Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 198 of 198
Like Tree79Likes

Thread: If we originated from apes where are all the ape to human forms in between ? Does evolution cross species ?

  1. #101  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    I prefer the negative reviews because they tend to give awareness on the author's blindness.

    What about this one?

    Amazon.com: A Customer's review of The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of ...
    Stunningly ignorant. You can ignore it.

    Next!
    PumaMan and PhDemon like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Einstein never fully accepted quantum theory but his criticisms ended up making it a much stronger theory.
    Yes! The Einstein - Bohr discussions that went on for years were marvelous examples of two of the best minds, sparring with each other. Einstein with each new thought experiment to debunk quantum theory and Bohr with his comeback arguments. Wonderful! Just wonderful!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    Why would scientist give a negative review of the book if the book is correct?
    For the same reasons 100 scientists published a book against Einstein and his Theory of Relativity in 1931: they were all wrong.
    Isn't it silly making a statement like that?

    Is everyone that publishes a book and receives negative reviews by scientists correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    Is everyone that publishes a book and receives negative reviews by scientists correct?
    Of course not. But we are talking about a book that is (largely) correct. (I put in the caveat as it may be that some parts are out of date now.)
    PumaMan likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Oh wow.
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    Isn't it silly making a statement like that?
    Not at all. Since the naysayers were in fact wrong.

    Is everyone that publishes a book and receives negative reviews by scientists correct?
    Yet you appear to think negative reviews 1 invalidate a book...
    Go figure.

    How about this: if Dawkins were wrong how come evolution is generally accepted?
    (With, of course, Strange's caveat).


    1 And what's worse: negative reviews by anonymous people on the internet - ones we have no idea of their actual qualifications or fitness/ ability to pass judgement on the contents.
    PumaMan likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    Is everyone that publishes a book and receives negative reviews by scientists correct?
    Of course not. But we are talking about a book that is (largely) correct. (I put in the caveat as it may be that some parts are out of date now.)
    What do you mean by "out of date now"? Does "out of date now" mean that those parts were assumptions and are wrong now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    What do you mean by "out of date now"? Does "out of date now" mean that those parts were assumptions and are wrong now?
    No. Of course not. This is science; assumptions don't come into it.

    Science moves on (evolves, if you like (1)) as new information is obtained, theories refined etc. One of the more moronic comments in that review you like is "What kind of proven science is this?" (2).

    I have no idea if there are any specific things in the book which would no longer be considered completely accurate or not. But, for example, Wallace's and Darwin's original ideas were wrong in some details and, of course, they didn't know about the mechanism of inheritance. And we are still learning more about how genes work.

    (1) Which you probably don't.
    (2) In case you don't get it: there is no such thing as "proven science".
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    What do you mean by "out of date now"? Does "out of date now" mean that those parts were assumptions and are wrong now?
    No. Of course not. This is science; assumptions don't come into it.

    Science moves on (evolves, if you like (1)) as new information is obtained, theories refined etc. One of the more moronic comments in that review you like is "What kind of proven science is this?" (2).

    I have no idea if there are any specific things in the book which would no longer be considered completely accurate or not. But, for example, Wallace's and Darwin's original ideas were wrong in some details and, of course, they didn't know about the mechanism of inheritance. And we are still learning more about how genes work.

    (1) Which you probably don't.
    (2) In case you don't get it: there is no such thing as "proven science".
    Why the egotism? Why can't the evolutionists be humble and tell us that they don't know everything yet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    Why the egotism? Why can't the evolutionists be humble and tell us that they don't know everything yet?
    What egotism? (That post was about things I don't know and that science doesn't know.)

    I don't know what an "evolutionist" is, but what I was saying (or attempting to) is that we don't know everything yet. That is why it is always possible for a good science book to go out of date.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Why don't you reply to what's posted, as opposed to generalised (and false) ad homs?
    PumaMan likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    Why the egotism? Why can't the evolutionists be humble and tell us that they don't know everything yet?
    Those of us who believe in evolution don't pretend to know everything. You're confusing arrogance with the simple dismissal of the absurd, something required by our methodology of study. We may write off the dear notion of creationism, but only because it lacks almost every single aspect of an acceptable scientific ideal.
    PumaMan likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post

    How about this: if Dawkins were wrong how come evolution is generally accepted?
    The State of Critical Thinking Today

    Believing Untruths – The Dangerous Lack of Critical Thinking | Zoe Weil

    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Scientists freely admit we don't know everything yet and are constantly searching for new better answers. As opposed to cre(a)ti(o)nists who have all the answers they ever need...
    Admit you don't know everything instead of doing the exact same thing you blame creationists of doing.

    Not a creationist and neither religious. Just skeptical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Glad to see that irony isn't dead.

    (And don't worry about not apologising; I won't hold it against you.)
    PumaMan and PhDemon like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    How about this: if Dawkins were wrong how come evolution is generally accepted?
    The State of Critical Thinking Today
    Believing Untruths – The Dangerous Lack of Critical Thinking | Zoe Weil
    Are you claiming that evolution hasn't been subject to critical thinking?
    That there's "massive evidence" against it?
    If not, what, exactly, is your point here?
    Presumably just hand-waving, but I'll wait for a response.

    Admit you don't know everything instead of doing the exact same thing you blame creationists of doing.
    I see your mistake.
    You assumed (despite the lack of evidence) that somehow we are claiming to "know everything".

    Just skeptical.
    Already shown to be an incorrect claim.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    Just skeptical.
    I would have thought scepticism required an open mind and willingness to consider the evidence. A blanket dismissal of science (*) is not scepticism.

    (*) That may be an unfair characterisation as all you have done is make some vague anti-evolution comments. But you don't show any sign of an interest in studying the evidence and learning.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I thought critically about that blog on critical thinking and I've decided it's stupid.
    PumaMan likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    You decided to be critical about its thinking?
    RedPanda likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Since I'm a skeptic, I'll have to get back to you after I've had some time to critically think about my opinion of critical thinking.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    Just skeptical.
    I would have thought scepticism required an open mind and willingness to consider the evidence. A blanket dismissal of science (*) is not scepticism.

    (*) That may be an unfair characterisation as all you have done is make some vague anti-evolution comments. But you don't show any sign of an interest in studying the evidence and learning.
    What is the difference between non-evolution and anti-evolution?

    I am a nonconformist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I would guess that anti-evolutionists are people too stubborn to accept evidence whilst non-evolutionists are people too stupid to do so.
    PumaMan, MrMojo1 and AlexG like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    What is the difference between non-evolution and anti-evolution?
    It depends.
    Are you "non-evolution" due to ignorance of the subject or because you've rejected the evidence?
    In the latter case you are, despite your claim, anti-evolution.
    The first can be corrected by education.

    I am a nonconformist.
    Is that a euphemism for "bonehead"?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by vaio View Post
    Why the egotism? Why can't the evolutionists be humble and tell us that they don't know everything yet?
    This is the most telling post from someone pretending to be something other than what they are that I have ever seen.
    PumaMan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    If we originated from apes where are all the ape to human forms in between ?

    Why would you expect a find a lot of fossils from a small variation in the general population, a variation which probably split off fairly soon from the main population.

    One could reasonably expect to find fossils only when the separated species itself had become abundant, which did not happen for a long time with all that migration and what not, before settlements were formed exclusively of he new species.

    First humans 'lived at southern tip of Africa' - Science - News - The Independent
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Just have to be careful how you describe that. It wasn't necessarily in equal amounts. The core species could have come predominantly out of Africa and then acquired traits from the surrounding populations over time. That's the beauty of natural selection. It only takes one or two originators and the gene they offer can spread throughout the entire population. It also only really requires one or two cross - species matings.
    I agree that one should be careful, and I am. The evidence found in human DNA strongly suggest that there was no "core" or primary/dominant population running around breeding to neandertals, Denisovans, etc.. All of our DNA has its origins and there is not enough DNA in our genome, with origins between 50kya and 150kya, to support a theory or hypothesis of such a "core" population.

    About 88% of the changes in our DNA, since splitting with chimps, occurred at least 300kya. This means that on average 88% of our DNA is at least 300k year old.

    Neandertals nor modern humans existed 300kya.

    Comparing modern humans and 30-40 thousand year old neandertals to the Human reference genome in order to determine how much of our DNA and the DNA of those specific neandertals originated between now and 120kya from our human lineage/ancestors produced interesting results.

    Europeans/French = 9.8%
    Chinese/Han = 7.8%
    Papuan = 5.9%
    30k year old Neandertal = 2.5%
    Sub Saharan African/San = 1.7%
    Last edited by gonzales56; May 5th, 2013 at 05:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Such as? .
    Read any book on palaeontology. They are not shy about admitting to making assumptions. They obviously see nothing wrong with it.

    evolution is an undeniable fact

    It is nothing of the sort.

    So did you just join a science forum to insult people involved in science?
    I thought scientists prided themselves on being able to deal with challenges such as people questioning their theories. In fact, the whole point of science, as far as I am aware, is that its evidence can stand any hostile scrutiny. Questioning, if science is sound, will just make it more robust. You should therefore welcome all doubters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    It's very easy to make a statement like that. Please, state the "suspect assumptions" you've found in modern Geology and state why you doubt them.
    .
    I'm not going to do the hard work for you. However, if you give some heed to what I say, then it may raise your awareness so that next time you sead a science book, you may be alert to assumptions that you would have otherwise passed over.

    I like his books too. I also like the books of Douglas Adams. But I don't use them to invalidate the sciences.
    Comedians and outsiders in general often arrive at insights that those who have been deeply involved for a long time will overlook through familiarity. Comedians particularly have a way of spotting weaknesses --- their truths can be very embarrassing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    It's very easy to make a statement like that. Please, state the "suspect assumptions" you've found in modern Geology and state why you doubt them.
    .
    I'm not going to do the hard work for you. However, if you give some heed to what I say, then it may raise your awareness so that next time you sead a science book, you may be alert to assumptions that you would have otherwise passed over.
    Of course you're not, because you really haven't found any "suspect assumptions" in modern Geology. It's just some generalized rant you have against modern science. You don't have any "suspect assumptions" for us to defend. This is typical of your ilk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    So did you just join a science forum to insult people involved in science?
    I thought scientists prided themselves on being able to deal with challenges such as people questioning their theories. In fact, the whole point of science, as far as I am aware, is that its evidence can stand any hostile scrutiny. Questioning, if science is sound, will just make it more robust. You should therefore welcome all doubters.
    Questioning is important, yes. But you must have evidence to back up your questioning. You can't just question an existing theory (or part of a theory) without any evidence. You can't attack modern scientific evidence that supports theories without having evidence of your own. Well, you can, but we will all think that you are just another fool blown in on the anti-science crank wind. So, where is your evidence? What particular part of modern theories do you object to? And why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Read any book on palaeontology. They are not shy about admitting to making assumptions. They obviously see nothing wrong with it.
    So, no examples or evidence to support your claim? I'll ignore it then.

    evolution is an undeniable fact

    It is nothing of the sort.
    So my bread is made from wild grass. That is a wolf at my feet, not a small fluffy dog. And all those examples of evolution and speciation we observer are ... what exactly? Some sort of mass hallucination?

    So did you just join a science forum to insult people involved in science?
    I thought scientists prided themselves on being able to deal with challenges such as people questioning their theories.
    You weren't questioning a theory. You were casting aspersions on the character of scientists. Just a typical anti-science ad-hominem argument.

    In fact, the whole point of science, as far as I am aware, is that its evidence can stand any hostile scrutiny. Questioning, if science is sound, will just make it more robust. You should therefore welcome all doubters.
    Absolutely true. As long as those doubters have a sound argument and supporting evidence. Just saying, "it's wrong but I'm not going to explain why" barely qualifies as an intelligent argument, and certainly isn't compelling.



    That being rather the cast of mind of the people involved in science in general
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Comedians particularly have a way of spotting weaknesses --- their truths can be very embarrassing.
    Please give us an example of a comedian that successfully questioned a scientific theory (or questioned the evidence for a scientific theory) and was successful in changing those theories. Really, maybe there is such a person that I'm not aware of.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking comedians. In fact I'm quite fond of the body of work of several comedians. But I'd wager that there is no one on this forum that has introduced evidence or valid arguments that have changed a modern science theory -- and there are some very, very smart and very well educated people on this forum. (And BTW I'm using the word "theory" here in the scientific sense.) For laymen (like me) we mainly just strive to understand what the great scientists have accomplished.

    So, you doubt what paleoentologists have accomplished. I guarantee you that if a paleoentologist is wrong or goes too far out on limb with pure speculation, there are dozens of his colleagues that will step up to the plate to give battle. Paleontologists are not one big club -- they fight amongst themselves -- often. You can be pretty much assured that the dinosaur skeletons you see in the museums are correct or, at minimum, they are the result of combined educated assumptions, backed by evidence. And those skeletons are improved and changed as new evidence is discovered. But if you have evidence to the contrary, then please post it here.
    Last edited by PumaMan; May 7th, 2013 at 01:43 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    It's very easy to make a statement like that. Please, state the "suspect assumptions" you've found in modern Geology and state why you doubt them.
    .
    I'm not going to do the hard work for you. However, if you give some heed to what I say, then it may raise your awareness so that next time you sead a science book, you may be alert to assumptions that you would have otherwise passed over.
    Listen to yourself. You criticize science for making unsupported assumptions, yet that entire observation is an assumption without supporting evidence. Then when asked for examples, you suggest that the scientists (you know, the sloppy researchers) do all the hard work in research to see if your assumption is correct to begin with?....


    Who do you think you are, a comedian?
    This is funny on many levels, but it is worthless in a debate about the scientific method.
    Last edited by Write4U; May 7th, 2013 at 04:53 PM.
    PumaMan and Strange like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Since my post linked to the wiki about the Mitochondrial eve raised no interest, how about this one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_re...ommon_ancestor

    PumaMan likes this.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Since my post linked to the wiki about the Mitochondrial eve raised no interest, how about this one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_re...ommon_ancestor

    Thank you SF, excellent link.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I wonder if speciation is unlimited. It probably is in theory, but, in view of the many evolutionary processes, eventually all organisms become "comfortable" in their environment and the evolutionary processes are reduced to genetic drift and chance mutation.

    I guess I am asking if there is an end to evolving complexity or if at some point something can be perfectly "attuned" to its environment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I guess I am asking if there is an end to evolving complexity or if at some point something can be perfectly "attuned" to its environment.
    To find the answer to that, try asking a crocodile. Up until a decade or so ago they were thought of as "living fossils" unchanged for tens of millions of years, but recently we have found that their snouts have been continually adapting to changes in their local food sources.
    "Ok, brain let's get things straight. You don't like me, and I don't like you, so let's do this so I can go back to killing you with beer." - Homer
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I guess I am asking if there is an end to evolving complexity or if at some point something can be perfectly "attuned" to its environment.
    To find the answer to that, try asking a crocodile. Up until a decade or so ago they were thought of as "living fossils" unchanged for tens of millions of years, but recently we have found that their snouts have been continually adapting to changes in their local food sources.
    SF, this just popped into my mind, it might not be worth anything. Could it be that food source is the main reason for evolutionary change?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Therapy View Post
    SF, this just popped into my mind, it might not be worth anything. Could it be that food source is the main reason for evolutionary change?
    It is certainly one of them. The finches that Darwin studied in the Galapagos varied according to the foods available on each island.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Could it be that food source is the main reason for evolutionary change?
    Environmental factors are the prime driver of which genetic variations are more or less likely to succeed. Food is one of the main environmental factors.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Yes, I cannot see an end to the evolution of the cuttlefish's abilities.. Imagine the neural network necessary for the color gymnastics employed by this most amazing creature.

    Camouflaged Cuttlefish: Don't Mind Me; I'm Not Here : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR

    Video: Kings of Camouflage | Watch NOVA Online | PBS Video

    This is one smart species, to survive naked in the most dangerous places on earth. Actually not unlike man on dry land. The descendants of slugs displaying an extraordinary intelligence adapted to their environment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Yes, I cannot see an end to the evolution of the cuttlefish's abilities.. Imagine the neural network necessary for the color gymnastics employed by this most amazing creature.

    Camouflaged Cuttlefish: Don't Mind Me; I'm Not Here : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR

    Video: Kings of Camouflage | Watch NOVA Online | PBS Video

    This is one smart species, to survive naked in the most dangerous places on earth. Actually not unlike man on dry land. The descendants of slugs displaying an extraordinary intelligence adapted to their environment.
    Tried to watch the PBS video, it is not possible in our part of the globe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Could it be that food source is the main reason for evolutionary change?
    Environmental factors are the prime driver of which genetic variations are more or less likely to succeed. Food is one of the main environmental factors.
    The reason I asked that question was in observing some pictures from different birds; I noticed that their beaks were fitted into a body that already existed. I recognized one that looked to me like a cat. I continued to look and I noticed that I could identify some animals I know. I then turned my attention to the colors and noticed that the animals I know and the birds had somewhat a similar color, though there are different changes. That brought me to thinking that the foremost thing I would want to change on my body is my mouth, the reason being if I had to change my diet. I hope I do not sound excessively off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Questioning is important, yes. But you must have evidence to back up your questioning. You can't just question an existing theory (or part of a theory) without any evidence. You can't attack modern scientific evidence that supports theories without having evidence of your own. Well, you can, but we will all think that you are just another fool blown in on the anti-science crank wind. So, where is your evidence? What particular part of modern theories do you object to? And why?
    This is scientists for you. They ALWAYS do this. When you question science they demand that you prove scientifically that you are right. I do not subscribe to science, nor the scientific method, and so I do not respond to challenges by providing scientific evidence. From my perspective, it is more important to be ABLE to think than to merely be able to quote facts and figures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Of course you're not, because you really haven't found any "suspect assumptions" in modern Geology. It's just some generalized rant you have against modern science. You don't have any "suspect assumptions" for us to defend. This is typical of your ilk.
    You're still not going to goad me into doing the hard work for you. When I was a child and asked my mother how to do something or the meaning of a word, she would say "Think it out for yourself" or "Go and look up the dictionary for yourself". A very healthy attitude and a good antidote to laziness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    You're still not going to goad me into doing the hard work for you. When I was a child and asked my mother how to do something or the meaning of a word, she would say "Think it out for yourself" or "Go and look up the dictionary for yourself". A very healthy attitude and a good antidote to laziness.
    You're just passing the buck. While your mother was not necessarily in error to tell you to do your own work, that was because you were asking general questions. She was not making bold claims- You were asking for basic knowledge you were capable of researching.

    When you make a claim, the onus is on you to support that claim with evidence.

    It is not the duty of others to do your work for you so that you can just make any claim you want, fold your hands behind your head and lean back watching everyone else scramble to do all the hard work to prove a negative.

    Take your mothers advice and do your own work. Show the results of the research you are capable of doing.
    Misinterpreting her teaching to weasel out of supporting your bold assertions is pathetic.
    PumaMan and Write4U like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    This is scientists for you. They ALWAYS do this. When you question science they demand that you prove scientifically that you are right. I do not subscribe to science, nor the scientific method, and so I do not respond to challenges by providing scientific evidence.
    Then, again, why are you wasting everyone's time (including your own) on a science forum?

    From my perspective, it is more important to be ABLE to think than to merely be able to quote facts and figures.
    You haven't shown much sign of being able to think here. Evidence is not about "quoting facts and figures". How about some basic information to support you claims. Or are you too "lazy"?
    PumaMan likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    You're still not going to goad me into doing the hard work for you. When I was a child and asked my mother how to do something or the meaning of a word, she would say "Think it out for yourself" or "Go and look up the dictionary for yourself". A very healthy attitude and a good antidote to laziness.
    This makes zero sense. Think about it (as you recommend):

    1. You say there are "suspect assumptions"

    2. Someone asks what you think these "suspect assumptions" are

    3. You say: "Work it out for yourself" or "look it up"

    How the hell can someone else work out what YOU think is "suspect"? Especially as you are probably wrong. Is there are Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_...ect_in_geology?

    It is not "laziness" to ask you what you are talking about.

    Pantodragon: "I saw this great movie last night. You should see it!"
    Normal Guy: "Great. What was it called?"
    Pantodragon: "Don't be so lazy! Work it out for yourself!"
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Questioning is important, yes. But you must have evidence to back up your questioning. You can't just question an existing theory (or part of a theory) without any evidence. You can't attack modern scientific evidence that supports theories without having evidence of your own. Well, you can, but we will all think that you are just another fool blown in on the anti-science crank wind. So, where is your evidence? What particular part of modern theories do you object to? And why?
    This is scientists for you. They ALWAYS do this. When you question science they demand that you prove scientifically that you are right. I do not subscribe to science, nor the scientific method, and so I do not respond to challenges by providing scientific evidence. From my perspective, it is more important to be ABLE to think than to merely be able to quote facts and figures.
    You are willfully ignorant.
    Last edited by PumaMan; May 9th, 2013 at 02:03 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    When you question science they demand that you prove scientifically that you are right.
    Well, obviously, as science is based on evidence and mathematics it can't be challenged just by saying "no, it's wrong".

    But apart from that, no one is asking you to "prove" anything. Just provide some support, any support, for your claims.
    PumaMan likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Speaking personally, I have my reservations about palaeontology because it's riddled with assumptions.
    ...
    I have studied a little geology and found rather more than a few suspect assumptions there also!)
    OK. I have done as you suggested. I have done some research and I have confirmed that there are no suspicious assumptions in either of these subjects.

    Will you admit you are wrong now?
    PumaMan likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Attachment 2139

    Evolution for the hard of thinking...
    I made corrections to suite most Americans. Attachment 2144
    I found the evolution of a forum member.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Meh. Should be fatter.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Meh. Should be fatter.
    Good point, but I had to go with what I could find.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Since my post linked to the wiki about the Mitochondrial eve raised no interest, how about this one:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_re...ommon_ancestor
    MRCA's vary wildly. It depends what part of the genome one is looking at.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    In the topic title, the question "Does evolution cross species?"

    I'd have to say, yes it does. The majority of the humans alive today have some Neanderthal DNA in them. This in turn leads to the speculation that the Neanderthals were absorbed into the much larger Homo Sapiens populations moving into the area. In one article I read, they stated that the humans of that time benefited a great deal because of the added genetic diversity which gave us added defenses against diseases.

    The one fact I see here is that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, two separate species were able to interbreed. All I can say to that is Neanderthal women must have looked better than the image we've been lead to believe they looked like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The one fact I see here is that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, two separate species were able to interbreed.
    Which means they actually weren't different species at all.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The one fact I see here is that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, two separate species were able to interbreed.
    Which means they actually weren't different species at all.
    It depends which definition of "species" you use...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The one fact I see here is that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, two separate species were able to interbreed.
    Which means they actually weren't different species at all.
    How about sub-species of human? Anyway, Neanderthals have been getting a bad rap for far to long. They should be considered human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    The one fact I see here is that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, two separate species were able to interbreed.
    Which means they actually weren't different species at all.
    How about sub-species of human? Anyway, Neanderthals have been getting a bad rap for far to long. They should be considered human.
    Some do consider them a subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalis vs Homo sapiens sapiens.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Of course you're not, because you really haven't found any "suspect assumptions" in modern Geology. It's just some generalized rant you have against modern science. You don't have any "suspect assumptions" for us to defend. This is typical of your ilk.
    You're still not going to goad me into doing the hard work for you. When I was a child and asked my mother how to do something or the meaning of a word, she would say "Think it out for yourself" or "Go and look up the dictionary for yourself". A very healthy attitude and a good antidote to laziness.
    Think of this forum as you mother. She was a wise lady.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Yes, come to think of it. We ask if cross breeding is possible. Of course it is.
    There is no problem breeding an Arabian with a Morgan. They are from a different family of horse, but they are both Equidae. So it is with humans. Crossbreeding is actively practiced among races today.
    Horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Why should breeding Neanderthal with Sapiens be forbidden? They are both of the species hominid. As long as the DNA from each parent does not have fatally conflicting growth instructions, there is no reason why crossbreeding cannot be possible. I have a suspicion that Neanderthal and Sapiens are very closely related and for them to breed after having been separated for thousands of years is no different than a modern European male today breeding with a pygmy woman from Africa, whose tribe has had no contact with modern world for thousands of years. Would such a joining present problems, perhaps, but I am confident that offspring would be viable.

    I also wonder where the Platypus fits in, it seems to have bits and pieces of DNA from every living species on earth, except the insect.
    Underwater, platypus rely on touch and a special sixth sense called electro-reception. Monotremes are the only mammals to have developed electro-reception. Sharks and rays use electro-reception to detect prey and can pick up the tiny electrical fields produced by the muscular contraction of their prey. Underwater footage shows platypus swinging their heads from side to side to detect tiny changes in the electrical field generated by their prey and determine its location.
    DPIPWE - Platypus in Tasmania

    IMO, the purely mathematical elegance of the evolutionary system seems to make it possible for nature to try almost infinite number of variations, and retain those variations which are able to exist in a non-perturbing way with the rest of the environment .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    I ran across this article and thought it might be of some interest in this topic. I however do not believe in it.

    New theory shows humans descended from aquatic apes

    http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/1832...m-aquatic-apes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    I ran across this article and thought it might be of some interest in this topic. I however do not believe in it.

    New theory shows humans descended from aquatic apes
    Few scientist do either, it's been kicking around for half a century and if anything the evidence increasingly points away from it.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    I ran across this article and thought it might be of some interest in this topic. I however do not believe in it.

    New theory shows humans descended from aquatic apes

    New theory shows humans descended from aquatic apes - Sci/Tech - DNA
    It's been posted before, but I believe it may be significant in relation to the concept of "semi aquatic" human.

    First humans 'lived at southern tip of Africa' - Science - News - The Independent

    But below is the point when the human branch was created by the accidental fusion of two chromosomes. IMO, It was a lucky mutation which combined the abilities of one chromosomes with the abilities of the second into a single complex chromosome with potential to grow complex neural systems in the brain, capable of thought (sophisticated processing of information).

    Chromosome fusion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Originally Posted by vaio,

    Why would scientist give a negative review of the book if the book is correct?
    Because new information always displaces old information and by the laws of nature, for every action there is an equal reaction, until inertia is overcome and momentum is achieved. All very clinical and predictable.

    These disagreements are usually in the areas of theoretical physics and meta-physics, areas which until recently could no be experimentally verified. But with our advanced studies with particle accelerators many areas of dispute are being laid to rest.

    The area of DNA is one of the most studied aspects of biology. DNA (coding) seems to have been selected by nature as a favorite way of natural duplication, though not the only one!

    wiki,
    Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine) recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. Most DNA molecules are double-stranded helices, consisting of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, molecules with backbones made of alternating sugars (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups (related to phosphoric acid), with the nucleobases (G, A, T, C) attached to the sugars. DNA is well-suited for biological information storage, since the DNA backbone is resistant to cleavage and the double-stranded structure provides the molecule with a built-in duplicate of the encoded information.

    These two strands run in opposite directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel, one backbone being 3′ (three prime) and the other 5′ (five prime). This refers to the direction the 3rd and 5th carbon on the sugar molecule is facing. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of molecules called nucleobases (informally, bases). It is the sequence of these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related nucleic acid RNA in a process called transcription.
    DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It is the same question asked about the perfection of construction in every atom of an element. Choice or natural affinity?

    But what sometimes appears to be a "purposeful" dynamic may just the one "allowed" by the laws of nature. Was a photon designed to travel at c or is it universal law which "allows" a massless particle to travel at c and "forbids" a massive particle to travel at c.

    There is no watchmaker, all physical and meta-physical functions are generated from Universal Potential of which Universal laws are but one expression. In a logical Universe, logic and consistency are inherent latencies as expressed by Universal Constants, Universal Laws, and Universal Potential.
    Last edited by Write4U; May 12th, 2013 at 05:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Yes, come to think of it. We ask if cross breeding is possible. Of course it is.
    There is no problem breeding an Arabian with a Morgan. They are from a different family of horse, but they are both Equidae. So it is with humans. Crossbreeding is actively practiced among races today.
    Horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Why should breeding Neanderthal with Sapiens be forbidden?.
    More importantly for the crossbred house they are both species Equus ferus...not only in the genus Equus but both of the same species ferus.

    L
    ikewise despite the original morphology of Neanderthal as a separate species, the genetic evidence of cross breeding with Homo sapiens puts them as also Homo sapiens; probably more correctly identified as a subspecies Homo sapiens neanderthal or Homo sapiens (neanderthal).--

    I thought scientists prided themselves on being able to deal with challenges such as people questioning their theories. In fact, the whole point of science, as far as I am aware, is that its evidence can stand any hostile scrutiny. Questioning, if science is sound, will just make it more robust. You should therefore welcome all doubters.

    Indeed it does. But there is a difference between making good points brought forth with evidence that question a common hypothesis or theory and they type of diversionary anti-science trolling you've been doing on this forum. So stop it. This is an official warning.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    It must be a challenge separating those traits which came before other traits and what DNA came before another DNA.

    IMO, most living things share the same DNA. Speciation is a subtle shift of chromosomal arrangements that allow for new abilities, perhaps successful.

    Understanding Genetics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    small correction in the record of attributed quote)

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pantodragon
    ,
    I thought scientists prided themselves on being able to deal with challenges such as people questioning their theories. In fact, the whole point of science, as far as I am aware, is that its evidence can stand any hostile scrutiny. Questioning, if science is sound, will just make it more robust. You should therefore welcome all doubters.
    Indeed it does. But there is a difference between making good points brought forth with evidence that question a common hypothesis or theory and they type of diversionary anti-science trolling you've been doing on this forum. So stop it. This is an official warning.
    Last edited by Write4U; May 12th, 2013 at 08:02 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post

    I thought scientists prided themselves on being able to deal with challenges such as people questioning their theories. In fact, the whole point of science, as far as I am aware, is that its evidence can stand any hostile scrutiny. Questioning, if science is sound, will just make it more robust. You should therefore welcome all doubters.
    Scientists don't like questions that show you don't even know what their theory says. They like you to read it or learn it, or take some coursework first, then ask questions.

    It's like if your boss at work writes down the business's official policies on a poster, and then you keep coming up to him with questions that are answered on that poster. He's going to get irate with you real quick because you're wasting his time.

    If you understood the theory in detail and still doubted it, and you had points to raise - by which I mean points that haven't already been raised 1000 times by 1000 other doubters and addressed 1000 times also - then you might be sparking an interesting discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I wonder if speciation is unlimited. It probably is in theory, but, in view of the many evolutionary processes, eventually all organisms become "comfortable" in their environment and the evolutionary processes are reduced to genetic drift and chance mutation.

    I guess I am asking if there is an end to evolving complexity or if at some point something can be perfectly "attuned" to its environment.
    Probably it can, but the environment would change too, sooner or later.

    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Questioning is important, yes. But you must have evidence to back up your questioning. You can't just question an existing theory (or part of a theory) without any evidence. You can't attack modern scientific evidence that supports theories without having evidence of your own. Well, you can, but we will all think that you are just another fool blown in on the anti-science crank wind. So, where is your evidence? What particular part of modern theories do you object to? And why?
    This is scientists for you. They ALWAYS do this. When you question science they demand that you prove scientifically that you are right. I do not subscribe to science, nor the scientific method, and so I do not respond to challenges by providing scientific evidence. From my perspective, it is more important to be ABLE to think than to merely be able to quote facts and figures.

    Science is the art of relying on evidence. You shouldn't be so surprised.

    People who rely too much on deductive logic often have a hard time with science, because science does not rely primarily on deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is about certainty. Science prefers inductive logic. Inductive logic is about probabilities and likelihoods.

    Evidence can't give you certainty. It can only give you high probabilities.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,091
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    So it is with humans. Crossbreeding is actively practiced among races today.
    The allegedly distinct "races" of human beings are purely cultural constructions and are not even defined the same way among different cultures. Two people who are not closely related to each other could be considered to be the same race by one person and different races by another person. Of course there is very wide genetic variabilty among humans, as humans have adapted to many different environments, but "races" are not genetically distinct subspecies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    So it is with humans. Crossbreeding is actively practiced among races today.
    The allegedly distinct "races" of human beings are purely cultural constructions and are not even defined the same way among different cultures. Two people who are not closely related to each other could be considered to be the same race by one person and different races by another person. Of course there is very wide genetic variabilty among humans, as humans have adapted to many different environments, but "races" are not genetically distinct subspecies.
    People can argue about the definitions of words all they want but, there are many genetically distinct differences between modern human populations.
    Last edited by gonzales56; May 13th, 2013 at 05:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    So it is with humans. Crossbreeding is actively practiced among races today.
    The allegedly distinct "races" of human beings are purely cultural constructions and are not even defined the same way among different cultures. Two people who are not closely related to each other could be considered to be the same race by one person and different races by another person. Of course there is very wide genetic variabilty among humans, as humans have adapted to many different environments, but "races" are not genetically distinct subspecies.
    People can argue about the definitions of words all they want but, there are many genetically distinct differences between modern human populations.
    Race is not the same as species. If we were to compare it to another animal like the dog. It would be poodles and great danes or any of the different breeds. They are all still just dogs and can all interbreed with each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    This is kinda relevant:
    birds_and_dinosaurs.jpg
    From: xkcd: Birds and Dinosaurs
    Last edited by Strange; May 13th, 2013 at 07:44 AM. Reason: clarity
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Well, I try to approach it from a more inclusive standpoint. Rather than asking at what point does speciation occur, we can assert with certainty that all species are a more sophisticated form of their parents. Sometimes this sophistication produces DNA which is no longer compatible with the parent DNA.

    But do we not practice cross breeding in horticulture? There is even a species of salamander that consists entirely of clones from the mother, she mates but rejects the male DNA completely. Clearly another mutation doomed for extinction.

    It is to be expected that as DNA complexity increases, it becomes more difficult to merge with another complex DNA

    The 2nd fused chromosome in humans is convincing proof of a speciation by mutation. The conversion of two hominid chromosomes into a single more complex chromosome, makes human DNA incompatible with it's closest cousin, Chimpanzee DNA.

    This accidental (perhaps inevitable) fusion of genetic information has been to our advantage so far. It still remains to be seen if we are a viable species. In the history of life on earth man is a relative newcomer.

    wiki
    The Hominidae (pron.: /hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera:
    chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan);[notes 2]
    gorillas (Gorilla);
    humans (Homo); and
    orangutans (Pongo).[1]

    The term "hominid" is also used in the more restricted sense as hominins or "humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees".[2] In this usage, all hominid species other than Homo sapiens are extinct. A number of known extinct genera are grouped with humans in the Homininae subfamily, others with orangutans in the Ponginae subfamily. The most recent common ancestor of the Hominidae lived roughly 14 million years ago,[3] when the ancestors of the orangutans speciated from the ancestors of the other three genera.[4] The ancestors of the Hominidae family had already speciated from those of the Hylobatidae family, perhaps 15 million to 20 million years ago.[4][5]
    Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    That picture was to small for me. Couldn't read it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Robot View Post
    That picture was to small for me. Couldn't read it.
    Follow the link: xkcd: Birds and Dinosaurs

    I don't know why sometimes it scales the image and sometimes it is inserted full size ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Click the link instead of the pic.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post

    When you make a claim, the onus is on you to support that claim with evidence.

    .
    There's a law says I have to do so? Of course not! You're just being a scientist. There are other ways of doing things. I am not a scientist. I gave up that vice some time ago. It is wonderfully liberating; gives one a whole new lease of life. That's the problem with science: it was too confining and therefore dis-spiriting. Fortunately, understanding of the world can be achieved outside of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    There's a law says I have to do so?
    Yes.
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    You're just being a scientist.
    Thanks.
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    There are other ways of doing things. I am not a scientist. I gave up that vice some time ago. It is wonderfully liberating; gives one a whole new lease of life. That's the problem with science: it was too confining and therefore dis-spiriting. Fortunately, understanding of the world can be achieved outside of science.
    Almost nothing you say makes any sense at all- I think because you gave up the vice of rational thought, critical thinking and examination of that which lies outside of your imagination.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    1 Then, again, why are you wasting everyone's time (including your own) on a science forum?

    2 You haven't shown much sign of being able to think here. Evidence is not about "quoting facts and figures". How about some basic information to support you claims. Or are you too "lazy"?
    1: My motives for being here are my own. Whether I am wasting my time or not is for me to judge. As it happens, I am also in a position to know that I am not wasting anybody else's time either.

    2: Oddly enough, it is scientists who are lazy. The practice of science is trivial in terms of the mental abilities of human beings. That is one reason I have moved on --- I need a little more mental stimulation to interest me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    If you are not interested in science why are you posting here. You are:

    a) wasting your time
    b) wasting the time of everyone who reads your ignorant posts
    c) trolling.

    Please go away.
    PhDemon --- the Ph being acidic, I take it! Read my reply to Neverfly above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Almost nothing you say makes any sense at all- I think because you gave up the vice of rational thought, critical thinking and examination of that which lies outside of your imagination.
    No surprise there! You are trapped by your own rationality. Rational thought is indeed a vice when you are trained to do it. To be natural, is what one should aspire to. let your mind work and you will achieve things scientists have no inkling of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    You're still not going to goad me into doing the hard work for you. When I was a child and asked my mother how to do something or the meaning of a word, she would say "Think it out for yourself" or "Go and look up the dictionary for yourself". A very healthy attitude and a good antidote to laziness.
    This makes zero sense. Think about it (as you recommend):

    1. You say there are "suspect assumptions"

    2. Someone asks what you think these "suspect assumptions" are

    3. You say: "Work it out for yourself" or "look it up"

    How the hell can someone else work out what YOU think is "suspect"? Especially as you are probably wrong. Is there are Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_...ect_in_geology?

    It is not "laziness" to ask you what you are talking about.

    Pantodragon: "I saw this great movie last night. You should see it!"
    Normal Guy: "Great. What was it called?"
    Pantodragon: "Don't be so lazy! Work it out for yourself!"
    There's a bit of a difference between guessing what movie a person saw last night and suggesting somebody should look up something in any standard textbook.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    There's a bit of a difference between guessing what movie a person saw last night and suggesting somebody should look up something in any standard textbook.
    It's painfully obvious that you are motivated by bitter anger directed toward Educators.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Speaking personally, I have my reservations about palaeontology because it's riddled with assumptions.
    ...
    I have studied a little geology and found rather more than a few suspect assumptions there also!)
    OK. I have done as you suggested. I have done some research and I have confirmed that there are no suspicious assumptions in either of these subjects.

    Will you admit you are wrong now?
    Excuse me....a little problem with the timescales here. A little research in 5 minutes? Did you googlr assumptions in geology or something? Sorry, not good enough!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Stage right
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    [
    It's painfully obvious that you are motivated by bitter anger directed toward Educators.
    Tha's one motivation, agreed! The damage they did to my mind that I've had to spend years undoing!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    There's a law says I have to do so? Of course not! You're just being a scientist. There are other ways of doing things. I am not a scientist. I gave up that vice some time ago. It is wonderfully liberating; gives one a whole new lease of life. That's the problem with science: it was too confining and therefore dis-spiriting. Fortunately, understanding of the world can be achieved outside of science.
    Your attempt to use the word "scientist" as an insult is mildly amusing but ultimately pointless.

    Your way of "understanding the world" appears to be to spout nonsense that you made up. I'm sure that is a lot of fun. But it is not very useful. It is slightly ironic that you are able to be on line polluting the forum with your brand of idiocy because scientists and engineers used the rational processes you despise to build your computer and put the infrastructure in place.

    I hope that if/when you are ever seriously ill you will rely on medicine that works rather than someone waving a dead chicken over you (or something even less useful like homoeopathy). I won't feel bad about your hypocrisy if it makes you better.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    There's a bit of a difference between guessing what movie a person saw last night and suggesting somebody should look up something in any standard textbook.
    Not really, since, as has been pointed out, we have no idea what YOU consider to be flaws.
    And, given that you have shown extremely poor reasoning capabilities so far, it's unlikely that we'll be able to do so - the majority of us don't share your peculiar, um, mind set.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Excuse me....a little problem with the timescales here. A little research in 5 minutes? Did you googlr assumptions in geology or something? Sorry, not good enough!
    How do you know it is not good enough?

    As you have no basis at all four your claim of "suspect assumptions" I can reject it instantly as false (and deduce that you are lying).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    There's a bit of a difference between guessing what movie a person saw last night and suggesting somebody should look up something in any standard textbook.
    Yes, I got a couple of dozen standard textbooks and looked up "suspect assumptions" in the indexes. It wasn't there in any of them.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    2: Oddly enough, it is scientists who are lazy. The practice of science is trivial in terms of the mental abilities of human beings. That is one reason I have moved on --- I need a little more mental stimulation to interest me.
    From someone who is incapable of rational thought, that is pretty funny.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post

    When you make a claim, the onus is on you to support that claim with evidence.

    .
    There's a law says I have to do so? Of course not! You're just being a scientist. There are other ways of doing things. I am not a scientist. I gave up that vice some time ago. It is wonderfully liberating; gives one a whole new lease of life. That's the problem with science: it was too confining and therefore dis-spiriting. Fortunately, understanding of the world can be achieved outside of science.
    I love this post. It smacks of someone on the brink of jumping overboard on the SS Sanity.
    Strange and Neverfly like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Slaves to rational thinking and evidence-based conclusion. What tragic lives we lead.
    Strange and PhDemon like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Almost nothing you say makes any sense at all- I think because you gave up the vice of rational thought, critical thinking and examination of that which lies outside of your imagination.
    No surprise there! You are trapped by your own rationality. Rational thought is indeed a vice when you are trained to do it. To be natural, is what one should aspire to. let your mind work and you will achieve things scientists have no inkling of.
    If you are opposed to rationality, you have no business on a science forum. What are you here for? Just stirring the pot? It won't be tolerated for long.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    People can argue about the definitions of words all they want but, there are many genetically distinct differences between modern human populations.
    True, but these genetic differences occur in small populations that have been genetically isolated. They do not fit the cultural definitions of race, in which all human beings that are known to the culture are divided into a few small groups that are visibly distinct from one another. The example that comes to mind is the prevalence of Tay-Sachs disease gene among Ashkenazi Jews - the proportion of people who are Ashkenazi Jews is relatively small and you would not be able to look at someone, without knowing anything abou them, and say"This is an Ashkenazi Jews who is carrying the Tay Sachs gene".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pantodragon View Post
    No surprise there! You are trapped by your own rationality. Rational thought is indeed a vice when you are trained to do it. To be natural, is what one should aspire to. let your mind work and you will achieve things scientists have no inkling of.
    I think this was the first hint he was "a few cans short of a six-pack"
    Where, evidently, "few" means "six."
    Neverfly and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Forum Junior sampson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    246
    If we originated from apes where are all the ape to human forms in between ?
    Go down to Wal-Mart about 5 pm and you will see.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by sampson View Post
    If we originated from apes where are all the ape to human forms in between ?
    Go down to Wal-Mart about 5 pm and you will see.
    why ? do they have a special offer on canned hominids around that time of the day ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. A new species like human beings ??
    By khan in forum Biology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2011, 10:34 AM
  2. human hair forms
    By Cherimoya in forum Biology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: February 27th, 2011, 04:43 PM
  3. Cross Species Animals
    By ItsBretter in forum Biology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: February 2nd, 2010, 01:00 PM
  4. Monkey Business - Cross Species Breeding.
    By Vexer in forum Biology
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2009, 10:34 AM
  5. Cancer and the human species
    By verzen in forum Biology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 27th, 2008, 11:13 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •