Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
aagghhhh so frustrating! please dont even consider this person's post! he/shes obviously a creationist!! none of her claims are founded
nat.selection, more importantly evolution, cannot be wrong! it has shown itself to be correct over and over again!
1)the cambrian explosion as darwin saw invalidates his theory
no! READ ABOUT PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM!
2)NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with traits already present and cant deal with the generation of new species COMPLETELY WRONG! new traits arise gradually through mutations! these traits eventually are what separates species!
3)genetics cannot account for the generation of new species-ie the cambrian explosion
again, see punctuated equilibrium
dont let creationists spam these forums, dont allow ignorance to permeate!
The Bible's blind, the Torah's deaf, the Qur'an is mute
If you burned them all together you'd be close to the truth
Still they're poring over Sanskrit under Ivy League moons
While shadows lengthen in the sun...
colin leslie dean is not a creationists
he believe all view religious and scientific end in meaninglessness ie contradiction
It is claimed that Goulds intention with PE was to be compatible with NS. Goulds intentions are irrelevant. As the consequence of PE is that it invalidates NS
Now NS is invalidated by the fact of speciation as NS only deals with triats already present and cant deal with the generation of new species
A new species has completely new traits which were not in an antecedent so the antecedent species could not have passed them on
NS is all about the transmission of already acquired traits
if evolution can take place by speciation i.e. a new species has new traits that are not present in the antecedent species thus NS is invalid as it cannot account for speciation
Consider another example: “vertebrates evolved from invertebrates.” But invertebrate by definition means “not a vertebrate.” Evolve means to change, and a changed thing is not what it once was, by definition. Thus the example can be reduced to absurd and useless repetition: something evolved from what it was not. The end result of the phrase is merely an assumption, not a demonstration. Evolution in this way assumes itself, cloaked in logical fallacy.”
ptera9, do not try to reason with someone who believes reason is meaningless-nonsense. Gamila is an ID automaton.
The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification.
Thomas H. Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.
Gould's intentions may indeed be irrelevant, but PE nevertheless only deals with the rate of evolutioary change, not its mechanism(s).
Speciation has always been seen as the basic step of evolution. One can evolve new traits without genetic mutation (eg quantitative traits); nevertheless most individuals have a few mutations anyway. Let me give you an example from the 1950s (if I recall correctly). It was shown that two populations of Drosophila could be selected to have either more or less bristle hairs than the range of bristle hairs in the original population. In other words, a completelty new trait, not seen in the original population.
Again wrong, for the reasons I gave above.
You keep referring to traits.. it is genetic material that is passed on (ie genes, promoters, etc) NOT traits.
Semantics. This is equivalent to claiming that starfish must have evolved from stars since their name has "star" in it.
A new species will have only a few differences from its parent species. They may even look be difficult to tell apart. Yes, "something evolved from what it was not," but it is something very similiar to what it was. You have yet to explain what is wrong with this. I think you need to study up on basic genetics.
how can you talk about speciation when biologist dont even know what a species is
one notion of species ends in self contradiction
Many on here seem to think biologists know what species are
some argue that
species can interbreed with each other
yet this definition is shown to end in meaningless nonsense
take the Bactrian and dromardary camales
thus we have the contradiction
ie bactrian and dromadry camels are different species thus they cant bread together
they can breed which means they must be the same species
so much for your speciation which leads into meaningless nonsence as you cant tell us what a species is
when you do ie different species cant interbreed you end in contradiction
as this forum dictionary shows
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionar ... _selection
you contradict yourself
then admit that something - ie with new traits- can evolve from something it is not ie it does not have the traits
i tell you what
i will show you just what the problem is ie the belief in essences and thus a static logic
go read colin leslie deans books
DONT THINK OF SPECIES AS A NOUN BUT THINK OF IT AS A VERB
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... ssence.pdf
Essence the metaphysical ground of logic and language: a reason for the bankruptcy of logic, the stultification of reason and the
meaninglessness of all views
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/bo ... smbook.pdf
Aristotelian logic as an epistemic condition of truth, the grand narrative of western philosophy: logic-centrism, the limitations of Aristotelian logic, the end of Aristotelian logic, logic/essence and language lead to the meaningless of all views
and you will see you are looking in the wrong place
life is a process
species/essence are static concepts indicating a static world
you must move from the static to process
whitehead ie he wrote principa mathematica with russell
advocated a process theory
Species are not static enteties, as some of your quote-mining explains. Populations and species change over time. This hardly means they do not exist. The species is a static concept we use to represent a more fluid natural reality. If, however, you accept that species change over time, how can you claim evolution does not occur?
What I meant is that traits are not inherited as a unit. One does not either inherit a trait as manifested in a parent or not inherit a trait. Genes are what is inherited and it is they that dictate what traits an organism with manifest. Even without mutation, traits can be different in an offspring compared to its parents.
Let me ask you a question and see if you can answer it without a long quote mine. Is it possible for a parent with bloodtype A and a parent with bloodtype B to produce an offspring with bloodtype o without any mutation occurring in the offspring?
you can keep ignoring the fact but it want go away
ie as colin leslie dean has shown you biologist dont know what species are
or when they tell us it ends in self contradiction
but what you said was
and as was pointed out
from this site
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionar ... _selection
note it talks about heritable traits
fact is a colin leslie dean has shown
note it talks about traits
1. If you have a better definition for species please share it with us.
2. Are Tigers and Lions different? If so, how would you caetgorize them?
3. Traits are the result of gene expression. It is the genes that are inherited, not specific traits. You can quote mine all you like, it doesn't change that fact.
4. Please answer the question I asked. Can parents that exhibit the traits of blood type A and blood type B produce offspring that have the trait of blood type o? If so, then you are wrong about the inheritance of traits.
5. Please do not answer with quotes mines separated by "thus" or "hence." I will not bother to read them. Can you answer in your own words?
Gamila, I am seriously writing a theory that is presented at http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ and have already spent many hours in other forums stuck in arguments over the definition of speciation. I am now trying to finish this before I become homeless over it!
Do you have a better definition? If no, then please tell me you do not have one.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests