. These are common
misunderstandings, but they can be repaired if you try.
> If you cannot explain your
> work in a clear understandable manor so that all can see you are
> correct,why should anyone pay attention to the claims of divergence
> being part of nature?
You understand that what you said there is quite different, making "the
same could be said" a non sequitur. Right? But I'm trying to make all
this understandable to you. You need to help me just a little bit by
trying to understand my point.
> That is the problem BTW. Divergence is not observed in nature.
> Divergence is a pink elephant in nature that can only be observed by
> those drunk on evolution.
Of course divergence is observed in nature, or at least I think it is.
That depends on what you mean by "divergence", which is not clear to me.
If you're talking about speciation, that's been observed in real time,
and is a necessary consequence of common descent. If you're talking
about differences in morphology, that too has been observed, again as a
necessary consequence of common descent. And common descent has been
observed too, in the same sense that universal gravitation and atoms
have been observed: a necessary conclusion from data.
Kermit
What sor tof change were you thinking of? I'd be interested to see an
example of such a noticeable change, and your reasoning which shows
how many mutations would be involved.
> in the human population that suggest a segment of the
> population may be diverging away from the main population.
A segment of the population would be diverging away from the main
population only if it is reproductively isolated. Which human
population were you thinking of here?
> But there
> is nothing ---anywhere in nature. Not one single example can be
> pointed to and said here is an example of species (X) diverging.
In a thousand years, that would only be 40 generations for humans.
Please show how much change you would expect in 40 generations, and
what differences in the environment would produce it.
>
> Why can't you guys face the truth. You cannot show anything on this
> planet diverging or that has diverged with clear indisputable
> evidence.
Anything can be disputed if you are sufficiently ignorant, or
determined to become so. You might give an example of some of the
evidence which you dispute.
Do genomes not form a nested hierarchy?
Does archaeopteryx not have feature sof both birds and theropods?
>
> The best you can do is make assumptions from your data.
No, the best we can do is form testable models that fit all the data.
this we have done. If you do not have an alternative, testable, model
that fits all the data, then you cannot claim that evolutionary
science is not the best possible.
You're just upset that science gets respect. It gets respect because
some people understand it, and the others mostly note that it works.
> Data that is
> probably incomplete and probably inaccurate in some places.
Of course, It always is.That's why scientists verify data.
Note that just making stuff up doesn't produce verifiable data as a
rule.
Kermit
hersheyh
Divergence requires changes that affect gene flow between
populations. Typically that is due to an accumulation of differences
in populations that are isolated for other reasons (often
geographical). Humans are wide-spread, highly mobile, and able (and
willing) to reproduce with any other human they come in contact with
(often whether the female human is willing to or not). That doesn't
mean that different local human populations are not different (humans
are phenotypically diverse in many ways), but only that these local
differences have not (yet) resulted in reproductive isolation.
> But there
> is nothing ---anywhere in nature. Not one single example can be
> pointed to and said here is an example of species (X) diverging.
In humans, we have the increase in adult retention of ability to
digest lactose that arose concurrently with (actually shaped by
selection because of) the domestication of cattle, other variants that
affect ability to digest starches (shaped by selection in environments
that acquired grain-based agriculture), selection for size and shape
and color (often associated with local environmental conditions), and
various local adaptations because of disease (especially malaria).
These are all local genetic adaptations in human subpopulations that
have mostly increased in frequency because of local selective forces
in the last 100,000 years or less. But only one human subpopulation
(the neandertals) seems to have become at least partially if not
completely reproductively isolated. This is probably because the
spread of modern human is too contiguous (for the most part) and
humans too mobile to fully isolate a population for the length of time
needed to generate a different species or even a reproductively
limited subspecies.
> Why can't you guys face the truth. You cannot show anything on this
> planet diverging or that has diverged with clear indisputable
> evidence.
We can show the *predicted* existence of cases of intermediacy between
a single species and two species. That is, because speciation is a
slow process, one would predict that current organisms will mostly
exist as clearly isolated species. But some fraction of species will
have partially divergent subspecies that differ in both phenotype and
degree of reproductive isolation. And other species that are normally
reproductively isolated in nature will be able to produce semifertile
hybrids and undergo a small frequency of gene transfer across the
species boundary.
My *prediction* from the non-scientific 'theory' of a *recent* (say
6000 years ago to choose a random number) magical poofing of isolated
species would be that such intermediacy and indeterminance in species
should not exist. What would you predict from a 'theory' of such a
*recent* magical poofing of independent species? Whatever exists is
what God did?
Kermit
> On Dec 15, 8:16�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
> > > Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> > > as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> > > at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>
> > If your misunderstanding of evolution is this fundamental, why should
> > anyone pay the slightest attention to anything you claim?
>
> The same could be said for a scientist. If you cannot explain your
> work in a clear understandable manor so that all can see you are
> correct,
Those hostile to the conclusions of science, who think that their
eternal life depends on science being wrong, will never understand. In
any event, what magical rule are you invoking here? Are you claiming
that something can't be true unless all humans anywhere can understand
it?
Please show why you think this is so.
> why should anyone pay attention to the claims of divergence
> being part of nature?
Not everyone has to, but everyone has to stand out of the way, or they
hinder our collective learning. We don't need everyone helping at an
accident scence, but we *do need folks who aren't contributing to not
interfere with medical care and transport of patients.
I suppose you could claim that the results of science are evil, and we
pitiful humans shouldn't be trying to figure out how things work. You
might try going to the local hospital and telling the patients there
that they shouldn't be getting medical treatment. Let us know how well
that advice is received.
>
> That is the problem BTW. Divergence is not observed in nature.
Sure it is. Here you are again, acting as though the universe is bound
be your wishes. Some here would say that this is literally insane, but
I would suggest that it's simply primitive. The sort of thing a four
year old would think. I'm sure you know *much more than a four year
old, but it's all filtered through a four year old's understanding.
Adaptation happens; speciation happens. We have seen it happen, but
htat is not required. We see the expected *results of it happening,
and that *is required.
> Divergence is a pink elephant in nature that can only be observed by
> those drunk on evolution.
You keep saying that, as though if you say it often enough, you will
wake up one morning and it will be true.
Since it's time again, here are the classes of data supporting
evolutionary science:
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far.
The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in
itself.
Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.
The radiometric dating of rocks.
The presence of plutonic intrusions within the column, which require
more than 4,000 years to solidify.
Thousands of feet of chalk deposits and evaporite sequences.
Metamorphic rocks (some forms of metamorphism require long periods at
low heat).
The succession in the fossil record.
Cyclothems (the repetitive and cyclic depositions of marine and
nonmarine strata).
The dating of the lower layers of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice
Caps.
Thousands of layers of sedimentary desposits, showing worm tracks and
burrows, solidified into rock.
Kermit
hersheyh
[snip]
Why All-seeing claims that scientists need to live in glass houses.
> The same could be said for a scientist. If you cannot explain your
> work in a clear understandable manor so that all can see you are
> correct,why should anyone pay attention to the claims of divergence
> being part of nature?
[snip]
Dan Listermann
"Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote in message
news:d8ac4$4b27b897$4a53bf9f$45...@FUSE.NET...
.
All-seeing-I
I have not read anything where an r.isolated species can pass their
genes to another species. The only cases involve forced breeding that
produces a sterile offspring. That is not exactly passing one's genes
on, is it?
>
> My *prediction* from the non-scientific 'theory' of a *recent* (say
> 6000 years ago to choose a random number) magical poofing of isolated
> species would be that such intermediacy and indeterminance in species
> should not exist. �What would you predict from a 'theory' of such a
> *recent* magical poofing of independent species? �Whatever exists is
> what God did?
I would predict a continuation of what we can already observe with
human eyes, no inferences needed.
We started with a created man. Now we can observe many variations of
that man.
We started with an original type of Canis. Now we can observe many
variations of that original Canis
Books such as Enoch say there was 14 types of Evergreens in existence
during his lifetime and in his part of the world. Now we can observe
many variations those original evergreens.
Some of those variations may have died out while other variations took
over the niche. But I see nothing that remotely suggests variations of
evergreens, nor the original evergreen, gave rise to anything else BUT
another evergreen. Have you? If you want to conclusively show
divergence then show some conclusive evidence that anything has given
rise to something else other then a variation of itself. Because we
all can make claims that something happens based on what we observe.
That is subjective however and it is not conclusive.
Within all of the scientific rhetoric above you did not offer a single
shred of tangible evidence that shows beyond a doubt that species X
gave rise to species A,B,C
So while you do not use the more typical evolutionist trickery of
saying "you are too dumb to understand"; you do however, employ the
usual evolutionist trickery of "if you cannot dazzle them with
brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit" by not speaking to your
target audience in a way they can clearly understand.
So this leaves a question. Why can't any of you plainly state THIS is
why and THIS is how and then show your work with evidence and a
testable model for all of us dummies to observe?
Because you CAN'T. that's why. I do not need a PhD to understand that.
Any person on this planet can prove to themselves that evolution takes
place with a garden or a litter of pups. But you cannot say the same
for divergence. Any person on this planet can prove to themselves
gravity is real by jumping off a building. You cannot say that
divergence can be tested. Any person on this planet can prove to
themselves that some forms of life can be mated and some cannot. But
you cannot say the same for divergence. No one can observe it
happening.
Nothing of the sort called "divergence" has been observed taking place
on this planet and it is inconsistent with what we already can observe
happening.
My prediction is pretty plain.. eh?
LT
Great response John. I'm certain, of course, he either won't reply to
it as usual, or give a short, terse hand-waving and irrelevant shrug.
LT
Mike Lyle
[...]
> Cyclothems (the repetitive and cyclic depositions of marine and
> nonmarine strata).
OT, I know; but as a word man I was struck by that one, which I don't
think I'd met before. The derivation and meaning are obvious, of course;
but is there any particular reason of conventional formation that it
isn't "cyclothema" or even "cyclotheme"? Are there other "-them"
formations?
--
Mike.
John Stockwell
> Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>
> virus' innate drive for survival. Call it 'survival instinct' for lack
> of a better term. IOW it seems the motivation is to survive and not to
> even when facing it's own demise has the virus been shown to diverge
> in all these many thousands of years.
Science is about processes, not about arbitrarily assigning "meaning
and purpose" to observations. The question is not one of whether
or no some biological stucture has a "purpose" or whether there
is a "meaning" that we should be drawing from observations. That
is fortunetelling.
>
> If a specific kind of ape is surviving in multiple environments what
> intricate purpose does it serve for part of the population of those
> apes to diverge into humans in the context of all life? None.
>
> So for a species to diverge there should be a good motivation and a
> useful purpose to do so that goes beyond what the blind random-
> selection, genetic drifts and mutations offer; Else the divergence is
> purposeless.
For a species to diverge, it appears that this requires at a
minimum reproductive isloation. This could be as simple as
a different mating schedule. If reproductive isolation includes
contrasting environments, food sources, competition, etc.
then the organisms could diverge considerably.
>
> I qualify this need for a motivation with purpose to exist first in
> order for species to diverge because everything on the planet seems to
> serve a purpose or originate with a purpose in one way or the other;
> And, they all appear to be interconnected in grand scheme.
"Seems to serve a purpose" is fortune telling.
>
> Evolution to the point of speciation divergence lacks motivation with
> purpose. Therefore divergence as a concept is useless in relation to
> all of the other processes on the earth that do serve a useful
> interrelated purpose.
The problem, of course, is that "purpose " is a totally arbitrary
interpretation.
>
> This lack of motivation with purpose also makes the idea of divergence
> a hindrance to science, destructive to mankind's spiritual beliefs,
> and misleading in general.
Science didn't get started until people stopped trying to find
"purpose and/or meaning" from phenomena and concentrated
on processes. Looking for "purpose" in organisms is no different
than looking for "meaning" in the position of the planets.
>
> However. There is information that leads to work within the special
> theory of evolution that plays a vital role in serving mankind. This
> research should not be confused with speciation and should be
> considered on it's own merits. Simply put; not all of the ToE is in
> err. So there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
> Only the parts that serve no real purpose.
Searching for purpose simply does not work.
>
> Conclusion: In the context of life on earth the idea that species can
> diverge and form new and separate species is irrelevant to mankind's
> endeavors ---at all levels.
Wishful thinking with no foundation in reality.
-John
Steven L.
> Everything a species needs can be achieved through variations while
> staying within the same kind of life, including survival traits,
That's not clear.
When that meteorite hit the Earth 65 million years ago, it wiped out all
the dinosaurs except those dinos that had evolved feathers and taken to
the air--the birds. If birds had not evolved from dinos, then the dinos
would have left no living descendants.
Life on Earth can be tough. Radical changes to the environment do
occur--though infrequently. The "kinds" of animals that used to do
well, might now become extinct.
> There is not a reason
> why some life diverges while others remain the same with only
> variation for millions of years.
Geographic isolation can do it. If a subpopulation is isolated from the
root population, genetic drift over time will produce some really
significant changes.
We've bred breeds of dogs that look very little like their ancestral
wolves. We do that by keeping our dogs isolated from wolves, and by
maintaining purebred strains of breeds in which a purebred poodle, say,
is only allowed to interbreed with other purebred poodles. But if
humans went extinct, all those purebred dogs would find each other and
interbreed, and they would eventually produce only mutts. And then those
mutts would eventually encounter some wolves, interbreed, and the entire
species of "dog" might disappear back into the wild wolf population.
Since in the wild, having to earn a living on one's own, being shaped
like a wolf pays better than being shaped like a poodle.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Iain
> Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> at all?
No alternative kind of variation is required to account for the
history of life on Earth.
The present variety of life on Earth, is the 3500 million year
accumulation of the kind of variation you described.
>There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
The causes of massive diversity are the same as the causes of the tiny
diversity which you acknowledged at the beginning of your post.
It's the very same phenomenon. Big erosion, small erosion, big
evolution, little evolution.
It's the Creationist's self-imposed mindfuck.
> Take the virus for instance. The mutations appear to be part of the
> virus' innate drive for survival.
No. Mutation is inaccurate copying of DNA or alterations to DNA, esp.
by random environmental factors.
You couldn't be more confused.
> Call it 'survival instinct' for lack
> of a better term.
Er..no. Mutation is not 'survival instinct', not is it even a roughly,
vaguely similar concept.
--Iain
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
>
>Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
>as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
>at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
No need for you to demonstrate your scientific and logical
illiteracy again; it's well established here.
<snip maunderings>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Dan Listermann
that sort of thing.
.
Dana Tweedy
What "adds up to divergence" is when a population gets isolated, so that it
no longer interbreeds with it's parent population. It is inevetable that
the population will diverge from it's parent species.
> And at those numbers times (read
> multiplied) over just a thousand years there should be some noticeable
> change in the human population that suggest a segment of the
> population may be diverging away from the main population.
You forget that human populations are not isolated. Humans have the habit
of moving around, and sharing their genes with their neighbors...
> But there
> is nothing ---anywhere in nature. Not one single example can be
> pointed to and said here is an example of species (X) diverging.
Actually, there are many examples of populations diverging. See:
http://nondiscovery.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/speciation-more-evidence-ignored-by-intelligent-design/
What you seem to want is a species turning into something completely
different, which as explained many times, is not how evolution works. All
descendant species will retain a link to their parent population.
>
> Why can't you guys face the truth. You cannot show anything on this
> planet diverging or that has diverged with clear indisputable
> evidence.
"Clear and indisputable" is apparenly code for "nothing you present will
ever be good enough". You keep beating a strawman version of evolution,
rather than facing the evidence for the real thing.
>
> The best you can do is make assumptions from your data. Data that is
> probably incomplete and probably inaccurate in some places.
Here again, you mistake "inference" for "assumption". Unless you can show
why the data are inaccurate, there's no reason to assume it is.
Furthermore, one can never have a complete set of data. All of science is
inference from incomplete data. Again, you show that you are williing to
discard science for your own selfish reasons.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>
>> We can show the *predicted* existence of cases of intermediacy
>> between a single species and two species. That is, because
>> speciation is a slow process, one would predict that current
>> organisms will mostly exist as clearly isolated species. But some
>> fraction of species will have partially divergent subspecies that
>> differ in both phenotype and degree of reproductive isolation. And
>> other species that are normally reproductively isolated in nature
>> will be able to produce semifertile hybrids and undergo a small
>> frequency of gene transfer across the species boundary.
>
> I have not read anything where an r.isolated species can pass their
> genes to another species.
You could have stopped after the first five words. There are many
examples of hybridization between closely related species. There's also a
good bit of literature relating to gene transfer between bacterial species.
> The only cases involve forced breeding that
> produces a sterile offspring. That is not exactly passing one's genes
> on, is it?
Not all hybrids produce sterile offspring. Again, you need to become more
familiar with the evidence, and not simply make assertions from personal
ignorance.
>
>
>>
>> My *prediction* from the non-scientific 'theory' of a *recent* (say
>> 6000 years ago to choose a random number) magical poofing of isolated
>> species would be that such intermediacy and indeterminance in species
>> should not exist. What would you predict from a 'theory' of such a
>> *recent* magical poofing of independent species? Whatever exists is
>> what God did?
>
>
> I would predict a continuation of what we can already observe with
> human eyes, no inferences needed.
Everything one can observe requires inference. Also, you aren't really
answering the question. Your 'prediction' doesn't follow from your theory.
If there was a magical being, poofing organisms into existence, why would
those organisms need to reproduce? Why would they reproduce imperfectly,
so that there are variations in the population. What keeps those
variations in the population from becoming divergence into new species over
time?
>
> We started with a created man. Now we can observe many variations of
> that man.
But you don't have any observations of anyone creating man. You have
evidence that shows that humans are closely related to other ape species,
and one already knows that populations vary, and keep varying. So, why
would one need to assume that humans were a one off creation, and not a
variation of ape?
>
> We started with an original type of Canis. Now we can observe many
> variations of that original Canis
Again, there's no evidence of an "original type" of Canis. There is
evidence that canids are descended from earlier carnivores, however, and
again, since we already know that populations vary, why assume that canids
were orginally created, and not evovled from a earlier form?
>
> Books such as Enoch say there was 14 types of Evergreens in existence
> during his lifetime and in his part of the world. Now we can observe
> many variations those original evergreens.
"Evergreens" are not a species, or a "kind". It's a description of the
retention of leaves over the winter. There are many different types of
evergreen trees, some more related to other species, and some less closely
related. Also, there's no reason to assume that the writers of Enoch knew
enough about biology, or botany to determine how many types of trees were in
existence at the time, even if we were to assume (without cause) that the
writers of Enoch were not simply relating legend, and oral stories.
>
> Some of those variations may have died out while other variations took
> over the niche. But I see nothing that remotely suggests variations of
> evergreens, nor the original evergreen, gave rise to anything else BUT
> another evergreen. Have you?
Yes, of course. Larches are species descended from conifers (which are
usually what one imagines when one uses the term 'evergreen'), but lose
their leaves in the winter. They are not evergreen, so they have become
something other than an "evergreen".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larch
> If you want to conclusively show
> divergence then show some conclusive evidence that anything has given
> rise to something else other then a variation of itself.
That's a strawman. All descendents are variations on their ancestors.
Nothing in life is entirely different from it's ancestors, all the way back
to the last common ancestor. The example you are so fond of, "fish to
man", bears this out. Humans retain features common to lobe finned fish,
the group their ancestors derived from. Humans retain the vertebrate body
plan, the biochemistry, and much of the same genes. If a organism gave
birth to something other than a variation of itself, that would falsify
evolution, not be conclusive evidence of it.
> Because we
> all can make claims that something happens based on what we observe.
> That is subjective however and it is not conclusive.
Actually, it's very objective to base claims on what one can observe.
What's subjective is to make claims based on what one can't observe.
>
> Within all of the scientific rhetoric above you did not offer a single
> shred of tangible evidence that shows beyond a doubt that species X
> gave rise to species A,B,C
You mean, other than anatomy, genetics, and biochemistry? If you have
unreasonable expectations, you won't ever get beyond an unreasonable doubt.
>
> So while you do not use the more typical evolutionist trickery of
> saying "you are too dumb to understand";
Note that no one is saying that people in general are too "dumb" to
understand evolution. It seems that such applies only to you.
> you do however, employ the
> usual evolutionist trickery of "if you cannot dazzle them with
> brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit" by not speaking to your
> target audience in a way they can clearly understand.
The 'target audience' has to at least be willing to make an effort to learn.
If you totally refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your beliefs,
there's no way anyone can "prove" anything to you. You've been shown the
evidence for evolution, over and over. It's not a lack of effort on the
part of the 'evolutionists' that keeps you from seeing the facts.
>
> So this leaves a question. Why can't any of you plainly state THIS is
> why and THIS is how and then show your work with evidence and a
> testable model for all of us dummies to observe?
>
Because the "dummies" in this case, are being willfully ignorant. Anyone
can view, and come to understand the evidence for evolution, but it does
require a commitment to accept what conclusions fall out of the evidence.
If you refuse to accept evolution, no matter what, you aren't going to get
it, ever.
> Because you CAN'T. that's why. I do not need a PhD to understand that.
Again, if you refuse to accept the evidence, and refuse to accept science,
don't blame others for failing to teach you. If you lock yourself in a
sensory deprivation tank, don't blame others for not being able to tell you
the building is on fire.
>
> Any person on this planet can prove to themselves that evolution takes
> place with a garden or a litter of pups.
And any person can prove to themselves that speciation takes place, by
examining the evidence, and applying the scientific method. If you
refuse to do either, no one is going to be able to teach you.
> But you cannot say the same
> for divergence.
On the contrary. Divergence is not that hard to understand. But it does
take a willingness to accept the concept. Sticking fingers in your ears
and yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" makes it very difficult to present reasoned
discourse.
> Any person on this planet can prove to themselves
> gravity is real by jumping off a building.
Not if one is unwilling to accept the force of gravity. The person will
still fall, but they will attribute it to something else.
> You cannot say that
> divergence can be tested.
Of course divergence can be tested. All you need to do is observe a
population of quickly reproducing organisms, and isolate a portion of that
population. Eventually, you will have a population unable to breed with
it's parent population. This experiment has been done many times over.
> Any person on this planet can prove to
> themselves that some forms of life can be mated and some cannot. But
> you cannot say the same for divergence. No one can observe it
> happening.
Except for those who have observed it happening. You keep forgetting
that speciation has been directly obsevered.
>
> Nothing of the sort called "divergence" has been observed taking place
> on this planet and it is inconsistent with what we already can observe
> happening.
Then why is it common to observe speciation happening in populations
throughout the Earth?
>
> My prediction is pretty plain.. eh?
Your "prediction" is falsified. Speciation has been obseved.
"Divergence" can be observed not only in present populations, but through
examining the genetic record, and the fossils. You lose again.
DJT
Dan Listermann
> I have not read anything where an r.isolated species can pass their
> genes to another species. The only cases involve forced breeding that
> produces a sterile offspring. That is not exactly passing one's genes
> on, is it?
>
seem to address this subject. That is not very confident.
.
All-Seeing-I
Show me what "present populations" are diverging and tell me why.
Please show your work. Where is your model. And what are your
predictions.
Please. Do not vomit something that is simply variation.
I will consider a serious reply.
thanks.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
>as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
>at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
now THIS proves how radical science really is. creationists can't
understand science because, to a createionist, things have to have a
god given purpose. and this purpose is supposed to be part of science.
where did you get the idea that purpose exists in nature?
Call it 'survival instinct' for lack
>of a better term. IOW it seems the motivation is to survive and not to
>change exactly what it is via some sort of evolutionary process.
meaningless. the ones that survive do so because of evolution. your
argument is circular
Not
>even when facing it's own demise has the virus been shown to diverge
>in all these many thousands of years
what is 'diverge'? another eccentric and personal creationist term
>
>If a specific kind of ape is surviving in multiple environments what
>intricate purpose does it serve for part of the population of those
>apes to diverge into humans in the context of all life? None.
meaningless. those that survive will have adapted to their environment
by evolution
>
>So for a species to diverge there should be a good motivation and a
>useful purpose to do so that goes beyond what the blind random-
>selection, genetic drifts and mutations offer; Else the divergence is
>purposeless.
motivation is not a natural process. evolution is. purpose is not a
natural process. evolution is
again and again you show that, because of your religion, you can not
understand how radically simple science is. you insist on overlaying
these meaningless ideas on nature.
they do not exist in nature
>
>I qualify this need for a motivation with purpose to exist first in
>order for species to diverge because everything on the planet seems to
>serve a purpose or originate with a purpose in one way or the other;
>And, they all appear to be interconnected in grand scheme.
meaningless. garbage. for thousands of years you ghost believers tried
to map this belief into nature
and it always failed. you think it's a new idea? it's ancient. it's
thousands of years old
and it's useless.
>
>Evolution to the point of speciation divergence lacks motivation with
>purpose. Therefore divergence as a concept is useless in relation to
>all of the other processes on the earth that do serve a useful
>interrelated purpose.
except it happens. therefore your view of 'motivation' is meaningless.
>
>This lack of motivation with purpose also makes the idea of divergence
>a hindrance to science, destructive to mankind's spiritual beliefs,
>and misleading in general.
your spiritual beliefs. mankind has thousands of spiritual beliefs.
yours just happen to be wrong and meaningless
>
>Conclusion: In the context of life on earth the idea that species can
>diverge and form new and separate species is irrelevant to mankind's
>endeavors ---at all levels.
in your opinion. this opinion has, for thousands of years, failed. you
tried to find 'purpose' in nature
you couldnt. but you insist it's there. let us know when you find it.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 15, 5:34�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > Conclusion: In the context of life on earth the idea that species can
>> > diverge and form new and separate species is irrelevant to mankind's
>> > endeavors ---at all levels.
>>
>> ConclusionL why don't you read a beginners guide to the ToE?
>
>Don't you guys get it? The default answers no longer work. Saying "You
>don't understand" because the hard questions cannot be answered just
>doesn't cut it.
you dont understand. that's a clinical assessment of your limits. your
limits are self imposed by your religion. it's like trying to explain
quantum mechanics to someone who thinks ghosts are responsible for
earthquakes.
>
>Divergence does not happen for a real verifiable purpose.
yes, it does.
>
>Everything a species needs can be achieved through variations while
>staying within the same kind of life, including survival traits, and
>those traits are acquired with and for a motivated purpose.
meaningless. you keep repeating this hoping it will become true.
repeating a lie is just repeating a lie
>
>Neither does refusing to make the connection between evolution and
>mankind's spiritual beliefs. It don't wash
IN YOUR OPINION. there are THOUSANDS of spiritual beliefs on the
planet, many of them consistent with evolution
.. Because man is both
>spiritual and physical or the entire concept of spirituality would not
>even exist on this planet. The very fact that man conceived
>spirituality makes it an addressable issue
and it's meaningless for science
.. You can no longer keep
>separate departments for explanations. They all must be addressed and
>they must make sense in the entire picture of what we witness on this
>planet.
and some of those ideas....like YOUR spirituatity...are just wrong.
>
>Divergence lacks originating for a motivated purpose.
there is no such thing as a 'motivated purpose' in nature. that's the
true radicalism of science, and why you can not understand it. this
goes back to my original statement. you can not understand science.
it's too radically simple for you
Divergence lacks
>the connection to man's innate spiritual makeup. Divergence is not
>even observed like variation is.
fine. you go ahead with your tarot cards, your chicken entrails, etc
and let those of us who are scientists do our work, m'kay
>
>Divergence is a man made construct based on inferences of subjective
>data.
really? repeatable and testable experimental ideas are subjective?
wanna take a walk out a 10th story window to test your idea?
>
>Divergence fails on all levels to coincide with what is observed
>happening elsewhere on this planet and the universe.
meaningless
>
>If lacking changes motivated by a "purpose" is not enough to discredit
>divergence, then not knowing "Why" should be. There is not a reason
>why some life diverges while others remain the same with only
>variation for millions of years
sure there is. natural selection.
.. Divergence is a targeted strike upon
>only some kinds of life while leaving others untouched. So how can it
>even be an origins of species if it does not even have the same effect
>on all species?
natural selection. darwin explained it 150 years ago. i know you're
not too bright, but read up on it
>
>Divergence does not make sense and it reads like a B-Grade Sci-Fi
>movie script.
>
>Only those with a total suspension of disbelief can accept it as an
>origins for species.
only those whose thought patterns are locked in a 2000 year old
psychology would think as you do
creationism is a failure. you just showed why
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Sorry. That does not add up to divergence just because you acquire 200
>mutations from your parents. And at those numbers times (read
>multiplied) over just a thousand years there should be some noticeable
>change in the human population that suggest a segment of the
>population may be diverging away from the main population. But there
>is nothing ---anywhere in nature. Not one single example can be
>pointed to and said here is an example of species (X) diverging.
all american indians have type O blood
europeans have a gene for lactose tolerance that's missing in other
humans
so you're wrong
>
>Why can't you guys face the truth. You cannot show anything on this
>planet diverging or that has diverged with clear indisputable
>evidence.
the hawthorne fruitfly. so you're wrong
>
>The best you can do is make assumptions from your data. Data that is
>probably incomplete and probably inaccurate in some places.
so is your view of god. sorry
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>We started with an original type of Canis. Now we can observe many
>variations of that original Canis
>
>Books such as Enoch say there was 14 types of Evergreens in existence
>during his lifetime and in his part of the world. Now we can observe
>many variations those original evergreens.
>
>Some of those variations may have died out while other variations took
>over the niche. But I see nothing that remotely suggests variations of
>evergreens, nor the original evergreen, gave rise to anything else BUT
>another evergreen. Have you? If you want to conclusively show
>divergence then show some conclusive evidence that anything has given
>rise to something else other then a variation of itself. Because we
>all can make claims that something happens based on what we observe.
>That is subjective however and it is not conclusive.
>
>Within all of the scientific rhetoric above you did not offer a single
>shred of tangible evidence that shows beyond a doubt that species X
>gave rise to species A,B,C
sure you can. speciation has been observed. it was proven here
recently as you admitted. you just called the different species a
'kind'...sort of like lumping humans and apes together
so you're wrong
>
>So this leaves a question. Why can't any of you plainly state THIS is
>why and THIS is how and then show your work with evidence and a
>testable model for all of us dummies to observe?
evidence: the hawthorne fruitfly...divergence happening NOW.
evidence: all american indians have type O blood. divergence
evidence: europeans have a gene for lactose tolerance missing in
africans. divergence
that's data.
and were can we see creationism in action? answer: we can't.
you guys used to think 'god did it' explained earthquakes you were
wrong....
>No one can observe it
>happening.
i just showed it is happening.
>
>Nothing of the sort called "divergence" has been observed taking place
>on this planet and it is inconsistent with what we already can observe
>happening.
>
>My prediction is pretty plain.. eh?
and it's wrong.
because you're a religious fanatic
>
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Show me what "present populations" are diverging and tell me why.
>
>Please show your work. Where is your model. And what are your
>predictions.
>
>Please. Do not vomit something that is simply variation.
a creationist contradiction:
-wants to see divergence
-does not want variation
so he wants to see variation without variation.
typical creationist
>
>I will consider a serious reply.
>
>thanks.
>
i just gave you one. your language leads to contradictions. that's a
serious reply
and you'll ignore it.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 15, 8:16�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
>> > as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
>> > at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>>
>> If your misunderstanding of evolution is this fundamental, why should
>> anyone pay the slightest attention to anything you claim?
>
>The same could be said for a scientist. If you cannot explain your
>work in a clear understandable manor so that all can see you are
>correct,why should anyone pay attention to the claims of divergence
>being part of nature?
no one cares what you understand. you're a religious fanatic and your
conceptual limitiations prevent you from understanding science.
that's your fault
>
>That is the problem BTW. Divergence is not observed in nature.
the hawthorne fruitfly...divergence happenin TODAY
>Divergence is a pink elephant in nature that can only be observed by
>those drunk on evolution.
says teh believer in an idea that's been wrong for 2000 years
>
hersheyh
What I am saying is that there are *degrees* of reproductive isolation
in nature. Not for every very closely related species, but for enough
that biologists do not regard most speciation as an *event* that
happens all in one swell foop, but as a *process*.
> species can pass their
> genes to another species. The only cases involve forced breeding that
> produces a sterile offspring. That is not exactly passing one's genes
> on, is it?
>
Ring species. Sunflowers, see, for example, the work of Loren
Rieseberg
http://www.bio.indiana.edu/facultyresearch/faculty/Rieseberg.html
The cywolf (coyote/wolf hybrid) in the Eastern U.S.
The pizzly (polar bear/grizzly hybrid)
Birds:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/5054/193
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w35781q660210558/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607318/
"Hybridization appears rarer in animals than plants, hovering at
approximately 10% of species in major faunal groups (table 2), but
these overall figures hide much higher rates in some of the most
rapidly diversifying subgroups, as in plants (Ellstrand et al. 1996).
For example, birds of paradise (43% of 42 species of Paradiseidae),
grouse (100% of four British species of Tetraoninae) and ducks (76% of
21 British species of Anatidae) are renowned hybridizers among birds.
Many groups, such as Parulidae (New World warblers, 24% of 116
species) and Paridae (tits, 29% of 70 species), hybridize as readily
as vascular plants (Mallet 2005). Insects are similar. Approximately
16% of European butterfly species hybridize (Descimon & Mallet 2008),
but the rapidly evolving Heliconius of tropical America have higher
rates (35% of 46 species). Overall among the subtribe Heliconiina,
which includes a number of more distantly related genera, 29% of 73
species hybridize (Mallet et al. 2007)."
"Whales provide some particularly interesting cases of hybridization
(Sylvestre & Tasaka 1985), and I summarize them here. Some of the most
iconic and best known species, such as narwhal (Monodon monoceros) and
beluga (Delphinapterus leucas; Heide-Jorgensen & Reeves 1993), bottle-
nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and Risso's dolphin (Grampus
griseus; Sylvestre & Tasaka 1985), and Dall's (Phocoenoides dalli) and
harbour porpoises (Phocoenoides phocoena; Willis et al. 2004), are
involved in hybridization in nature. The largest animal on the planet
today, and indeed the largest ever to have occurred on the planet, is
the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus). It weighs 120 metric tonnes or
more, at least three times the mass of the largest dinosaur known
(Brachiosaurus). But even this Leviathan is involved in regular
natural hybridization with its closest relative, the fin whale (B.
physalus), at a rate of approximately 0.1�0.2% of harpooned specimens
of the fin whale."
>
> > My *prediction* from the non-scientific 'theory' of a *recent* (say
> > 6000 years ago to choose a random number) magical poofing of isolated
> > species would be that such intermediacy and indeterminance in species
> > should not exist. What would you predict from a 'theory' of such a
> > *recent* magical poofing of independent species? Whatever exists is
> > what God did?
>
> I would predict a continuation of what we can already observe with
> human eyes, no inferences needed.
Like I said, your explanation seems to be "Whatever exists is what God
did." But, as I pointed out, what is *observed* is the occasional
intermediacy and indeterminance in species that I would expect from an
evolutionary process. How does such *observed* occasional
intermediacy and indeterminance fit into your idea of separate and
independent creation of each and every species as a separate entity?
> We started with a created man. Now we can observe many variations of
> that man.
So your claim is that evolution happens *after* the creation event.
And I don't know what you mean by "a created man". What now extinct
hominid do you think was the "original" created hominid? And what
tells you which of the living or extinct hominids was original or
ancestral without itself having an ancestor?
>
> We started with an original type of Canis. Now we can observe many
> variations of that original Canis
As I have pointed out (and pointed out sources), Canis is a genus of
standard taxonomy, not kindergarten taxonomy. Specifically it is the
genus that includes currently living and currently extinct wolves
(including dogs and coyotes). But that genus does not include foxes,
which you keep putting into the Canis genus. But, again, what was the
"originally created" or "ancestral" [do you have some principled
objection to calling the "originally created" form "ancestral"] Canis
that lacks any potential ancestor to be shared with foxes?
> Books such as Enoch say there was 14 types of Evergreens in existence
> during his lifetime and in his part of the world. Now we can observe
> many variations those original evergreens.
"Evergreen" is kindergarten taxonomy. You need to learn and use real
grown-up taxonomy if you want to be taken or mistaken for an adult.
>
> Some of those variations may have died out while other variations took
> over the niche. But I see nothing that remotely suggests variations of
> evergreens, nor the original evergreen, gave rise to anything else BUT
> another evergreen. Have you?
Define evergreen as a taxonomic unit. Evergreens, if by that you mean
*all* pines, cypress, and yews (division coniferophyta), are, in
standard taxonomies either an entire class or even division of
organisms, which is equivalent to saying that all insecta or
arthropods are merely varieties of one another! The closest relatives
to the conifers are the one species of ginko tree. Next come the
cycads and some even stranger plants that are, collectively,
gymnosperms.
> If you want to conclusively show
> divergence then show some conclusive evidence that anything has given
> rise to something else other then a variation of itself. �
Evolution, in fact, explicitly says descent with modification, not a
cat giving birth to a whale (you seem to think that evergreen
evolution does something like that). That is each divergence will
represent a change where something gave rise to something that is
nothing other than a variation of the immediate ancestor. It is
creation that says completely different things are magically poofed
into existence.
> Because we
> all can make claims that something happens based on what we observe.
> That is subjective however and it is not conclusive.
Except you are NOT doing that. You are making no testable prediction
at all on the basis of your theory.
> Within all of the scientific rhetoric above you did not offer a single
> shred of tangible evidence that shows beyond a doubt that species X
> gave rise to species A,B,C.
Take a ring species.
> So while you do not use the more typical evolutionist trickery of
> saying "you are too dumb to understand";
No. You may be smart enough to understand. But you are uneducated
and unaware of that.
> you do however, employ the
> usual evolutionist trickery of "if you cannot dazzle them with
> brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit" by not speaking to your
> target audience in a way they can clearly understand.
You are the target. Guess you need me to dumb down to kindergarten
level. What I want is for you to realize that you are at a
kindergarten level of understanding. Particularly about taxonomy.
> So this leaves a question. Why can't any of you plainly state THIS is
> why and THIS is how and then show your work with evidence and a
> testable model for all of us dummies to observe?
I did. I made a prediction about the nature of observable species
that would be expected if evolution were a process that actually
occurred. I contrasted that with the expectation if species were
created as an independent unit. You simply refuse to follow the
scientific method.
> Because you CAN'T. that's why. I do not need a PhD to understand that.
>
> Any person on this planet can prove to themselves that evolution takes
> place with a garden or a litter of pups. But you cannot say the same
> for divergence. Any person on this planet can prove to themselves
> gravity is real by jumping off a building. You cannot say that
> divergence can be tested.
Divergence can be tested because divergence has real testable
consequences: nested hierarchies in taxonomy and sequence information,
occasional indeterminance and intermediacy in the identification of
species (because the present is merely a still in a long-running
film), mechanisms that can change either/both genomes and phenotypes
in the time available. Those consequences exist as standards that
must be met. If it had not been the case that the observations
matched those predictions, another explanation would be needed (not
necessarily creation).
Magical supernatural creation can only be tested if you can specify
its real testable consequences that would differ from the consequence
of divergence. So far, all you have done is invoke kindergarten
taxonomy and a strawman evolution that you have to have a cat give
birth to a whale (or something radically different from a cat) in the
space of a human life for evolution to be true.
> Any person on this planet can prove to
> themselves that some forms of life can be mated and some cannot. But
> you cannot say the same for divergence. No one can observe it
> happening.
>
> Nothing of the sort called "divergence" has been observed taking place
> on this planet and it is inconsistent with what we already can observe
> happening.
Reproductive isolation has been observed. It has even been recreated
in the lab using the same mechanisms that you say cannot produce it.
That *is* divergence.
>
> My prediction is pretty plain.. eh?
But your understanding is pretty low.
Dana Tweedy
>> Your "prediction" is falsified. Speciation has been obseved.
>> "Divergence" can be observed not only in present populations, but
>> through examining the genetic record, and the fossils. You lose
>> again.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Show me what "present populations" are diverging and tell me why.
Nearly all present populations are diverging, or have the capacity to
diverge. Here are a few examples of populations on the cusp of speciation.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838767
I'm sure you will complain that they haven't turned into "something else",
but please keep reading.
>
> Please show your work.
What "work" do you want shown? If you want to see how scientists observe
speciation, I sugges the book 'The Beak of the Finch' by Johnathan Weiner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beak_of_the_Finch
> Where is your model.
My "model" is the theory of evolution. It describes what happens in
populations of imperfectly reproducing organisms over time. Very
simplistically, it works like this:
1 Populations are made up of individuals
2. Reproduction is imperfect, which means that offspring will vary from
their parents
3. Variations accrue in the population over time.
With that set of factors operating, it's inevetable that a population will
show variation. As long as there is gene flow within the population,
variations will cluster around a particular mean, determined by the
enviornment. If a population becomes isolated, by geography, or
behavior, or other factors, the isolated population will grow less like it's
parent population, as new variations crop up. Eventually, the daughter
population will be so genetically different that it will not be able to
breed with it's parent population. At that point, speciation has happened.
Continue the process over millions of years, and you will get populations
diverged to the point where the descendants of the populations will bear
much less resemblence.
If a colony of humans were to travel to some planet, and be cut off from
Earth, and assuming they don't die off, they would eventually become a new
species of human, possibly within a few hundred thousand years.
>
> And what are your
> predictions.
The prediction is that populations separated more recently will show greater
resemblance than populations that separated earlier. This prediction is
borne out by the genetic, and fossil evidence. Humans and other ape
species resemble each other much more in both anatomy and genetics than
humans and kangaroos who's ancestors separated much earlier. Likewise,
mammals and reptiles are much closer related, both genetically, and
anatomically than mammals and amphibians. Tetrapods, which include
mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, are more close to lobe finned fish
than they are to ray finned fish such as trout, or goldfish. Vertebrates,
which include ray finned fish and tetrapods are closer related than they are
to insects and other invertebrates.
>
> Please. Do not vomit something that is simply variation.
*All* evolution is variation from an ancestral population. What you don't
seem to grasp is that "divergence" is nothing more than increasing variation
in populations. You seem to be still stuck on the idea that "divergence"
should
result in something turning into a totally unrelated form. Since that's
not how evolution works, it's beating a strawman. You like to imagine
that fish are "totally different" from humans, when it's really just a
matter of variation from the vertebrate theme.
>
> I will consider a serious reply.
I like to think that all my replies are serious, even when I'm being jovial.
I suspect that you will either ignore my reply, or dismiss it or find an
excuse to refuse to consider it serioiusly.
>
> thanks.
Save your thanks, and just try to keep up.
DJT
Ron O
> is nothing ---anywhere in nature. Not one single example can be
> pointed to and said here is an example of species (X) diverging.
>
> planet diverging or that has diverged with clear indisputable
> evidence.
>
The point that you don't get is that you have absolutely nothing
equivalent to support your notions. Just put up something that you
can quantify and measure. This is happening every generation. You
can fob it off, but all you are doing is claiming that what you have
is worth less than squat.
Ron Okimoto
Fiery
Desertphile
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 9:16 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Even if this were true, why should it be a reason to think evolution is
> >> false? A neutron star 10,000 light years away from us is irrelevant to
> >> mankind's endeavors too. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
> >
> > Ah, but *two* neutron stars orbiting each other could have
> > a significant effect on us, even at 10,000 ly if we were in
> > their metaphorical crosshairs.
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gamma/milkyway2.html
> Fortunately, we aren't. So they must not exist. In fact there is no such
> thing as a gamma ray burster, anywhere. Because what purpose could they
> serve?
You would make an excellent Creationist! :-) A bit of data
suggests that gamma rays might effect tree growth rates.
Come to think of it, the universe is fucking hostile and it should
be exterminated.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
John Harshman
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:04:17 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Tim DeLaney wrote:
>>> On Dec 15, 9:16 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Even if this were true, why should it be a reason to think evolution is
>>>> false? A neutron star 10,000 light years away from us is irrelevant to
>>>> mankind's endeavors too. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
>>> Ah, but *two* neutron stars orbiting each other could have
>>> a significant effect on us, even at 10,000 ly if we were in
>>> their metaphorical crosshairs.
>>>
>>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gamma/milkyway2.html
>
>> Fortunately, we aren't. So they must not exist. In fact there is no such
>> thing as a gamma ray burster, anywhere. Because what purpose could they
>> serve?
>
> You would make an excellent Creationist! :-) A bit of data
> suggests that gamma rays might effect tree growth rates.
>
> Come to think of it, the universe is fucking hostile and it should
> be exterminated.
Sure. It's fine-tuned that way.
Dan Listermann
of divergence in science. Perhaps it was just his usual bluster.
Here is a reposting of my point that he refuses to address:
Silly, Darwin found the theory of evolution by observing divergence
happening in front of him in the Galapagos. You will babble that it did
not go "poof" in front of him, but that will be stupid and unsurprising.
I don't expect much from him at this point.
.
Ye Old One
>
>Please show your work. Where is your model. And what are your
>predictions.
>
>Please. Do not vomit something that is simply variation.
All divergence starts with variation that creates a new population.
>
>I will consider a serious reply.
There has to be a first.
>
>thanks.
>
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Kermit
wrote:
I'm afraid I can't answer that. This list is a compilation of evidence
classes that I've seen over the years here on TO. I've only listed the
ones I understand enough to explain to someone even more uneducated
than I. (I am neither geologist nor biologist). "Cyclothem" is listed
in Wiktionary, and also in Schlumberger's Oilfield Glossary. But
neither discuss the etiology.
Kermit
Christopher Denney
[snip]
>
> Show me what "present populations" are diverging and tell me why.
>
> Please show your work. Where is your model. And what are your
> predictions.
>
> Please. Do not vomit something that is simply variation.
>
> I will consider a serious reply.
>
> thanks.
You will have to first deliver an explanation of how it is that what
you call divergence differs from what you call variation.
As far as I am concerned they are the same thing.
Two different species come from a common, ancestor species; they
diverge by there being two groups with differing sets of variations
accumulating over time.
As the sets of variations in the two groups become more and more
different, the individuals in the two groups can grow to resemble each
other less and less.
There is no step in the process where an individual needs gives birth
to an offspring that is particularly different than itself, but the
individuals in the two different groups will be more an more
different.
This can be taken to any extreme, as each difference is but a small
variation.
Eric Root
> On Dec 15, 6:52�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > Without purpose why should evolution beyond the usual variations such
> > > as skin tone, beak size or, for survival of the species, even happen
> > > at all? There is no motivation toward a specific purpose to do so.
>
> planet diverging or that has diverged with clear indisputable
> evidence.
>
So what? It doesn't have to be totally indisputable, just by far the
most likely, which is what it is.
> The best you can do is make assumptions from your data. Data that is
> probably incomplete and probably inaccurate in some places.
Still, it adds up to overwhelmingly likely, while the alternatives
have almost nothing going for them.
Eric Root
Jack Frieze
A Google Scholar search yields examples of both
"cyclothem" and "cyclotheme" in the literature,
with the later more common in articles written by
native French or German speakers.
--
Jack Frieze Cold of heart, dull of wit, void of soul, short on guts
John Harshman
> On Dec 15, 11:11 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Kermit wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Cyclothems (the repetitive and cyclic depositions of marine and
>>> nonmarine strata).
>> OT, I know; but as a word man I was struck by that one, which I don't
>> think I'd met before. The derivation and meaning are obvious, of course;
>> but is there any particular reason of conventional formation that it
>> isn't "cyclothema" or even "cyclotheme"? Are there other "-them"
>> formations?
Erathem, at least. Another geology word.
> I'm afraid I can't answer that. This list is a compilation of evidence
> classes that I've seen over the years here on TO. I've only listed the
> ones I understand enough to explain to someone even more uneducated
> than I. (I am neither geologist nor biologist). "Cyclothem" is listed
> in Wiktionary, and also in Schlumberger's Oilfield Glossary. But
> neither discuss the etiology.
I think you meant "etymology". Etiology is something else.
hersheyh
wrote:
> On Dec 15, 3:45�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>
> > Show me what "present populations" are diverging and tell me why.
>
> > Please show your work. Where is your model. And what are your
> > predictions.
>
> > Please. Do not vomit something that is simply variation.
>
> > I will consider a serious reply.
>
> > thanks.
>
> You will have to first deliver an explanation of how it is that what
> you call divergence differs from what you call variation.
> As far as I am concerned they are the same thing.
I disagree. Variation is *any* phenotypic or genotypic difference in
a population. Divergence requires that the variation difference be
concentrated by locality. Of course, the definition of "variation" I
just gave does not specify any quantitative measure of difference. So
it is irrelevant whether the difference is a selectively neutral
change in a single nucleotide pair, or a mutation that radically
changes development (like neoteny in salamanders). Both represent
variation.
And divergence (local phenotypic concentration differences) does not
require reproductive isolation (species formation). Doesn't prevent
it from occurring either.
Variation can exist within a species, and all variation starts out
that way. Divergence may or may not lead to reproductive isolation of
a subpopulation with a distinctive variation difference. And, as I
keep pointing out, there are all possible degrees of divergence/
reproductive isolation that can be found in nature.
> Two different species come from a common, ancestor species; they
> diverge by there being two groups with differing sets of variations
> accumulating over time.
And, of course, that common ancestor also had a common ancestor
species. There is no "original" created form until way, way, way, way
back. We call that organisms the last common ancestor to all modern
life. It existed, probably briefly (because there would be easy ways
to improve), some 3.5 billion years ago or more.
hersheyh
As opposed to completely absent, as with creationist ideas? What the
data allow is further testable prediction. And theories are derived
not from the places where the data is most incomplete and least
accurate, but from where the data is most complete and accurate.
Unlike ID, which glories in ignorance and absent data.
>
> Still, it adds up to overwhelmingly likely, while the alternatives
> have almost nothing going for them.
Less than nothing. The *best* evidence creationists have is the
absence of evidence. Whenever they make actual testable claims about
biology and nature (typically based on some literal Biblical claim)
that can be verifired, those claims can be shown to be either myth,
blatantly false, or merely primitive understandng.
>
> Eric Root
Christopher Denney
> On Dec 16, 3:53�pm, Christopher Denney <christopher.den...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 3:45�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > Show me what "present populations" are diverging and tell me why.
>
> > > Please show your work. Where is your model. And what are your
> > > predictions.
>
> > > Please. Do not vomit something that is simply variation.
>
> > > I will consider a serious reply.
>
> > > thanks.
>
> > You will have to first deliver an explanation of how it is that what
> > you call divergence differs from what you call variation.
> > As far as I am concerned they are the same thing.
>
> I disagree. �Variation is *any* phenotypic or genotypic difference in
> a population. �Divergence requires that the variation difference be
> concentrated by locality. �Of course, the definition of "variation" I
> just gave does not specify any quantitative measure of difference. �So
> it is irrelevant whether the difference is a selectively neutral
> change in a single nucleotide pair, or a mutation that radically
> changes development (like neoteny in salamanders). �Both represent
> variation.
Agreed, my point in that was that what he calls divergence is simply
variations added together serially. (or in parallel, for that matter.)
> And divergence (local phenotypic concentration differences) does not
> require reproductive isolation (species formation). �Doesn't prevent
> it from occurring either.
Although there is a tendency toward (is re-homoginization a word? the
goog thinks not) mixing the variations back together if there is not
SOME degree of isolation between groups with different sets of
variations.
> Variation can exist within a species, and all variation starts out
> that way. �Divergence may or may not lead to reproductive isolation of
> a subpopulation with a distinctive variation difference. �And, as I
> keep pointing out, there are all possible degrees of divergence/
> reproductive isolation that can be found in nature.
Right, but you will confuse him if you give him too many things to
think about, I was going for the real basic no-frills stuff.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
There ya go. Two evolutionist cannot agree on the same evidence.
Your very own science says there has been several eons (or earth ages)
on this planet. At the end of each of these eons everything on the
planet was either completely destroyed or destroyed beyond
comprehension from it's original state of existence.
But life steaming from a Single Common Ancestor (SCA) is believed to
have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago. The theory of a common
ancestor between all organisms is one of the principles of evolution,
however that SCA would need to have evolved in a consistent concurrent
fashion to develop into what we see today.
The ToE requires the time to make the changes and for divergences to
take place. Destructive periods divided into 'eons' would destroy that
SCA and any of it's descendent's. So we would need a new SCA to rise
at the beginning of each eon. Which would no longer make it a SCA but
identical multiple common ancestors rising under different conditions
each time. What are the odds of that happening if the odds for a SCA
rising on it's own is astronomical?
Evolution from a SCA would not be possible if the earth has undergone
many periods of destruction [eons] as outlined by science and in the
ancient texts.
Therefore, all of the life that we see today had to originate from a
created kind.
These created kinds then proceeded to fill the earth with variations
after his own kind as described in books such as the bible. This
variation is what we can observe taking place, even today
hersheyh
Sorry to disappoint, but we actually agree on most of the evidence.
There was some discussion needed about the definitions of "variation"
and "divergence". Both of us agree that your use of the terms is
intolerably vague and sleezy.
> Your very own science says there has been several eons (or earth ages)
> on this planet.
Yes.
> At the end of each of these eons everything on the
> planet was either completely destroyed or destroyed beyond
> comprehension from it's original state of existence.
No.
> But life steaming from a Single Common Ancestor (SCA) is believed to
> have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.
More or less about that time. Although there may have been a lot more
horizontal information transfer among the early life forms, making the
last common ancestor probably less single than you might think.
> The theory of a common
> ancestor between all organisms is one of the principles of evolution,
No. Common ancestry is a contingent fact of nature based on the high
degree of fundamental biochemical similarity among life forms on this
planet.
> however that SCA would need to have evolved in a consistent concurrent
> fashion to develop into what we see today.
I don't know what you mean by "a consistent concurrent fashion".
> The ToE requires the time to make the changes and for divergences to
> take place.
Yes. And that certainly doesn't present any real obstacles. Again,
for organisms like humans and chimpanzees, we *know* that the current
differences in the genomes of the modern living species could arise
from a common ancestor even if the rate of change was as slow as the
slowest available mechanism *for* change (neutral drift). *Change*
that was selective in nature could arise (by mutation) and become
fixed much faster.
> Destructive periods divided into 'eons' would destroy that
> SCA and any of it's descendent's.
Life never became extinct at *any* point in the history of the earth
since the LCA existed.
> So we would need a new SCA to rise
> at the beginning of each eon.
Why? That would only be necessary if the changes killed *all* life on
the planet. Killing even 99% (and not even the Permian extinction did
that) of life on the planet would not necessitate reinventing life's
biochemistry from scratch.
> Which would no longer make it a SCA but
> identical multiple common ancestors rising under different conditions
> each time. What are the odds of that happening if the odds for a SCA
> rising on it's own is astronomical?
Do you understand that you are spouting incoherent and incompetent
bull shit?
>
> Evolution from a SCA would not be possible if the earth has undergone
> many periods of destruction [eons] as outlined by science and in the
> ancient texts.
There were no complete extinctions of life since the LCA. None. Life
has existed continuously on this planet for 3.5-3.9 billion years with
pretty much the same fundamental biochemistry we see in the core of
living organisms today.
> Therefore, all of the life that we see today had to originate from a
> created kind.
That doesn't follow. And you lack specifics. Most metazoans do not
appear until about 500 million years ago. They did not resemble
today's organism in anything much except core biochemistry.
> These created kinds then proceeded to fill the earth with variations
> after his own kind as described in books such as the bible. This
> variation is what we can observe taking place, even today
What are "kinds" (aside from bull shit kindergarten terminology)?
Give me an operational definition of "kind". Without an operational
definition, it is a meaningless term.
John Harshman
No, that isn't true. All life has never been destroyed, nor has anything
ever been destroyed beyond comprehension, whatever that means. The
closest we ever got was at the end of the Permian, right in the middle
of one of those eons, when 90% of all species of easily preserved marine
invertebrates became extinct. And there are only four eons: the Hadean,
Archaean, Proterozoic, and Phanerozoic. The Hadean was before the origin
of life, and as far as can be told neither the Archaean nor Proterozoic
ended with a mass extinction.
> But life steaming from a Single Common Ancestor (SCA) is believed to
> have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago. The theory of a common
> ancestor between all organisms is one of the principles of evolution,
> however that SCA would need to have evolved in a consistent concurrent
> fashion to develop into what we see today.
>
> The ToE requires the time to make the changes and for divergences to
> take place. Destructive periods divided into 'eons' would destroy that
> SCA and any of it's descendent's.
Only if they destroyed all life, which never happened. Not even once.
> So we would need a new SCA to rise
> at the beginning of each eon. Which would no longer make it a SCA but
> identical multiple common ancestors rising under different conditions
> each time. What are the odds of that happening if the odds for a SCA
> rising on it's own is astronomical?
Astronomical times many? But considering that all your premises are
wrong, not a big deal.
> Evolution from a SCA would not be possible if the earth has undergone
> many periods of destruction [eons] as outlined by science and in the
> ancient texts.
Science, no. Ancient texts, perhaps, but they aren't evidence.
> Therefore, all of the life that we see today had to originate from a
> created kind.
>
> These created kinds then proceeded to fill the earth with variations
> after his own kind as described in books such as the bible. This
> variation is what we can observe taking place, even today
GIGO.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Your reading ability is shockingly bad.
>
>Your very own science says there has been several eons (or earth ages)
A geologic eon is the largest division of time in geology, and is
generally considered to be around a billion years.
The current eon, the Phanerozoic, started some 542 million years ago
with the start of the Cambrian geologic period.
>on this planet. At the end of each of these eons everything on the
>planet was either completely destroyed or destroyed beyond
>comprehension from it's original state of existence.
Oh? Give details moron, or admit you got it wrong again.
>
>But life steaming from a Single Common Ancestor (SCA) is believed to
>have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago. The theory of a common
>ancestor between all organisms is one of the principles of evolution,
>however that SCA would need to have evolved in a consistent concurrent
>fashion to develop into what we see today.
While your wording is incorrect, the idea is fairly accurate. All life
today is descended from a common ancestor.
>
>The ToE requires the time to make the changes and for divergences to
>take place. Destructive periods divided into 'eons' would destroy that
>SCA and any of it's descendent's.
Wrong. Life had only just reached the hard body stage at the start of
this eon.
>So we would need a new SCA to rise
>at the beginning of each eon. Which would no longer make it a SCA but
>identical multiple common ancestors rising under different conditions
>each time. What are the odds of that happening if the odds for a SCA
>rising on it's own is astronomical?
You have, as usual, got things totally wrong.
>
>Evolution from a SCA would not be possible if the earth has undergone
>many periods of destruction [eons] as outlined by science and in the
>ancient texts.
Science outlines nothing of the sort you moron. As usual you have got
things very wrong.
>
>Therefore, all of the life that we see today had to originate from a
>created kind.
Nope.
>
>These created kinds then proceeded to fill the earth with variations
>after his own kind as described in books such as the bible. This
>variation is what we can observe taking place, even today
You are, as usual, an idiot.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
bpuharic
>
>There ya go. Two evolutionist cannot agree on the same evidence.
happens in chemistry and physics too. that's one reason evolution is a
science...ideas can be disputed, and tested.
>
>Your very own science says there has been several eons (or earth ages)
>on this planet. At the end of each of these eons everything on the
>planet was either completely destroyed or destroyed beyond
>comprehension from it's original state of existence.
?? everything? i dont THINK so...otherwise we wouldnt be here...there
is an unbroken chain of life.
>
>But life steaming from a Single Common Ancestor (SCA) is believed to
>have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago. The theory of a common
>ancestor between all organisms is one of the principles of evolution,
>however that SCA would need to have evolved in a consistent concurrent
>fashion to develop into what we see today.
what is a 'consistent concurrent pattern'? you guys have a language
all your own. no wonder you haven't made progress in 2000 years. any
time your ideas are proven wrong you just make up new words and POOF
the wrong idea is reformulated.
of course, in creationism itself there's no way to test your ideas so
you have to wait until someone taps you on the shoulder and tells you
what an idiot you are
>
>Evolution from a SCA would not be possible if the earth has undergone
>many periods of destruction [eons] as outlined by science and in the
>ancient texts.
the ancient texts aren't all that ancient. they're only a few thousand
years old. a blink of an eye in geological time
and we can TEST your ideas today by looking at contemporary primitive
cultures to see if their view of the supernatural is correct.
doesnt give you much hope, does it?
>
>Therefore, all of the life that we see today had to originate from a
>created kind.
>
>These created kinds then proceeded to fill the earth with variations
>after his own kind as described in books such as the bible. This
>variation is what we can observe taking place, even today
meaningless...and, of course, bizarre from a religion that thinks the
rosicrucians held the truth of the universe
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:cd03d99a-ff10-438e...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Totally unsubstantiated nonsense. Where do you read this stuff?
.