Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

BI-WEEKLY TOPICS: The Case for Evolution

tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:21:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This post is for the Bi-Weekly Topics, created by our president Bsh1. I (tejretics) am currently in charge of the Bi-Weekly Topics for the forums -- please submit applications to me if you are interested, via PM.

For the purposes of this post, "evolution" is defined as "changes in heritable traits of biological populations over periods of time, often resulting in the origin of new species".

BI-WEEKLY TOPICS: The Case for the Existence of Evolution

== Mechanisms of evolution ==

Evolution functions by means of two basic mechanisms. When these mechanisms combine, an organism experiences some form of evolution -- therefore, if I can show that these mechanisms occur and contribute to each other, I affirm. The mechanisms are genetic mutations and selection.

(1) Genetic mutations

A genetic mutation is an error in transcription of genetic information [3], causing a permanent change in the hereditary gene structure. When cells divide, they are supposed to be exact copies of each other, due to the presence of identical genetic information [4-5]. Essentially, cell division occurs via two processes--mitosis and meiosis. In mitosis and all other forms of vegetative propagation, the cells are identical to each other, e.g. human cell division via mitosis.

But in meiosis and sexual reproduction, the cells are not identical as genetic information is, often, transcribed incorrectly, changing the phenotype of the resulting cell. Essentially, these errors are referred to as "genetic mutations", which are critical for changing genotypes, and, by extension, phenotypes of organisms, therefore acting as mechanisms for evolution. Genetic mutations definitely occur--they are responsible for causing cancer. According to a study by John S. Bertram, "[S]ources of mutational damage . . . [are] the basic causes of cancer" [6]. Cancer is caused by abnormal cell division, a result of genetic mutations [7-8].

(2) Selection

Selection is a process where certain mutations are favored, and more populations gain these mutations during cell division. "Certain phenotypic traits or, on a genetic level, alleles of genes, segregate within a population, where individuals with adaptive advantages or traits tend to be more successful than their peers while reproducing" [9]. These favored traits develop via genetic mutations and environmental adaptation. In other words, the favored phenotype is a result of the interaction of the genotype with the environment [10].

The interaction of genotype with the environment produces both favored and unfavorable traits -- traits that are beneficial for an organism's survival and reproduction, and those that are not. By extension, some mutations are "selected against" -- taking no further part in evolutionary development -- while some mutations are favored for changes in the phenotype, and are called biased mutations [11-12].

Selection is confirmed by the following facts: (1) variation exists between organisms in morphology, physiology, and behavior, (2) different traits confer different rates of survival and evolution, and (3) these traits are heritable [13]. By definition, selection is changes in the heritable traits of organisms over populations that generates variation. Fact 1 is true by simple observation; fact 2 is also true by observation, e.g. a polar bear"s fur offers camouflage in icy regions; and fact 3 is true due to traits being passed on from parents, which is recognized as a scientific fact.

Evolution is, basically, the changes in heritable phenotypic traits caused by the interaction between the genotype and the environment over successive biological populations.

== Speciation ==

Speciation is the process of combination of evolutionary mechanisms resulting in the origin of species. What is a "species"? While there are multiple problems to develop a precise criterion for what is defined as a species, the accepted definition is "the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction." [14] The origin of species, I argue, is explained by evolutionary processes.

Certain genetic mutations, per C1, are selected for, and allow for interaction between the genotype and the environment to form separate phenotypic traits. Constant changes in phenotypic traits keep occurring by this process, since there are constant, separate genetic mutations that interact with the environment. This entails that, eventually, *multiple* traits of organisms will be selected against in favor of new traits, which would, eventually, result in the formation of new species. In other words, if microevolution is demonstrated, then speciation is undeniable simply because constant, differing microevolution results in speciation. For instance, if two species tried to interbreed, the massive differentiation in genes will likely result in miscarriages.

There are four mechanisms of speciation. In animals, the most common is allopatric speciation, which occurs in geographically isolated populations, during which selection can produce rapid changes in organisms, resulting in species formation. Allopatric speciation has been observed in Anolis lizards [15]. The second mechanism is peripatric speciation, which "occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a new environment" [1, Section 5.4]. These isolated populations are much smaller than parental populations. The third mechanism is parapatric speciation, where a small population enters a new habitat, but there is no physical separation between the two populations. Finally, in sympatric speciation, changes occur simply due to mutations and selection naturally, without changes in habitat or location.

Additionally, speciation has been observed. For instance, the evening primrose and kew primrose"s development into a species has been observed by de Vries 1905, and Digby 1912, respectively [16].

== Sources ==

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] J.F. Griffiths, et al. "Introduction to Genetic Analysis," p. 4
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[6] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.cancer.net...
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[12] http://www.sciencemag.org...
[13] http://joelvelasco.net...
[14] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[15] Jonathan B. Losos, et al. 1997. "Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards". Nature 387 (6628): 70-73.
[16] http://www.talkorigins.org...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:36:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:21:55 PM, tejretics wrote:
This post is for the Bi-Weekly Topics, created by our president Bsh1. I (tejretics) am currently in charge of the Bi-Weekly Topics for the forums -- please submit applications to me if you are interested, via PM.

For the purposes of this post, "evolution" is defined as "changes in heritable traits of biological populations over periods of time, often resulting in the origin of new species".

BI-WEEKLY TOPICS: The Case for the Existence of Evolution

== Mechanisms of evolution ==

Evolution functions by means of two basic mechanisms. When these mechanisms combine, an organism experiences some form of evolution -- therefore, if I can show that these mechanisms occur and contribute to each other, I affirm. The mechanisms are genetic mutations and selection.

(1) Genetic mutations

A genetic mutation is an error in transcription of genetic information [3], causing a permanent change in the hereditary gene structure. When cells divide, they are supposed to be exact copies of each other, due to the presence of identical genetic information [4-5]. Essentially, cell division occurs via two processes--mitosis and meiosis. In mitosis and all other forms of vegetative propagation, the cells are identical to each other, e.g. human cell division via mitosis.

But in meiosis and sexual reproduction, the cells are not identical as genetic information is, often, transcribed incorrectly, changing the phenotype of the resulting cell. Essentially, these errors are referred to as "genetic mutations", which are critical for changing genotypes, and, by extension, phenotypes of organisms, therefore acting as mechanisms for evolution. Genetic mutations definitely occur--they are responsible for causing cancer. According to a study by John S. Bertram, "[S]ources of mutational damage . . . [are] the basic causes of cancer" [6]. Cancer is caused by abnormal cell division, a result of genetic mutations [7-8].

(2) Selection

Selection is a process where certain mutations are favored, and more populations gain these mutations during cell division. "Certain phenotypic traits or, on a genetic level, alleles of genes, segregate within a population, where individuals with adaptive advantages or traits tend to be more successful than their peers while reproducing" [9]. These favored traits develop via genetic mutations and environmental adaptation. In other words, the favored phenotype is a result of the interaction of the genotype with the environment [10].

The interaction of genotype with the environment produces both favored and unfavorable traits -- traits that are beneficial for an organism's survival and reproduction, and those that are not. By extension, some mutations are "selected against" -- taking no further part in evolutionary development -- while some mutations are favored for changes in the phenotype, and are called biased mutations [11-12].

Selection is confirmed by the following facts: (1) variation exists between organisms in morphology, physiology, and behavior, (2) different traits confer different rates of survival and evolution, and (3) these traits are heritable [13]. By definition, selection is changes in the heritable traits of organisms over populations that generates variation. Fact 1 is true by simple observation; fact 2 is also true by observation, e.g. a polar bear"s fur offers camouflage in icy regions; and fact 3 is true due to traits being passed on from parents, which is recognized as a scientific fact.

Evolution is, basically, the changes in heritable phenotypic traits caused by the interaction between the genotype and the environment over successive biological populations.

== Speciation ==

Speciation is the process of combination of evolutionary mechanisms resulting in the origin of species. What is a "species"? While there are multiple problems to develop a precise criterion for what is defined as a species, the accepted definition is "the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction." [14] The origin of species, I argue, is explained by evolutionary processes.

Certain genetic mutations, per C1, are selected for, and allow for interaction between the genotype and the environment to form separate phenotypic traits. Constant changes in phenotypic traits keep occurring by this process, since there are constant, separate genetic mutations that interact with the environment. This entails that, eventually, *multiple* traits of organisms will be selected against in favor of new traits, which would, eventually, result in the formation of new species. In other words, if microevolution is demonstrated, then speciation is undeniable simply because constant, differing microevolution results in speciation. For instance, if two species tried to interbreed, the massive differentiation in genes will likely result in miscarriages.

There are four mechanisms of speciation. In animals, the most common is allopatric speciation, which occurs in geographically isolated populations, during which selection can produce rapid changes in organisms, resulting in species formation. Allopatric speciation has been observed in Anolis lizards [15]. The second mechanism is peripatric speciation, which "occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a new environment" [1, Section 5.4]. These isolated populations are much smaller than parental populations. The third mechanism is parapatric speciation, where a small population enters a new habitat, but there is no physical separation between the two populations. Finally, in sympatric speciation, changes occur simply due to mutations and selection naturally, without changes in habitat or location.

Additionally, speciation has been observed. For instance, the evening primrose and kew primrose"s development into a species has been observed by de Vries 1905, and Digby 1912, respectively [16].

== Sources ==

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] J.F. Griffiths, et al. "Introduction to Genetic Analysis," p. 4
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[6] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.cancer.net...
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[12] http://www.sciencemag.org...
[13] http://joelvelasco.net...
[14] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[15] Jonathan B. Losos, et al. 1997. "Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards". Nature 387 (6628): 70-73.
[16] http://www.talkorigins.org...

We already have enough evolution threads, why another? It's clear that those who participate have never learned anything about evolution, so their denials are irrelevant as are the threads.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:42:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:21:55 PM, tejretics wrote:
This post is for the Bi-Weekly Topics, created by our president Bsh1. I (tejretics) am currently in charge of the Bi-Weekly Topics for the forums ...

Who is the clown that pinned the "Evidence for God" thread at the top? Seriously, does that person have any clue what science is about?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 8:29:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Marvelous, now we can watch as all the scientifically illiterate creationists pollute this thread with nonsensical, irrational rhetoric.

Well done, tejretics! You really know how to fix a forum.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 9:17:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 8:29:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Marvelous, now we can watch as all the scientifically illiterate creationists pollute this thread with nonsensical, irrational rhetoric.

Well done, tejretics! You really know how to fix a forum.

Who will you argue with if not the irrational creationists? As I've seen, conversation dies when everyone agrees. Then it's no fun.
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 9:19:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 8:29:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Marvelous, now we can watch as all the scientifically illiterate creationists pollute this thread with nonsensical, irrational rhetoric.

Well done, tejretics! You really know how to fix a forum.

I will start. Evolution obviously happened, but there is obviously a design and a plan.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:57:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 9:17:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 8/21/2015 8:29:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Marvelous, now we can watch as all the scientifically illiterate creationists pollute this thread with nonsensical, irrational rhetoric.

Well done, tejretics! You really know how to fix a forum.

Who will you argue with if not the irrational creationists? As I've seen, conversation dies when everyone agrees. Then it's no fun.

There's nothing to argue, creationists are essentially blowing fart bubbles with their mouths.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 1:25:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Me when creationists try to debate evolution with me:
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 1:27:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 1:25:01 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Me when creationists try to debate evolution with me:

Are you just going to post Parks and Rec videos today?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 1:33:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 1:27:02 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:25:01 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Me when creationists try to debate evolution with me:

Are you just going to post Parks and Rec videos today?

Pretty much, lol. I'm feeling lazy.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 11:00:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 8:29:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I agree with Janesix. The purpose of DDO is debate. I want to argue with someone. This time, I picked people who disagree with evolution (not necessarily creationists -- Sooner, for instance, is an agnostic who disagrees with evolution).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 6:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 11:00:08 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/21/2015 8:29:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I agree with Janesix. The purpose of DDO is debate. I want to argue with someone. This time, I picked people who disagree with evolution (not necessarily creationists -- Sooner, for instance, is an agnostic who disagrees with evolution).

That just goes to show how little you visit this forum as there are a multitude of threads on evolution, all of them virtually identical with creationists blowing fart bubbles. In other words, none of them understand evolution at all, hence you will be accomplishing little more than arguing with a fart bubble.

And obviously, if all you're interested is to argue with fart bubbles from creationists, you have no intention of actually fixing this forum, which is nothing short of a travesty.

Why not just go back to your little clique of buddies and their mindless chatter? That, or actually do something constructive here.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 2:04:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:21:55 PM, tejretics wrote:
This post is for the Bi-Weekly Topics, created by our president Bsh1. I (tejretics) am currently in charge of the Bi-Weekly Topics for the forums -- please submit applications to me if you are interested, via PM.

For the purposes of this post, "evolution" is defined as "changes in heritable traits of biological populations over periods of time, often resulting in the origin of new species".

BI-WEEKLY TOPICS: The Case for the Existence of Evolution

== Mechanisms of evolution ==

Evolution functions by means of two basic mechanisms. When these mechanisms combine, an organism experiences some form of evolution -- therefore, if I can show that these mechanisms occur and contribute to each other, I affirm. The mechanisms are genetic mutations and selection.

(1) Genetic mutations

A genetic mutation is an error in transcription of genetic information [3], causing a permanent change in the hereditary gene structure. When cells divide, they are supposed to be exact copies of each other, due to the presence of identical genetic information [4-5]. Essentially, cell division occurs via two processes--mitosis and meiosis. In mitosis and all other forms of vegetative propagation, the cells are identical to each other, e.g. human cell division via mitosis.

But in meiosis and sexual reproduction, the cells are not identical as genetic information is, often, transcribed incorrectly, changing the phenotype of the resulting cell. Essentially, these errors are referred to as "genetic mutations", which are critical for changing genotypes, and, by extension, phenotypes of organisms, therefore acting as mechanisms for evolution. Genetic mutations definitely occur--they are responsible for causing cancer. According to a study by John S. Bertram, "[S]ources of mutational damage . . . [are] the basic causes of cancer" [6]. Cancer is caused by abnormal cell division, a result of genetic mutations [7-8].

(2) Selection

Selection is a process where certain mutations are favored, and more populations gain these mutations during cell division. "Certain phenotypic traits or, on a genetic level, alleles of genes, segregate within a population, where individuals with adaptive advantages or traits tend to be more successful than their peers while reproducing" [9]. These favored traits develop via genetic mutations and environmental adaptation. In other words, the favored phenotype is a result of the interaction of the genotype with the environment [10].

The interaction of genotype with the environment produces both favored and unfavorable traits -- traits that are beneficial for an organism's survival and reproduction, and those that are not. By extension, some mutations are "selected against" -- taking no further part in evolutionary development -- while some mutations are favored for changes in the phenotype, and are called biased mutations [11-12].

Selection is confirmed by the following facts: (1) variation exists between organisms in morphology, physiology, and behavior, (2) different traits confer different rates of survival and evolution, and (3) these traits are heritable [13]. By definition, selection is changes in the heritable traits of organisms over populations that generates variation. Fact 1 is true by simple observation; fact 2 is also true by observation, e.g. a polar bear"s fur offers camouflage in icy regions; and fact 3 is true due to traits being passed on from parents, which is recognized as a scientific fact.

Evolution is, basically, the changes in heritable phenotypic traits caused by the interaction between the genotype and the environment over successive biological populations.

== Speciation ==

Speciation is the process of combination of evolutionary mechanisms resulting in the origin of species. What is a "species"? While there are multiple problems to develop a precise criterion for what is defined as a species, the accepted definition is "the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction." [14] The origin of species, I argue, is explained by evolutionary processes.

Certain genetic mutations, per C1, are selected for, and allow for interaction between the genotype and the environment to form separate phenotypic traits. Constant changes in phenotypic traits keep occurring by this process, since there are constant, separate genetic mutations that interact with the environment. This entails that, eventually, *multiple* traits of organisms will be selected against in favor of new traits, which would, eventually, result in the formation of new species. In other words, if microevolution is demonstrated, then speciation is undeniable simply because constant, differing microevolution results in speciation. For instance, if two species tried to interbreed, the massive differentiation in genes will likely result in miscarriages.

There are four mechanisms of speciation. In animals, the most common is allopatric speciation, which occurs in geographically isolated populations, during which selection can produce rapid changes in organisms, resulting in species formation. Allopatric speciation has been observed in Anolis lizards [15]. The second mechanism is peripatric speciation, which "occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a new environment" [1, Section 5.4]. These isolated populations are much smaller than parental populations. The third mechanism is parapatric speciation, where a small population enters a new habitat, but there is no physical separation between the two populations. Finally, in sympatric speciation, changes occur simply due to mutations and selection naturally, without changes in habitat or location.

Additionally, speciation has been observed. For instance, the evening primrose and kew primrose"s development into a species has been observed by de Vries 1905, and Digby 1912, respectively [16].

== Sources ==

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] J.F. Griffiths, et al. "Introduction to Genetic Analysis," p. 4
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[6] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.cancer.net...
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[11] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[12] http://www.sciencemag.org...
[13] http://joelvelasco.net...
[14] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[15] Jonathan B. Losos, et al. 1997. "Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards". Nature 387 (6628): 70-73.
[16] http://www.talkorigins.org...

Cool stuff
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 2:45:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:21:55 PM, tejretics wrote:
This post is for the Bi-Weekly Topics, created by our president Bsh1. I (tejretics) am currently in charge of the Bi-Weekly Topics for the forums -- please submit applications to me if you are interested, via PM.

For the purposes of this post, "evolution" is defined as "changes in heritable traits of biological populations over periods of time, often resulting in the origin of new species".

BI-WEEKLY TOPICS: The Case for the Existence of Evolution

== Mechanisms of evolution ==

Evolution functions by means of two basic mechanisms. When these mechanisms combine, an organism experiences some form of evolution -- therefore, if I can show that these mechanisms occur and contribute to each other, I affirm. The mechanisms are genetic mutations and selection.

(1) Genetic mutations

A genetic mutation is an error in transcription of genetic information [3], causing a permanent change in the hereditary gene structure. When cells divide, they are supposed to be exact copies of each other, due to the presence of identical genetic information [4-5]. Essentially, cell division occurs via two processes--mitosis and meiosis. In mitosis and all other forms of vegetative propagation, the cells are identical to each other, e.g. human cell division via mitosis.

But in meiosis and sexual reproduction, the cells are not identical as genetic information is, often, transcribed incorrectly, changing the phenotype of the resulting cell. Essentially, these errors are referred to as "genetic mutations", which are critical for changing genotypes, and, by extension, phenotypes of organisms, therefore acting as mechanisms for evolution. Genetic mutations definitely occur--they are responsible for causing cancer. According to a study by John S. Bertram, "[S]ources of mutational damage . . . [are] the basic causes of cancer" [6]. Cancer is caused by abnormal cell division, a result of genetic mutations [7-8].

(2) Selection

Selection is a process where certain mutations are favored, and more populations gain these mutations during cell division. "Certain phenotypic traits or, on a genetic level, alleles of genes, segregate within a population, where individuals with adaptive advantages or traits tend to be more successful than their peers while reproducing" [9]. These favored traits develop via genetic mutations and environmental adaptation. In other words, the favored phenotype is a result of the interaction of the genotype with the environment [10].

The interaction of genotype with the environment produces both favored and unfavorable traits -- traits that are beneficial for an organism's survival and reproduction, and those that are not. By extension, some mutations are "selected against" -- taking no further part in evolutionary development -- while some mutations are favored for changes in the phenotype, and are called biased mutations [11-12].

Selection is confirmed by the following facts: (1) variation exists between organisms in morphology, physiology, and behavior, (2) different traits confer different rates of survival and evolution, and (3) these traits are heritable [13]. By definition, selection is changes in the heritable traits of organisms over populations that generates variation. Fact 1 is true by simple observation; fact 2 is also true by observation, e.g. a polar bear"s fur offers camouflage in icy regions; and fact 3 is true due to traits being passed on from parents, which is recognized as a scientific fact.

Evolution is, basically, the changes in heritable phenotypic traits caused by the interaction between the genotype and the environment over successive biological populations.

== Speciation ==

Speciation is the process of combination of evolutionary mechanisms resulting in the origin of species. What is a "species"? While there are multiple problems to develop a precise criterion for what is defined as a species, the accepted definition is "the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction." [14] The origin of species, I argue, is explained by evolutionary processes.

Certain genetic mutations, per C1, are selected for, and allow for interaction between the genotype and the environment to form separate phenotypic traits. Constant changes in phenotypic traits keep occurring by this process, since there are constant, separate genetic mutations that interact with the environment. This entails that, eventually, *multiple* traits of organisms will be selected against in favor of new traits, which would, eventually, result in the formation of new species. In other words, if microevolution is demonstrated, then speciation is undeniable simply because constant, differing microevolution results in speciation. For instance, if two species tried to interbreed, the massive differentiation in genes will likely result in miscarriages.

There are four mechanisms of speciation. In animals, the most common is allopatric speciation, which occurs in geographically isolated populations, during which selection can produce rapid changes in organisms, resulting in species formation. Allopatric speciation has been observed in Anolis lizards [15]. The second mechanism is peripatric speciation, which "occurs when small populations of organisms become isolated in a new environment" [1, Section 5.4]. These isolated populations are much smaller than parental populations. The third mechanism is parapatric speciation, where a small population enters a new habitat, but there is no physical separation between the two populations. Finally, in sympatric speciation, changes occur simply due to mutations and selection naturally, without changes in habitat or location.

Additionally, speciation has been observed. For instance, the evening primrose and kew primrose"s development into a species has been observed by de Vries 1905, and Digby 1912, respectively [16].

Bunch of crap.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 2:56:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 11:00:08 AM, tejretics wrote:

I agree with Janesix. The purpose of DDO is debate. I want to argue with someone.

At 8/23/2015 2:45:22 PM, Iredia wrote:
Bunch of crap.

There ya go, Tej. That's probably the most intelligent response you'll get from the creationists. Have fun arguing that.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 2:58:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 2:45:22 PM, Iredia wrote:

Care to explain?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 3:08:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 2:58:17 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/23/2015 2:45:22 PM, Iredia wrote:

Care to explain?

It's simple really. Random mutations can't make the new organ-systems required for evolution. Natural selection can only alter the availability of a species based on their traits and observed speciation doesn't involve the creation of new species, it's usually varieties that are best termed sub-species.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
tejretics
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 4:09:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 3:08:25 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 8/23/2015 2:58:17 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/23/2015 2:45:22 PM, Iredia wrote:

Care to explain?

It's simple really. Random mutations can't make the new organ-systems required for evolution.

Justify.

Natural selection can only alter the availability of a species based on their traits and observed speciation doesn't involve the creation of new species, it's usually varieties that are best termed sub-species.

Refute the examples in my source.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 4:22:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 11:00:08 AM, tejretics wrote:

I agree with Janesix. The purpose of DDO is debate. I want to argue with someone.

Ah, so rather than actually doing something constructive to fix the forums, you selfishly post your own thread on evolution, of which there are dozens, and pin it to top because YOU want to argue with someone.

It's little wonder this forum is a joke as are those who are allegedly in control.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2015 6:32:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 3:08:25 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 8/23/2015 2:58:17 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/23/2015 2:45:22 PM, Iredia wrote:

Care to explain?

It's simple really. Random mutations can't make the new organ-systems required for evolution. Natural selection can only alter the availability of a species based on their traits and observed speciation doesn't involve the creation of new species, it's usually varieties that are best termed sub-species.

Species is a taxonomic division that seperates one collection of creatures from another by either the existance of a reproductive barrier between them or by differences in diagnostic traits in scenarios where isolation can not be determined.

Using diagnostic traits alone is useful when comparing disparate species; or species with obvious taxonomic differences; such as between a human and chimpanzee; however with such a breadth of extant life and evident extinct life, an objectively significant delineation between organisms is neither distinctly evident or nor possible to draw without including isolation: the only genetically significant difference between a species and the closest species. For example, while we can point to hair, size, shape and intelligence as a delineation between us and chimps, Homo Heidlebergensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Habilis, Austrolapthicius africanus and Austrolapithicus Afaraneis, there is no clearly evident or distinct line to be drawn between them that clearly separates the two.

Indeed, given these lineages, any of the intermediate forms given the arbirary criteria often argued here would be considered the same "species" as the one before. Indeed, if you took the 7 species together (including humans), and asked ten creationists, 5 will say the first four are 100% chimp, and 5 will say the last 4 are 100% human. Kinda funny that even creationists can't agree on whether the ape in the middle is a deformed human or deformed chimp....

Common ancestry requires the addition of new traits into a collection of organisms, and the isolation into two groups of an initially homologous group; this is modification and branching. Both have been demonstrated, and in the case of species demonstrated a number of times.

To claim that speciation does not produce species is at odds with any scientific or objective definition of what a species actually is, and ignores the fact that there is no clearly objective and demonstrably evident break between most species when considering all the taxonomic and genetic evidence for the reasons stated.

To this end, please describe in clear terms what it is you claim a species is in terms of objectively verifiable diagnostic features, and justify why these features are indicitive of an objective deliniation between organisms. Also explain how someone can use these features to objectively determine whether two individual organisms are the same species or different in all cases.

If you cannot provide such a description, justification, and explanation; then it is clear that you cannot actually say what a species is; and so telling me that speciation does not lead to new species is basically saying that "I don't know what a species is, but I know you haven't created a new one".
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 12:09:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 4:22:42 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/22/2015 11:00:08 AM, tejretics wrote:

I agree with Janesix. The purpose of DDO is debate. I want to argue with someone.

Ah, so rather than actually doing something constructive to fix the forums, you selfishly post your own thread on evolution, of which there are dozens, and pin it to top because YOU want to argue with someone.

It's little wonder this forum is a joke as are those who are allegedly in control. :

So since science has been taken over by Sci-Fientist created fairytales, atheist and other God-haters should Moderate the forum, right? Well let's pray that doesn't happen soon (as it has one Christian Forum after another).

I say Amen to that brothers and sisters!? Let's enjoy a moment of real science before it is all eaten up by the 'nothing' and those things that come from the nothing!.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 1:01:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 2:21:55 PM, tejretics wrote:
For the purposes of this post, "evolution" is defined as "changes in heritable traits of biological populations over periods of time, often resulting in the origin of new species".

BI-WEEKLY TOPICS: The Case for the Existence of Evolution

== Mechanisms of evolution ==

Evolution functions by means of two basic mechanisms. When these mechanisms combine, an organism experiences some form of evolution -- therefore, if I can show that these mechanisms occur and contribute to each other, I affirm. The mechanisms are genetic mutations and selection.

Yes, and after 70 years of intentional genetic mutation of humans (started with the Jews during WWII) and other 'rats', radiation, even when used as therapy did not result in any beneficial mutations, they all die a horrible painful death. Receiving genetic data from previous parents is intelligent design. The purposeless, aimless horrid mutation destroys the design.

(1) Genetic mutations

A genetic mutation is an error in transcription of genetic information , causing a permanent change in the hereditary gene structure. :

It's not an error, it is designed that way so things wouldn't be the same-o, same-o. Each snowflake, each leaf on a tree, .. everything is different so no one could honestly say that Gods creation is boring.

When cells divide, they are supposed to be exact copies of each other, due to the presence of identical genetic information. Essentially, cell division occurs via two processes--mitosis and meiosis. In mitosis and all other forms of vegetative propagation, the cells are identical to each other, e.g. human cell division via mitosis.

But in meiosis and sexual reproduction, the cells are not identical as genetic information is, often, transcribed incorrectly, changing the phenotype of the resulting cell. Essentially, these errors are referred to as "genetic mutations", which are critical for changing genotypes, and, by extension, phenotypes of organisms, therefore acting as mechanisms for evolution. :

Putting a perfectly cut piece of polished steel under a huge press to contort it into an item is not mutation, it was intentionally designed that way, to do just what the designer intended. But rust is mutation. So just because cars are made of steel and eventually rust, doesn't mean rust evolves the car, just as cancer doesn't mutate different species or different people. Mutation like rust and cancer is a destroyer.

Genetic mutations definitely occur--they are responsible for causing cancer. According to a study by John S. Bertram, "[S]ources of mutational damage . . . [are] the basic causes of cancer". Cancer is caused by abnormal cell division, a result of genetic mutations.

Yes, cancer mutates, but cancer did not evolve man to this stage. So PLEASEEE Evolutionists, stop with lying to people that they have cancer just so you could inject them with radiation and other mutating poisons, .. or blowing up Power plants like in Chernobyl, .. or spraying our air and poisoning our water to hope to see some beneficial mutations to get at least a sign that your evolution religion may be true (besides creating lies upon lies) .. please? The concept that man evolved is a lie straight from Satan himself that any un-indoctrinated child would have seen under normal created conditions.
Oh, and no amount of gay procreation will mutate a child from a mans anus, so stop with this gay-agenda too, it is truly sickening.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2015 1:30:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Take a close look at this (and tens of thousands of religious indoctrinating videos like it),

https://www.youtube.com...

can this madness be called science? Going like madmen from preconceived ideas that man evolved from apes, and arranging bones of deformed dried animals and humans till they get some remotely close-enough picture to match their stories?

My God, why? So they could tell God: "See God, we have robbed our children of their psyche and now they believe they are animals. They go to Lady Gaga concerts praising Lucifer, not you God, .,. you hear!"

The 'Case for any religious study' should be done in the religious section, not in science.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
glory_lyfe
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 1:20:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/24/2015 1:01:02 AM, Evidence wrote
Yes, and after 70 years of intentional genetic mutation of humans (started with the Jews during WWII) and other 'rats', radiation, even when used as therapy did not result in any beneficial mutations, they all die a horrible painful death. Receiving genetic data from previous parents is intelligent design. The purposeless, aimless horrid mutation destroys the design.

It's not an error, it is designed that way so things wouldn't be the same-o, same-o. Each snowflake, each leaf on a tree, .. everything is different so no one could honestly say that Gods creation is boring.

Putting a perfectly cut piece of polished steel under a huge press to contort it into an item is not mutation, it was intentionally designed that way, to do just what the designer intended. But rust is mutation. So just because cars are made of steel and eventually rust, doesn't mean rust evolves the car, just as cancer doesn't mutate different species or different people. Mutation like rust and cancer is a destroyer.

Yes, cancer mutates, but cancer did not evolve man to this stage. So PLEASEEE Evolutionists, stop with lying to people that they have cancer just so you could inject them with radiation and other mutating poisons, .. or blowing up Power plants like in Chernobyl, .. or spraying our air and poisoning our water to hope to see some beneficial mutations to get at least a sign that your evolution religion may be true (besides creating lies upon lies) .. please? The concept that man evolved is a lie straight from Satan himself that any un-indoctrinated child would have seen under normal created conditions.
Oh, and no amount of gay procreation will mutate a child from a mans anus, so stop with this gay-agenda too, it is truly sickening.:

You claim to be a christian, And yet your closing arguments is incredibly homophobic. I am not a christian but your religion preaches love for all. You go around preaching the word of god and then defy it without a second thought. Not even to people who actually have said anything about it, you just chuck your beliefs at us and don't care why.

Not only this but you named yourself evidence but you provide none! You say "we" blow up power plants in chernobyl. Who is "we"? Chernobyl is in Russia, it is the only nuclear reactor to have blown up as you say. Not only this but the Russians were incredibly under prepared. They used low grade uranium. They had an insufficient safety plan. Three mile island was an overload, it was well prepared and no lives were lost. Fukashima caused very little damage and no lost lives. The city in both cases were prepared for a nuclear overload, and everyone was safe. Do you really believe that radiation mutates organisms into grotesque creatures? It mutates single cells and they have the sole effect of causing cancer.
You say "we" spray chemicals into the air and the land but we aren't CEO's of companies that do that, we are as related to that as you are. Using your same logic i could say you crashed a plane into the twin towers. That is a terrible thing to say and completely untrue and definitely unfair. But it has the same rationale as your argument. You say evolutionists performed the holocaust as an experiment... I have so little to say to this. This is ridiculous. I hate to make this gruesome argument but if you remove every thing from the gene pool that you disagree with it will be gone! There is no evolution just artificial selection. The same thing that causes your dog(if you have one) to exist. It was artificially bred in under than 100 years to breed. Nobody can claim this is false, an example of a successful and harmless experiment on evolution, one whose implications become apparent afterward.
I also want to point out that you start by saying that mutations are not an error and that they create individualization in creatures. Then you compare it to a rusting car. There is no difference between those two types of mutation. So why do you treat them differently.
You have enemies? Good that means you have stood up for something in your life.
-Winston Churchill
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 4:33:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 1:20:45 AM, glory_lyfe wrote:
At 8/24/2015 1:01:02 AM, Evidence wrote

Oh, and no amount of gay procreation will mutate a child from a mans anus, so stop with this gay-agenda too, it is truly sickening.:

You claim to be a christian, And yet your closing arguments is incredibly homophobic. :
Hello glory lyfe, a pleasure to meet you here.
First, where did you see me claim to be a Christian? Now if someone should call me Christ-like (like gay people who I have known and talked to throughout my life. They all said they understood where I stand, and why, and remained to have high respect for me) that's different. I am a Disciple of Christ, .. you know, the one most gay people hate and mock, like in the Gay Victory Parades all over the world I have been seeing lately.
Second, I NEVER ever hated or feared homosexuals, I approach them (no fear), tell them about Christ's love for them (woman caught in adultery John 8:1-11), and pray for them. But yes, I do fear sin, especially sexual sins, cause I am weak in those areas just as most men are.

Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals - that is, lesbians and gay men - sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Homophobia is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life. Organized hate groups have viciously attacked homosexuals and have used especially violent language in attempting to persecute and intimidate them.

If I have shown any of the above traits, please point it out to me, the last thing I want is to be known as a hypocrite.

I am not a christian but your religion preaches love for all. You go around preaching the word of god and then defy it without a second thought. :

Like I said, if I do that, by all means please point it out to me, just as I point out the evil in what men do. Otherwise we'll have chaos where women will put on satanic horns, talk trash about Jesus Christ, drink their own urine, wear dresses made out of animal meat, take baths in blood and brag about it, drink blood and lure our children to their music concerts and teach them to worship Lucifer. You wouldn't want it to get that far would you?
.. oops, too late, right?

Not even to people who actually have said anything about it, you just chuck your beliefs at us and don't care why.

What's my belief? That I have this phobia of evil and wicked deeds? Yes, I still have nightmares of the evil I have experienced from those who should have loved and protected me the most. And yes, they called themselves Christian. So when I see peoples evil deeds, I point to it, and bring it out into the light, so people, especially the innocent wouldn't suffer. That's part of my beliefs, and I know why, because I care!

Not only this but you named yourself evidence but you provide none! You say "we" blow up power plants in chernobyl. Who is "we"? :
We? Oh, you mean 'Evolutionists'.

Chernobyl is in Russia, it is the only nuclear reactor to have blown up as you say. :
It's in Ukraine, and yes, it's the 'only' reactor that they blew up, and the media provided years of brainwashing the world, especially us here in the US with garbage as you hint here next - lol

Not only this but the Russians were incredibly under prepared. They used low grade uranium. They had an insufficient safety plan. :

Oh please, no excuses! Just look at 9-11 in the greatest, most technologically advanced, most militarized, with the most cameras everywhere country in the World, and (claimed) a few Muslims were able to shut down this Great Babylon USA and bring it to it's knees for months with what? A few plastic knives.

Three mile island was an overload, it was well prepared and no lives were lost. Fukashima caused very little damage and no lost lives. The city in both cases were prepared for a nuclear overload, and everyone was safe. :
What? Who are you, an agent of Evilution? People are dying all over the world because of the radiation leaks. As the Ocean currents transport the poisons it is killing everything from crabs to whales, .. to millions of fish in its wake. It will be doing that for another hundred or more years. Why do you think 'they' (Evolutionists) built all those nuclear Power Plants so near up-wind from the big cities? So when the "Time Is Right" they can crack those babies open and poison humanity to fulfill Agenda 21, and create a post Apocalyptic Earth void of any biological life. I mean it has been depicted in movies since movies came out.

Do you really believe that radiation mutates organisms into grotesque creatures? It mutates single cells and they have the sole effect of causing cancer. :

Evolution by mutation, so they do it to hopefully have at least one mutation that could survive to prove God doesn't exist. here-

http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com...

You say "we" spray chemicals into the air and the land but we aren't CEO's of companies that do that, we are as related to that as you are. :

Once someone believes in the Evolution story, they become cult members themselves. Logic, reasoning, or any rationale is lost, please see this video as proof:
http://havacuppahemlock1.blogspot.com...

Using your same logic i could say you crashed a plane into the twin towers. That is a terrible thing to say and completely untrue and definitely unfair. :

Yes it would be, since there were no planes involved. The buildings were nuked (as if you didn't know) You think this godforsaken government would name the Twin-Tower place in New York 'Ground Zero' if it wasn't nuked?

But it has the same rationale as your argument. You say evolutionists performed the holocaust as an experiment... I have so little to say to this. This is ridiculous. I hate to make this gruesome argument but if you remove every thing from the gene pool that you disagree with it will be gone! There is no evolution just artificial selection. The same thing that causes your dog(if you have one) to exist. It was artificially bred in under than 100 years to breed. Nobody can claim this is false, an example of a successful and harmless experiment on evolution, one whose implications become apparent afterward. :

Please, regarding your Evolution religion, I'm not your ordinary brainwashed Christian who worship Deities in the supernatural realm, I worship God our Creator. Also I did not say Evolutionists performed the holocaust, evolution was the justification for the torture and experimentation on humans. The rest of the Jews were robbed, worked to death and the rest sacrificed to Lucifer, that's why they named it the "Holocaust", .. meaning 'sacrifice'.
Lucifer has now demanded even a bigger sacrifice for giving the world and it's riches to the "Evolutionists" (something Christ Himself rejected from him) and the 'gift' to Lucifer has been packaged in a present called "Agenda 21", and is about to be delivered to him, .. in souls/lives.

I also want to point out that you start by saying that mutations are not an error and that they create individualization in creatures. Then you compare it to a rusting car. There is no difference between those two types of mutation. So why do you treat them differently. :

I pointed out the idiocy of 'beneficial mutation' in the Evolution Religion. Normally I wouldn't attack a religion, but when they make scientific claims, I point it out. Religion and science don't mix, and when religion takes over science, well we seen to what extent of torture and death it leads to, and continues to do so.
Thank you, and God bless.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 12:25:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 4:09:52 PM, tejretics wrote:

Justify.


Think about it. Random mutations are specifically accidental mutations that occur without respect to an organisms survival. Such mutations, as a matter of principle cannot build organ-systems which are specific to an organism's survival, goal-oriented since they achieve a certain end and irreducibly complex in that they require a specific number of parts to work.


Refute the examples in my source.

I'll go for one. The primrose example in 16. the example as described in talkorigins is highly bogus. In one case, variant of a primrose with more chromosomes was found and named as a 'new species' and in another two primrose species were crossed to make a sterile hybrid. The latter case is akin to calling mules (which are hybrids of horses and donkeys) an example of speciation. Neither does it make sense to make a variant of a primrose with more chromosome a new species any more than humans would do for people with Down's syndrome. More importantly there's no evidence of evolution by random mutation. Finally, the new species involved are primroses.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 12:42:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/23/2015 6:32:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Species is a taxonomic division that seperates one collection of creatures from another by either the existance of a reproductive barrier between them or by differences in diagnostic traits in scenarios where isolation can not be determined.

True. But is an established fact that organisms tagged as different species can reproduce eg whales and dolphins. And that certain species with no reproductive barrier can have subspecies that have a barrier eg in fruit flies.


Using diagnostic traits alone is useful when comparing disparate species; or species with obvious taxonomic differences; such as between a human and chimpanzee; however with such a breadth of extant life and evident extinct life, an objectively significant delineation between organisms is neither distinctly evident or nor possible to draw without including isolation: the only genetically significant difference between a species and the closest species. For example, while we can point to hair, size, shape and intelligence as a delineation between us and chimps, Homo Heidlebergensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Habilis, Austrolapthicius africanus and Austrolapithicus Afaraneis, there is no clearly evident or distinct line to be drawn between them that clearly separates the two.

Indeed, given these lineages, any of the intermediate forms given the arbirary criteria often argued here would be considered the same "species" as the one before. Indeed, if you took the 7 species together (including humans), and asked ten creationists, 5 will say the first four are 100% chimp, and 5 will say the last 4 are 100% human. Kinda funny that even creationists can't agree on whether the ape in the middle is a deformed human or deformed chimp....

Okay.



Common ancestry requires the addition of new traits into a collection of organisms, and the isolation into two groups of an initially homologous group; this is modification and branching. Both have been demonstrated, and in the case of species demonstrated a number of times.

To claim that speciation does not produce species is at odds with any scientific or objective definition of what a species actually is, and ignores the fact that there is no clearly objective and demonstrably evident break between most species when considering all the taxonomic and genetic evidence for the reasons stated.

As I noted earlier sub-species which the same with their parent species save for one or two striking differences best explains such speciation examples.


To this end, please describe in clear terms what it is you claim a species is in terms of objectively verifiable diagnostic features, and justify why these features are indicitive of an objective deliniation between organisms. Also explain how someone can use these features to objectively determine whether two individual organisms are the same species or different in all cases.

There's no one-size-fits-all definition of species. You should know this> Still, as I know it, most biologists use the definition you gave which involves reproductive barriers.

If you cannot provide such a description, justification, and explanation; then it is clear that you cannot actually say what a species is; and so telling me that speciation does not lead to new species is basically saying that "I don't know what a species is, but I know you haven't created a new one".

Dealt with . See above.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2015 10:42:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/7/2015 12:42:57 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 8/23/2015 6:32:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:

Species is a taxonomic division that seperates one collection of creatures from another by either the existance of a reproductive barrier between them or by differences in diagnostic traits in scenarios where isolation can not be determined.

True. But is an established fact that organisms tagged as different species can reproduce eg whales and dolphins. And that certain species with no reproductive barrier can have subspecies that have a barrier eg in fruit flies.


Using diagnostic traits alone is useful when comparing disparate species; or species with obvious taxonomic differences; such as between a human and chimpanzee; however with such a breadth of extant life and evident extinct life, an objectively significant delineation between organisms is neither distinctly evident or nor possible to draw without including isolation: the only genetically significant difference between a species and the closest species. For example, while we can point to hair, size, shape and intelligence as a delineation between us and chimps, Homo Heidlebergensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Habilis, Austrolapthicius africanus and Austrolapithicus Afaraneis, there is no clearly evident or distinct line to be drawn between them that clearly separates the two.

Indeed, given these lineages, any of the intermediate forms given the arbirary criteria often argued here would be considered the same "species" as the one before. Indeed, if you took the 7 species together (including humans), and asked ten creationists, 5 will say the first four are 100% chimp, and 5 will say the last 4 are 100% human. Kinda funny that even creationists can't agree on whether the ape in the middle is a deformed human or deformed chimp....

Okay.



Common ancestry requires the addition of new traits into a collection of organisms, and the isolation into two groups of an initially homologous group; this is modification and branching. Both have been demonstrated, and in the case of species demonstrated a number of times.

To claim that speciation does not produce species is at odds with any scientific or objective definition of what a species actually is, and ignores the fact that there is no clearly objective and demonstrably evident break between most species when considering all the taxonomic and genetic evidence for the reasons stated.

As I noted earlier sub-species which the same with their parent species save for one or two striking differences best explains such speciation examples.


To this end, please describe in clear terms what it is you claim a species is in terms of objectively verifiable diagnostic features, and justify why these features are indicitive of an objective deliniation between organisms. Also explain how someone can use these features to objectively determine whether two individual organisms are the same species or different in all cases.

There's no one-size-fits-all definition of species. You should know this> Still, as I know it, most biologists use the definition you gave which involves reproductive barriers.

If you cannot provide such a description, justification, and explanation; then it is clear that you cannot actually say what a species is; and so telling me that speciation does not lead to new species is basically saying that "I don't know what a species is, but I know you haven't created a new one".

Dealt with . See above.

My point in the previous post was pretty simple.

You claimed that speciation that we see does not involve the creation of new species.

I am explaining that the speciation that we see is the only possible distinction or delineation it is possible to draw between species, so the ONLY point in which it is possible to confirm that new species are created.

Given this, I asked you what a species actually is; because if you cannot define what a species is, then you cannot possibly claim whether new ones have or have not been created.

You have not done this, instead you have used special pleading to imply that the speciation we see is something different from other types of reproductive isolation whilst giving no support for it. The genetic evidence is on my side, as the reproductive genes responsible show many of the simple mechanisms in the isolation of species that is pretty common among them all.

Indeed, that reproductive isolation we see creates new species that can then continually diverge in their own ways, as I explained, is a key prediction of evolution and explains how the nested hierarchy appears how it does.

As it is a key prediction of Evolution, it cannot simply be wished away by speculative, undemonstrable handwaving as you do here.

Indeed, while you claim you have "dealt with it", you haven't in the slightest given these facts.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 12:55:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 8:29:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Marvelous, now we can watch as all the scientifically illiterate creationists pollute this thread with nonsensical, irrational rhetoric.

Well done, tejretics! You really know how to fix a forum.

And the first responses, three in a row, are from a guy complaining that the thread exists.

Yeah, I think there's some kind of metaphor there for the repressed doubt that many evolutionist harbor.
This space for rent.