Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I can reck your precious evolution.

TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 9:55:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

Because you won't stop touching yourself. Cut it out!
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 9:58:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 9:55:35 PM, TBR wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

Because you won't stop touching yourself. Cut it out!

That argument has some logical flaws.

It is irrelevent although i am touching myself.

In another tab is a picture of your mom.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:12:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

Another creationist that doesn't understand what evolution is xD
Meh!
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:16:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:12:05 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

Another creationist that doesn't understand what evolution is xD

"JUST to get the ball rolling."

Answer, i rebuttal.

This question is one that needs to be
answered because it is an unexplained point.

It has been answered but i need to get an argument started.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:33:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.

Sorry, i meant living.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:35:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

I can do better than that. why aren't there:

half ape, half humans, with crab shell heads and slug like feet that ooze slime?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:40:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
It's not anyone's precious evolution, Tollio. It's everyone's. Because that's what it means when you apply best-practice observational methods to the evidence, and make accurate, falsifiable predictions.

At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:
Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'half'. Genetically and physically, humans share a lot in common with chimps and bonobos -- more than they do with pigs or fish, say, and in some respects, humans have more in common with chimps, than chimps have with bonobos, and vice-versa.

So are you saying there ought to be fewer differences? If so, why? The differences are themselves part of the mechanism for speciation. If the differences weren't sufficiently distinct to change species habitat, behaviour and viability, apes and humans would remain variations of one species, rather than two species that can no longer interbreed.
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:50:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:40:40 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
It's not anyone's precious evolution, Tollio. It's everyone's. Because that's what it means when you apply best-practice observational methods to the evidence, and make accurate, falsifiable predictions.

At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:
Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'half'. Genetically and physically, humans share a lot in common with chimps and bonobos -- more than they do with pigs or fish, say, and in some respects, humans have more in common with chimps, than chimps have with bonobos, and vice-versa.

So are you saying there ought to be fewer differences? If so, why? The differences are themselves part of the mechanism for speciation. If the differences weren't sufficiently distinct to change species habitat, behaviour and viability, apes and humans would remain variations of one species, rather than two species that can no longer interbreed.

No exactly.

I am saying there should be some interspecies still living.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 1:04:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:33:19 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.

Sorry, i meant living.

There used to be but they got wiped out when humans spread from Africa. They just couldn't compete with humans in battle or for food.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 1:11:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

A few options
1. Maybe there are. Maybe a chimpanzee is somewhere between human and an older primate species
2. Modern humans killed of "half-ape humans." Neanderthals as an example
3. Republicans might be only half human
4. A guy at work is so harry I'm think it might be fur

My money is one "2," although I'm fond of "3" as well
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 1:22:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:50:10 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:40:40 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
It's not anyone's precious evolution, Tollio. It's everyone's. Because that's what it means when you apply best-practice observational methods to the evidence, and make accurate, falsifiable predictions.

At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:
Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'half'. Genetically and physically, humans share a lot in common with chimps and bonobos -- more than they do with pigs or fish, say, and in some respects, humans have more in common with chimps, than chimps have with bonobos, and vice-versa.

So are you saying there ought to be fewer differences? If so, why? The differences are themselves part of the mechanism for speciation. If the differences weren't sufficiently distinct to change species habitat, behaviour and viability, apes and humans would remain variations of one species, rather than two species that can no longer interbreed.

No exactly.

I am saying there should be some interspecies still living.

Why should different extant species show intermediates in general, and how does that demand not result in infinite regress?

Regardless, human genetic history shows evidence of a single bottleneck, followed by a global expansion. Meanwhile, chimp genes show a history of at least two to three bottlenecks and expansions -- so chimp genetic history is in some sense more complex than human genetic history [http://www.livescience.com...]. But in any case, human and chimp species histories have been divergent for about 5 million years, and have undergone several distinct epochs (bottlenecks and expansions) known to accelerate divergence.

What should that produce, other than 5 million years worth of noticeable and significant differences?
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:07:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 1:11:35 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

A few options
1. Maybe there are. Maybe a chimpanzee is somewhere between human and an older primate species
2. Modern humans killed of "half-ape humans." Neanderthals as an example
3. Republicans might be only half human
4. A guy at work is so harry I'm think it might be fur

My money is one "2," although I'm fond of "3" as well

#3 lol

Why would they just die off?

They were adapted for a while.
distraff
Posts: 1,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:58:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:07:50 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:11:35 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

A few options
1. Maybe there are. Maybe a chimpanzee is somewhere between human and an older primate species
2. Modern humans killed of "half-ape humans." Neanderthals as an example
3. Republicans might be only half human
4. A guy at work is so harry I'm think it might be fur

My money is one "2," although I'm fond of "3" as well

#3 lol

Why would they just die off?

They were adapted for a while.

For the same reason the Dodo and many other species died off. Because of us. Humans are responsible for the extinction of many many species. And unfortunately these hominids lived in the same area as humans competing for the same resources. We see the first humans in the fossil record 200,000 years ago. The last Homo Erectus fossils disappear from the fossil record 35,000-70,000 years ago.

Apes lived in the trees instead of on the ground so they survived since they were not directly in our way. But now many of these ape species are becoming endangered too and will be wiped out in a matter of decades if the status quo remains. There are only about 200,000 of them left and falling. Gorillas are also endangered and there are only about 100,000 left. Humans are very good at wiping out other animals including our closest relatives.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 1:19:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:33:19 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.

Sorry, i meant living.

Because they died.

~mic drop~
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:24:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:13:00 PM, keithprosser wrote:
If you reach a fork in the road why isn't there a road in between?

I don't know, does it even have to split?
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:24:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 1:19:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:33:19 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.

Sorry, i meant living.

Because they died.

~mic drop~

Fine.

How did cells begin to specialize from the same DNA strand?
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:27:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 12:58:48 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:07:50 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:11:35 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

A few options
1. Maybe there are. Maybe a chimpanzee is somewhere between human and an older primate species
2. Modern humans killed of "half-ape humans." Neanderthals as an example
3. Republicans might be only half human
4. A guy at work is so harry I'm think it might be fur

My money is one "2," although I'm fond of "3" as well

#3 lol

Why would they just die off?

They were adapted for a while.

For the same reason the Dodo and many other species died off. Because of us. Humans are responsible for the extinction of many many species. And unfortunately these hominids lived in the same area as humans competing for the same resources. We see the first humans in the fossil record 200,000 years ago. The last Homo Erectus fossils disappear from the fossil record 35,000-70,000 years ago.

Apes lived in the trees instead of on the ground so they survived since they were not directly in our way. But now many of these ape species are becoming endangered too and will be wiped out in a matter of decades if the status quo remains. There are only about 200,000 of them left and falling. Gorillas are also endangered and there are only about 100,000 left. Humans are very good at wiping out other animals including our closest relatives.

What about before humans?

Why are there no fish-land transition animals?

Don't say newt.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:31:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:24:47 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:19:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:33:19 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.

Sorry, i meant living.

Because they died.

~mic drop~

Fine.

How did cells begin to specialize from the same DNA strand?

Through mutation (i.e. imperfect replication) and natural selection.
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:33:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:31:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:24:47 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:19:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:33:19 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.

Sorry, i meant living.

Because they died.

~mic drop~

Fine.

How did cells begin to specialize from the same DNA strand?

Through mutation (i.e. imperfect replication) and natural selection.

But that would just make a bunch of a different cell type.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:33:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:27:40 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:58:48 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:07:50 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:11:35 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

A few options
1. Maybe there are. Maybe a chimpanzee is somewhere between human and an older primate species
2. Modern humans killed of "half-ape humans." Neanderthals as an example
3. Republicans might be only half human
4. A guy at work is so harry I'm think it might be fur

My money is one "2," although I'm fond of "3" as well

#3 lol

Why would they just die off?

They were adapted for a while.

For the same reason the Dodo and many other species died off. Because of us. Humans are responsible for the extinction of many many species. And unfortunately these hominids lived in the same area as humans competing for the same resources. We see the first humans in the fossil record 200,000 years ago. The last Homo Erectus fossils disappear from the fossil record 35,000-70,000 years ago.

Apes lived in the trees instead of on the ground so they survived since they were not directly in our way. But now many of these ape species are becoming endangered too and will be wiped out in a matter of decades if the status quo remains. There are only about 200,000 of them left and falling. Gorillas are also endangered and there are only about 100,000 left. Humans are very good at wiping out other animals including our closest relatives.

What about before humans?

Why are there no fish-land transition animals?

Don't say newt.

Mudskipper?
Frogs?
Crabs?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:36:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:33:14 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:27:40 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:58:48 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:07:50 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:11:35 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

A few options
1. Maybe there are. Maybe a chimpanzee is somewhere between human and an older primate species
2. Modern humans killed of "half-ape humans." Neanderthals as an example
3. Republicans might be only half human
4. A guy at work is so harry I'm think it might be fur

My money is one "2," although I'm fond of "3" as well

#3 lol

Why would they just die off?

They were adapted for a while.

For the same reason the Dodo and many other species died off. Because of us. Humans are responsible for the extinction of many many species. And unfortunately these hominids lived in the same area as humans competing for the same resources. We see the first humans in the fossil record 200,000 years ago. The last Homo Erectus fossils disappear from the fossil record 35,000-70,000 years ago.

Apes lived in the trees instead of on the ground so they survived since they were not directly in our way. But now many of these ape species are becoming endangered too and will be wiped out in a matter of decades if the status quo remains. There are only about 200,000 of them left and falling. Gorillas are also endangered and there are only about 100,000 left. Humans are very good at wiping out other animals including our closest relatives.

What about before humans?

Why are there no fish-land transition animals?

Don't say newt.

Mudskipper?
Frogs?
Crabs?

What did frogs and mudskippers evolve into?

Crabs are a specialist species.

They are a bit of a dead end.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:38:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:36:13 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:33:14 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:27:40 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:58:48 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:07:50 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:11:35 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

A few options
1. Maybe there are. Maybe a chimpanzee is somewhere between human and an older primate species
2. Modern humans killed of "half-ape humans." Neanderthals as an example
3. Republicans might be only half human
4. A guy at work is so harry I'm think it might be fur

My money is one "2," although I'm fond of "3" as well

#3 lol

Why would they just die off?

They were adapted for a while.

For the same reason the Dodo and many other species died off. Because of us. Humans are responsible for the extinction of many many species. And unfortunately these hominids lived in the same area as humans competing for the same resources. We see the first humans in the fossil record 200,000 years ago. The last Homo Erectus fossils disappear from the fossil record 35,000-70,000 years ago.

Apes lived in the trees instead of on the ground so they survived since they were not directly in our way. But now many of these ape species are becoming endangered too and will be wiped out in a matter of decades if the status quo remains. There are only about 200,000 of them left and falling. Gorillas are also endangered and there are only about 100,000 left. Humans are very good at wiping out other animals including our closest relatives.

What about before humans?

Why are there no fish-land transition animals?

Don't say newt.

Mudskipper?
Frogs?
Crabs?

What did frogs and mudskippers evolve into?

Moving the goal posts, though mudskippers I think went salamander/newt, and frogs went toad/reptile, but I am conjecturing.

Crabs are a specialist species.

... so that would mean they satisfy your criteria, but you just choose not to admit it?

They are a bit of a dead end.

So? Asked and answered.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:46:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:38:07 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:36:13 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:33:14 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:27:40 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:58:48 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:07:50 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:11:35 AM, NoMagic wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

A few options
1. Maybe there are. Maybe a chimpanzee is somewhere between human and an older primate species
2. Modern humans killed of "half-ape humans." Neanderthals as an example
3. Republicans might be only half human
4. A guy at work is so harry I'm think it might be fur

My money is one "2," although I'm fond of "3" as well

#3 lol

Why would they just die off?

They were adapted for a while.

For the same reason the Dodo and many other species died off. Because of us. Humans are responsible for the extinction of many many species. And unfortunately these hominids lived in the same area as humans competing for the same resources. We see the first humans in the fossil record 200,000 years ago. The last Homo Erectus fossils disappear from the fossil record 35,000-70,000 years ago.

Apes lived in the trees instead of on the ground so they survived since they were not directly in our way. But now many of these ape species are becoming endangered too and will be wiped out in a matter of decades if the status quo remains. There are only about 200,000 of them left and falling. Gorillas are also endangered and there are only about 100,000 left. Humans are very good at wiping out other animals including our closest relatives.

What about before humans?

Why are there no fish-land transition animals?

Don't say newt.

Mudskipper?
Frogs?
Crabs?

What did frogs and mudskippers evolve into?

Moving the goal posts, though mudskippers I think went salamander/newt, and frogs went toad/reptile, but I am conjecturing.

Crabs are a specialist species.

... so that would mean they satisfy your criteria, but you just choose not to admit it?

They are a bit of a dead end.

So? Asked and answered.

Salamanders are another specialist species.

And actually lets go back on toads.

I'll look something up and not put everything on you. XD

But specialist species means they
are very adapted to their environment.

They won't evolve anymore.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:49:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:33:09 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:31:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:24:47 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:19:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:33:19 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.

Sorry, i meant living.

Because they died.

~mic drop~

Fine.

How did cells begin to specialize from the same DNA strand?

Through mutation (i.e. imperfect replication) and natural selection.

But that would just make a bunch of a different cell type.

What exactly did you mean by "specialize" if not that some cells developed differently to different roles and functions?

This would also pertain to the interactions and relationships and whatnot between them, as well.
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 2:51:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:49:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:33:09 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:31:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:24:47 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:19:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:33:19 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.

Sorry, i meant living.

Because they died.

~mic drop~

Fine.

How did cells begin to specialize from the same DNA strand?

Through mutation (i.e. imperfect replication) and natural selection.

But that would just make a bunch of a different cell type.

What exactly did you mean by "specialize" if not that some cells developed differently to different roles and functions?

This would also pertain to the interactions and relationships and whatnot between them, as well.

Yes.

But from the same replicating DNA?

That doesn't make sence to me.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:05:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 2:51:38 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:49:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:33:09 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:31:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:24:47 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:19:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:33:19 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.

Sorry, i meant living.

Because they died.

~mic drop~

Fine.

How did cells begin to specialize from the same DNA strand?

Through mutation (i.e. imperfect replication) and natural selection.

But that would just make a bunch of a different cell type.

What exactly did you mean by "specialize" if not that some cells developed differently to different roles and functions?

This would also pertain to the interactions and relationships and whatnot between them, as well.

Yes.

But from the same replicating DNA?

That doesn't make sence to me.

Crude, crude example:

Original DNA (symbolic representation):
ABCDEFG

Replications of original DNA (symbolic representation):
(1) ABCDEFG (perfect)
(2) ABCDDEFG (mutation: 'D' copied twice)
(3) ABCDEF (mutation: 'G' not copied)

In an environment where an extra 'D' is beneficial to survival, there is a greater chance that (2) will live to replicate over the others, in which case 'DD' has a greater chance of being included in the replications. Thus, over time, 'DD' will become commonplace, and perhaps 'DDD' will emerge as a mutation which perpetuates the process. This will outpace and outperform the perfect replication (1) and drive it to extinction.

In an environment where 'G' is beneficial to survival, then (3) is at a disadvantage and stands a greater probability to die and not replicate, thus terminating that mutation from perpetuating through future replications.

In a nutshell, the environmental pressures are what determine the "selection criteria" of mutations in natural selection, and replicating life will evolve differently in response to different environmental pressures.
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 3:10:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 3:05:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:51:38 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:49:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:33:09 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:31:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 2:24:47 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 1:19:19 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:33:19 AM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/20/2016 12:22:56 AM, distraff wrote:
At 4/19/2016 9:51:44 PM, Trollord wrote:
JUST to get the ball rolling i say:

Why aren't there half-ape half-humans?

There are. They are in the fossil record. E.g. homo Erectus. And its wreck not "reck." I would assume basic spelling abilities is a prerequisite for taking down a scientific theory.

Sorry, i meant living.

Because they died.

~mic drop~

Fine.

How did cells begin to specialize from the same DNA strand?

Through mutation (i.e. imperfect replication) and natural selection.

But that would just make a bunch of a different cell type.

What exactly did you mean by "specialize" if not that some cells developed differently to different roles and functions?

This would also pertain to the interactions and relationships and whatnot between them, as well.

Yes.

But from the same replicating DNA?

That doesn't make sence to me.

Crude, crude example:

Original DNA (symbolic representation):
ABCDEFG

Replications of original DNA (symbolic representation):
(1) ABCDEFG (perfect)
(2) ABCDDEFG (mutation: 'D' copied twice)
(3) ABCDEF (mutation: 'G' not copied)

In an environment where an extra 'D' is beneficial to survival, there is a greater chance that (2) will live to replicate over the others, in which case 'DD' has a greater chance of being included in the replications. Thus, over time, 'DD' will become commonplace, and perhaps 'DDD' will emerge as a mutation which perpetuates the process. This will outpace and outperform the perfect replication (1) and drive it to extinction.

In an environment where 'G' is beneficial to survival, then (3) is at a disadvantage and stands a greater probability to die and not replicate, thus terminating that mutation from perpetuating through future replications.

In a nutshell, the environmental pressures are what determine the "selection criteria" of mutations in natural selection, and replicating life will evolve differently in response to different environmental pressures.

Not natural selection.

I have no problem with that.

Definition:
Cell Specialization. All organisms are composed of cells. Unicellular organisms are composed of a single cell. Multicellular organisms are composed of many specialized cells. Specialized cells differ in structure (size, shape...) and function (the role they perform in the organism).