Dragan Glas @ for you only! on the discussion of evolution!

[anning]

Dragan Glas said:


Gretings,


You keep repeating this, even though I've explained to you several times since pages 6/7 that species don't turn into other species, they give rise to other species.

"Turns into" (में बदल जाता है) is not the same as "gives rise to" (को जन्म देता है).

Does that make sense? (Unlike my father, I don't speak Hindi.)

Either:
1) you haven't read what I wrote;
2) you haven't understood what I wrote;
3) you reject what I wrote.

If the latter, it's because you are so stuck in your belief-system that nothing I or anyone says or writes can get through to you.

You claim never to have seen a scientific explanation of evolution.

Wherever in India you live, you should be able to go to your local library, and find resources on it. Equally, visit a natural history museum, and you'll find all the physical evidence you could want.


Believing something is not the same as knowing something.

Without a DNA test you can't know who are your real parents.

Transplants don't disprove DNA tests. as I - and others - have pointed out to you, with evidence.

Kindest regards,

James

demonstrate your hypothesis how ? how they give rise to another species. go ahead and do it. because you never explained how ?

for i keep repeating same thing that how one room or species turns into another room or speices ? desmontrate it how ? prove it.
____________________________
if you dont know anything besides pseudo dna test than good for you. you remain unfortuntae. because dna is exiting within everything even upto skin and hairs than what to speak of entire blood groups, bone marrow, tissues etc things ?

yet doctors transplant entire hand or legs from someone else who is neither our parents nor relatives after matching everything and no one can tell that its not the some else hand or legs.

so that entire transplanting has killed your pseudo dna fallacy.

 

[*SD*]

Right, let's keep this focused, that seems like a good idea, but no thread is limited to just one participant. You are free to totally ignore anyone else who posts, but we're not going to stop them from posting.

 

[anning]

Right, let's keep this focused, that seems like a good idea, but no thread is limited to just one participant. You are free to totally ignore anyone else who posts, but we're not going to stop them from posting.

i dont have any problem if one stay within the reasoning. im not mad, that i will do anything nonsense without any reasoning. but im also member of this forum. so remain neutral and dont be partial.

for i have nothing against you or anyone else at all. and all are welcome if they have arguement or can demonstrate there hypothesis and how this off-shot or one room or species turned into another.

would love to hear or get knowledge from anyone if one have it. anyone who can demonstrate there hypothesis is welcome here.

 

[*SD*]

but im also member of this forum

Yes, you are, this goes without saying. It subjects you to the same rules and criteria that everyone, including you, agreed to when they joined. If you only want to talk to James, that's fine, you need only pay attention to his posts, should he make any. I was simply pointing out that we won't restrict this thread and others can chime in at will.

 

[Sparhafoc]

how they give rise to another species

A species is a population of organisms.

That population is spread out over an area.

Among that population is naturally occurring variation.

That variation is genetic, and therefore inheritable.

An allele is one of two, or more, forms of a given gene variant.

Over time (reproductive generations) the population will experience changes in the frequency of the distribution of alleles across that population.

That, with nothing more necessary to add, is how the process of evolution works.

However, we need to go a step further to answer the remainder of your question.

There are 4 types of speciation: allopatric, paripatric, and sympatric.

Allopatric speciation occurs when some physical barrier arises between two parts of the overall population meaning that the groups are separated physically and cannot continue to interbreed. Over generations, the two groups which are reproductively isolated from one and other will accrue novel genetic mutations that spread through the population and will, overall, have a substantively different distribution of alleles that will only continue to grow the longer the two groups are separated. Eventually, the two groups will no longer even be reproductively compatible and will be considered two distinct species.

Peripatric is more about the colonization of a new territory by a subset of the main population which then results in the same barrier to reproduction, and isolation producing speciation.

But there are many ways for it to occur, even large group size and successful spreading over a large area can promote speciation when subgroups no longer frequently interbreed.

All of this is evidenced in thousands of studies, has been observed in the lab (with bacterial studies and fruit flies for example), and in the wild in a population of lizards (for example) and can be corroborated by genetics, and by the discovery of fossils. As mentioned earlier, both biogeographical distribution and comparative anatomy also provide more consilient evidence corroborating the fact of evolution.

 

[Sparhafoc]

yet doctors transplant entire hand or legs from someone else who is neither our parents nor relatives after matching everything and no one can tell that its not the some else hand or legs.

The transplant requires extreme courses of immunosuppressive drugs to make sure that the body doesn't reject the transplanted organ - it's extremely dangerous, but it can make peoples' lives better. Finally, you can usually tell when someone's hand or leg has been transplanted because a) the skin pigmentation is never 100% the same, b) patterns of hair are visibly different.

Of course, none of this offers any challenge to evolutionary theory having absolutely nothing to do with it - we expect members of the same species to be similar enough that we can inter-transplant organs between them

so that entire transplanting has killed your pseudo dna fallacy.

This is necessarily based on a faulty understanding of DNA, but given how lacking in detail it is, it's hard to educate and inform.

Let's try questions:

In what possible way has the transplantation of organs between people invalidated anything at all of our knowledge of DNA, let alone of evolution?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Let's try questions:

In what possible way has the transplantation of organs between people invalidated anything at all of our knowledge of DNA, let alone of evolution?

 

[Led Zeppelin]

There are 4 types of speciation: allopatric, paripatric, and sympatric.

But Isnt this all just making things more complicated for no reason? I think the way we determine species is somewhat arbitrary..

 

[Sparhafoc]

But Isnt this all just making things more complicated for no reason? I think the way we determine species is somewhat arbitrary..

No, not at all, it's actually quite clear and simple.

Plus, the universe isn't obligated to make life simple for us. If that's how it is, then that's how it is - the closer we hove to the data, the better our understanding of natural phenomena is.

The way we determine species isn't arbitrary - actually, species tend to determine themselves and we just observe it. The way we identify a particular species is debatable, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary.




*Edit: aphasia

 

[Deleted member 619]

But Isnt this all just making things more complicated for no reason? I think the way we determine species is somewhat arbitrary..

I don't know where you've acquired your view on evolution, but I can already tell it isn't accurate just from a few comments.

First, we're not complicating anything, we're just documenting what's observed. In fact, for a theory that explains diversity, these modes of speciation are pretty much the bare minimum to achieve it (you could argue that parapatric speciation isn't necessary, but it is an obvious and straightforward corollary to both sympatric and allopatric speciation).

As for how we define species, it couldn't honestly be less arbitrary a determination than gene flow. There are caveats to how species are defined, such as a strong temporal component and the removal of obvious pathologies such as viral vectors, but the way we define species is extremely robust.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

No, not at all, it's actually quite clear and simple.

Plus, the universe isn't obligated to make life simple for us. If that's how it is, then that's how it is - the closer we hove to the data, the better our understanding of natural phenomena is.

The way we determine species isn't arbitrary - actually, species tend to determine themselves and we just observe it. The way we identify a particular species is debatable, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary.




*Edit: aphasia

You have a pleasant way of explaining this here. Almost philosophical. You and Dragan Glas and not Hackenslash are by far the most pleasant people to read.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I get that a lot.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You have a pleasant way of explaining this here. Almost philosophical. You and Dragan Glas and not Hackenslash are by far the most pleasant people to read.

Thanks, Led, but ... not very "pleasant" of you referring to Hack like that. :lol:

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

I suspect a typo, though I'm thick-skinned enough to take it if it wasn't.

 

[*SD*]

Hey! What about me? I'm pleasant as fuck at all times. I'm world pleasantness champ 10 years running.

 

[Deleted member 619]

 

[anning]

Greetings,


Thanks, Led, but ... not very "pleasant" of you referring to Hack like that. :lol:

Kindest regards,

James

demonstrate your hypothesis that HOW your off-shot takes place ? how one room or species turns into another room or species ? just demonstrate your hypothesis now.

because what nonsense you are talking is not practical. so you would you bother to give me demonstration of your hypothesis ? that this off-shot of one room or species turning into another species or room takes place ? would you ?

what an fool people are, that they translated turns into, and give rise. but wont explain how ? nor demonstrate there hypothesis and thinks that everyone else is idiot besides them.

does this makes sense ? nope, it doesnt makes sense. now demonstrate how this off-shot of one species or one room turns into another room or species ?

but real fun is only such people are fools and no one else.

 

[anning]

I like your Krishna, I do not like your Krishnaists. Your Krishnaists are so unlike your Krishna.

you deny that there is no father before our birth ? yet you love Krishna ? ( waha! ) and now you ranted, moaned, whinning, yelled a lot and disturbed me without any reasoning. yet fun is you will not you will not like me ? what you will not like me ? i dont like you. ( varna sankar )

your farce maybe was good enough to carry away any foolish person who are fond of getting cheated and will take your side. but not sufficient to move me.

better luck else where. and rant elsewhere.

 

[*SD*]

you deny that there is no father before our birth ?

Can you stop repeating the same thing over and over again, please?

better luck else where. and rant elsewhere.

I think this has already been drawn to your attention, but you don't get to decide who can and can't post here.

 

[Sparhafoc]

How fucking rude and obnoxious does someone have to be to copy and paste from a thread that got locked because of the repetitive posting of dross?