• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Does believing in Evolution say a lot about you

Status
Not open for further replies.
You said "if it was" and "I am thinking its not"
Clearly trying to leave yourself an out.

You didnt claim it wasnt or you were humoring me. Thinking something is not isnt the same as it being not.

I can just go on what you write. Im not a mind reader.
Plus I never said you said anything
I believe you are in damage control. Or trying to have it both ways. Not sure which

RICO,
DUH WINNING

Way to miss my point. I guess I should have used a different example, it's just I was replying to your post in which you used a third arm as an example of your own point so I thought it would be more relatable for you. Yes, I did say "if it was", thus implying that it isn't. Basic English there. I said I'm thinking it's not because I don't fucking know for sure, I haven't studied human biology extensively at all. For all I know, someone could have come back and said that actually the human body could support a third arm. But it was never my belief that it could. So I suppose I was giving myself an out, somewhat, but it doesn't matter because I was just communicating a hypothetical example of how a mutation could lead to evolution of a species given the right circumstances. My circumstance was "if it was beneficial to have a third arm", and then I stated that I do not believe it is. The specific example I used is not relevant at all, yet you have referenced it multiple times since then, believing that it somehow negates what myself and others are saying. My intention was never to try to claim that having a third arm is a beneficial mutation for a human. I figured you'd be able to understand but since not, I'll come up with another example that hopefully you won't feel the desire to misinterpret. You did not reply to my point at all, you simply picked on one thing that you misinterpreted and ignored the rest. I don't think you're really reading replies here with any amount of critical thought, because if you had, you would have understood I was just using a made-up example to illustrate my point. I can't comprehend how you could think the point I was trying to make was that humans could support a third arm if you had actually read what I wrote. Are you on a stimulant binge or something dude?

Here, I'll try again to make the exact same point. Imagine a population of light-eating cyanobacteria who get their energy from photosynthesis. These bacteria have no way to sense light so they just float around and some live, and some die because they don't happen to be where light is reaching. Now a random mutation happens where their genetic code causes them to grow a light-sensing protein on their body. These bacteria will now have a distinct advantage as they can detect whether light is getting stronger or weaker as they move, so they can move with purpose towards the light. As a result, these bacteria survive, and thus, reproduce, more often than the others. Over time their gene spreads throughout the population because they are more successful at surviving and reproducing. Over many, many generations, all of the bacteria have this protein and an evolution of the species has happened as a result of an initial random mutation.

It happens without mutation as well. Over time the teeth of a predator may change shape to more efficiently hunt and kill their prey animals, because every animal is unique and has slight differences in their features over others, which are created due to its specific DNA. If a particular subset of these animals has a specific tooth shape that maximizes their effectiveness at their hunting, they are more likely to survive and reproduce, which will create more of the animal with this tooth shape. Over time, more and more of the animals will have this altered tooth shape, and some of those animals will eventually grow an even more optimal tooth shape. Over many, many generations the entire population will end up with this more ideal tooth shape, and thus evolution has occurred. And perhaps some of them who did not develop this tooth shape as this is all going on will be outcompeted and slowly migrate to another environment where they are not in competition with their more successful fellows. Perhaps in this environment, some other characteristic would be more beneficial. Over a long time, they may slowly develop some other idealized feature separately from their former cohabitators. This will eventually lead to the species splitting off into two distinct species, provided both branches survive long enough.

Also I'll ask again as willow has done: how do you explain the great diversity of dogs as a result of the introduced selective pressure of human breeding? What is that if not evolution in action, right before our eyes? You can breed two like breeds with one another and always get the same breed out of it. This means the dogs' genome has been changed. This is the very definition of what evolution is, change in genetics over generations as a result of selective pressure.
 
ALL dogs are descended from a wolf like animal
One moma wolf , one popa wolf

We can trace this genitically.
All "dogs" express genes they inherited from first mommy and papa wolf
You can breed traits in and out but you are only isolationg/expressing traits the dogs already have access to
you may need a refresher on genetics as you seem to think a st Benard is a different species as a wolf
^^^^^^
I just called out thousand words for thinking new species has been documented
please go crack a book and come back

Hope I made simple enough for ya
 
Last edited:
I know, exactly. All dog breeds are descended from a wolf-like animal (actually, a wolf). And now there is a tremendous amount of variety in them as a result of imposed evolution through selective breeding. And in fact dogs and wolves ARE different species, look it up if you don't believe me.

No winning is going to happen in this thread, now or in the future. I'm done. I suppose you'll see that as evidence that you've shut me down, but I just can't waste any more of my time on deaf ears so I'm choosing to extricate myself from this conversation. Good day to you sir, think about getting some rest and maybe crack open a few of those books you keep referring to.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I'm out..

This guy is dense to a godly degree.

Meth.. I invite you to use this thread to show to your friends.. you know - to show them how awesome you are.

By the way.. you seem to believe evolution works as Lamarck predicted.. a giraffes neck will grow longer if it needs to.. That's wrong.. Darwin hit the nail on the head.. if a giraffe has a longer neck, it is more likely to survive. I'm sorry if your lack of intelligence stops you from understanding how this works, but it doesn't stop it working.

Buh bye!
 
Last edited:
X,
First I do read all the post.
Second,you are wanting me to "imagine" a situation In which a hypothetical bacteria species changes into another species....cause you have no actual examples of this to point to
Thirdly, my nm screename has absolutely nothing to do with meth. Or any stimulant. Nor do I do them.
Fourthly, just cause I can make things simple doesn't mean im dumb
I consistly give examples. I dont just make statements . As I just did on genetics
which u agreed with

Please keep giving me imaginary examples sprinkled with FACT
ps the winning comment was a joke with refrence to Charlie sheen, in response to a question asked
 
Says the troll.....
I wouldn't have to match "wits"( for pure lack of better word)
If you would keep it on topic and not make it about something else
I promise you that you present me with something that I cant challenge I wont. Not that
that is point
I generally find evolution to be ripe with huge holes so it becomes easy
 
you may need a refresher on genetics as you seem to think a st Benard is a different species as a wolf
^^^^^^
I just called out thousand words for thinking new species have been documented
please go crack a book and come back

Hope I made simple enough for ya

It really depends on how you define "species". A biologist would define it as two organisms who are able to produce offspring who are in turn still able to breed. By this donkey's and horse while able to produce arses, are distinct species, where as breeds of dogs are all of the same species because their half bred offspring in turn are fertile.

It comes down to generations and time. 100,000 years is a cosmic fart in historical terms so the chances of sexual species differing so much in this time is astronomically high. Extrapolate this over hundreds of millions of years and the changes are more frequent. Instead if we look at simple celled asexual organisms you see genetic variation and change much more rapidly due to the number of generations that pass even in a few decades. Ebola is one such example of a virus whose virulence has slowly increased since being "discovered". Influenza is another, where variations of the different strains have meant that we need to be constantly developing new vaccines or in the case of bacteria, antibiotics. Because they do not reproduce in a sexual manner they cannot be catagorised in the same way as sexual organisms do with regards to the definition of species. As humans we try to put labels on things to fit easy to digest boxes but I would argue that Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA or golden staph) is a different "species" to it's non-resistant cousin, even though you would place both organisms under the same family tree position. We have definitely seen the evolution of this species in the past 100 years.
 
Says the troll.....
I wouldn't have to match "wits"( for pure lack of better word)
If you would keep it on topic and not make it about something else
I promise you that you present me with something that I cant challenge I wont. Not that
that is point
I generally find evolution to be ripe with huge holes so it becomes easy

You ask for a transitional species.. I gave you one.. you ignored it.

I've given you examples of human mutations which are beneficial.. you misunderstood and responded like a fool..

You've been ignoring everything that everyone has said apart from bits you've misunderstood.. only to come back with an unintelligible response you somehow believe proves us wrong.. it doesn't.. it proves you have not even the basic understanding of evolution.

Speciation

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

I promise you that you present me with something that I cant challenge I wont. Not that
that is point

You can't and haven't challenged anything.. you're deluded if you think you have.


How was Lamarcks theory different to Darwins?

How old is the earth?
 
Last edited:
Ok, you have now gave an actual example of something we can see ( ill accept your definition of species)
But where is the new produced species?
A male mule is sterile. "natures" way of preventing catastrophic hybrids that will ruin first species. THIS example hurts evolution. A MULE has never sired an offspring
fail
And you need a male to have a new species

This is why science will not claim we have a new species.
See short and sweet
Rico, yeah im not challenging anything
im just saying godditit
funny haven't used religion once for example
guys get creative these are tired subjects
 
Last edited:
Again you've ignored information and misunderstood the point..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

http://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

Science has found new species due to speciation.

On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who’d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.

I look forward to either you ignoring the information, misunderstanding the information, or another one of your classic "Yeah! But! *Subject change*"
 
A bird singing a new song? New species?
Variance in kind new species?

When did I miss the Nobel price for proving evolution is true.
A new species would do it
 
Last edited:
Yep.. ignoring the information and misunderstanding the bit you didn't.

Read the link.

The species’ forefather was a medium ground finch, or Geospiza fortis, who flew from a neighboring island to the Grants’ island of Daphne Major, and into their nets, in 1981. He “was unusually large, especially in beak width, sang an unusual song” and had a few gene variants that could be traced to another finch species, they wrote. This exotic stranger soon found a mate, who also happened to have a few hybrid genes. The happy couple had five sons.

In the tradition of finches, for whom songs are passed from father to son and used to serenade potential mates, the sons learned their immigrant father’s tunes. But their father’s vocalizations were strange: he’d tried to mimick the natives, but accidentally introduced new notes and inflections, like a person who learns a song in a language he doesn’t understand.

These tunes set the sons apart, as did their unusual size. Though they found mates, it may only have taken a couple generations for the new lineage to ignore — or be ignored by — local finches, and breed only with each other. The Grants couldn’t tell for certain when this started, but they were certain after four generations, when a drought struck the island, killing all but a single brother and sister. They mated with each other, and their children did the same.

But I suppose you and Ken Ham are more qualified than, you know - scientists, to decide whether this is a new species or not.

For the record.. Evolution is accepted as fact by all but a small minority of delusional folk..
 
So what scientist claims this new "species"
( please give your definition )
Proves evolution
and why haven't we given him nobel prize
 
All of them.

The fuck? It doesn't matter.

You asked for an example of an observation of a new species happening due to speciation (not in those words, i doubt you understood most of them before this thread).. I gave it to you.. You now attempting to side step the information by asking irrelevant questions.

Evolution is accepted as fact by almost everyone.

If you could disprove it, you'd be up for a nobel prize..
 
So what happened to this new "species" of birds?
and what mutations where responsible for new "species"
 
They got married and had a couple of kids and bought a nice place in the country.

Still trying to side step the information..

They're alive and well.
 
Yeah that's what happened
What happened to this new species?
what are the mutations that allowed them to thrive
 
They live on one of the Galapagos Islands what do you mean what happened to them?

They're alive and well..

Still trying to side step..

A new species has been observed being produced by speciation.

There are transitional fossils.

Some mutations are beneficial to people (and every other species)

And every other question i answered.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top