Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[rossum]

Well, there goes the claim that your asexual marble crayfish is a new species. It can neither breed with ancestor species or the new species. Or do you wish to change the definition of “species” once again?

It reproduces itself, as do all parthenogenic species. That is enough to meet the definition: reproductive separation. It cannot reproduce with its ancestor species and is able to reproduce itself. The exact method it uses to reproduce itself is not important. Aphids, for instance, can reproduce asexually as well as sexually.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

Techno2000:

Wozza:

Do you think that evolution determines why an environment has changed before it takes effect?

No…

Then your point about any given changes in the environment beinng possibly man-made was irrelevant. I’m not sure why I have to point this out because you seem to already have accepted it.

Why ask questions to which the answers are obvious and which, with the tiniest of effort, you could answer yourself?

A question I have often asked myself. By the way, did you get that paddle I sent over?

 

[o_mlly]

And that even the one or two atheists have no problem in accepting the views of all Christians that God is behind the process.

The above is an example of the atheists’ incoherence or just plain mental laziness. Paraphrased it reads, “I don’t believe in God but I accept the view that God is behind all creation.”

Whether God exists or not is a matter of truth not taste and this is the Philosophy forum. Philosophers don’t give up on matters of truth. Adler got it.

[T]o whatever extent philosophical opinions and religious beliefs belong to the sphere of truth, we should look upon disputed questions in these fields as resolvable by rational means. However difficult it may be to resolve them, our obligation here, in the pursuit of truth, is to be unrelenting in our efforts to reach agreement—even if it takes until the end of time to do so. M. Adler, ( Jew, Pagan, Agnostic, Episcopalian and Roman Catholic)

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

And that even the one or two atheists have no problem in accepting the views of all Christians that God is behind the process.

The above is an example of the atheists’ incoherence or just plain mental laziness. Paraphrased it reads, “I don’t believe in God but I accept the view that God is behind all creation.”

Whether God exists or not is a matter of truth not taste and this is the Philosophy forum. Philosophers don’t give up on matters of truth. Adler got it.

[T]o whatever extent philosophical opinions and religious beliefs belong to the sphere of truth, we should look upon disputed questions in these fields as resolvable by rational means. However difficult it may be to resolve them, our obligation here, in the pursuit of truth, is to be unrelenting in our efforts to reach agreement—even if it takes until the end of time to do so. M. Adler, ( Jew, Pagan, Agnostic, Episcopalian and Roman Catholic)

There’s a problem in comprehension here. Or maybe just laziness in reading what is written. Or perhaps you really do think that accepting the views of all Christians that God is behind the process is the same as personally believing that He is.

What you wrote is accurately rendered thus: ‘I don’t believe in God but I accept the view that Christians all believe that God is behind all creation.’

Even if you were to unreasonably argue that it was, then you are missing the point that was made earlier that for the purposes of this discussion, it could easily be accepted by any of the atheists in this discussion that God was behind the process if only to remove from said discussion the accusation that people who are explaining basic science to those who deny it are doing so to deny god.

That has been explained so many times I am getting tired of repeating it. But it will be repeated as long as people such as yourself continue to build straw men in an attempt to deflect from your lack of knowledge and an admission of your fundamentalist views.

 

[o_mlly]

I am getting tired of repeating …

Yes, you do repeat endlessly with nothing original to note so far. And we pray that your present tiredness proceeds to its normal conclusion – termination of the drivel.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I am getting tired of repeating …

Yes, you do repeat endlessly with nothing original to note so far. And we pray that your present tiredness proceeds to its normal conclusion – termination of the drivel.

You bet it’s unoriginal. There are only so many ways to say: ‘This thread is not an attempt by anyone to deny God’s existence’. But say I will until it gets through. Or even if it is ignored I will keep repeating it because to state otherwise is not being truthful.

If you lke I will try to format it in iambic penameter or maybe as a haiku. But it will be repeated as often as required. Which is when you or others continue to attempt this deflection.

 

[o_mlly]

iambic penameter

That’s Iambic Pentameter (penta => 5 counts). No thanks.

 

[Aloysium]

haiku

It’s all clear to me.
You just don’t want to listen.
So, I keep posting.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

iambic penameter

That’s Iambic Pentameter (penta => 5 counts). No thanks.

Take some advice. One of the cardinal rules of forums you woud do well to take onboard is: Highlight typos and even poor grammer (which is common in this forum) at your peril.

You will be considered pedantic and will end up having to check your own posts more than is necessary.

Will you be able to accept that advice or correct yet again I wonder. Tempting, isn’t it…but maybe it was done on purpose this time.

 

[edwest]

Like a moth to a flame, eh?

 

[buffalo]

It reproduces itself, as do all parthenogenic species. That is enough to meet the definition: reproductive separation. It cannot reproduce with its ancestor species and is able to reproduce itself. The exact method it uses to reproduce itself is not important. Aphids, for instance, can reproduce asexually as well as sexually

Yet, they will all die out.

 

[Aloysium]

Sexual reproduction mitigates the impact of random mutations of the genome which disrupt the information that determines the amino acid sequence and the resulting shape of the proteins produced; this is by virtue of there being an additional chromosome, to provide another set of the needed code. With the build-up of genetic defects, the offspring will become increasingly unhealthy and the so-called species will die out.

 

[rossum]

Yet, they will all die out.

Most species have. Again you are bringing up irrelevancies. Were Passenger Pigeons not a species? Were Triceratops not a species?

A valid species may or may not be extinct. All species are heading for extinction eventually, at the very latest when the sun stops supplying heat.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

Yet, they will all die out.

Yes. And when the bisexual crayfish adapt again to be asexual, a macro-evolutionist will claim, “Aha, a new specie!”

 

[buffalo]

Yes. And when the bisexual crayfish adapt again to be asexual, a macro-evolutionist will claim, “Aha, a new specie!”

ROTFL - exactly. This theory explains everything no matter how nonsensical all the time.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Wozza:

Do you think that evolution determines why an environment has changed before it takes effect?

No…

Then your point about any given changes in the environment beinng possibly man-made was irrelevant. I’m not sure why I have to point this out because you seem to already have accepted it.

Why ask questions to which the answers are obvious and which, with the tiniest of effort, you could answer yourself?

The point is that there is no Nature environmental changes in this day and age that is causing animal and plants to morph into something completely new.

 

[Techno2000]

marble crayfish

o_mlly:

Well, there goes the claim that your asexual marble crayfish is a new species. It can neither breed with ancestor species or the new species. Or do you wish to change the definition of “species” once again?

It reproduces itself, as do all parthenogenic species. That is enough to meet the definition: reproductive separation. It cannot reproduce with its ancestor species and is able to reproduce itself. The exact method it uses to reproduce itself is not important. Aphids, for instance, can reproduce asexually as well as sexually.

rossum

So, marble crayfish are going to produce more marble crayfish ?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Techno2000:

Wozza:

Do you think that evolution determines why an environment has changed before it takes effect?

No…

Then your point about any given changes in the environment beinng possibly man-made was irrelevant. I’m not sure why I have to point this out because you seem to already have accepted it.

Why ask questions to which the answers are obvious and which, with the tiniest of effort, you could answer yourself?

The point is that there is no Nature environmental changes in this day and age that is causing animal and plants to morph into something completely new.

Can I use a ‘sigh’ emoticon here?

The point is…? No, the point is not and was not that. The point was that environmental changes (however caused - remember that bit?) results in a change in the bio-diversity of that environment. Remember?

Would you like now to talk about man’s involvement in the changing environment and how it is significantly larger than natural changes and how that is affecting extinctions and evolution? I’m up for it.

 

[Techno2000]

Sexual reproduction mitigates the impact of random mutations of the genome which disrupt the information that determines the amino acid sequence and the resulting shape of the proteins produced; this is by virtue of there being an additional chromosome, to provide another set of the needed code. With the build-up of genetic defects, the offspring will become increasingly unhealthy and the so-called species will die out.

In today’s world mutations are considered bad. But back in the old 000.000.000.000 days they could work Miracles.

 

[Techno2000]

The point is…? No, the point is not and was not that. The point was that environmental changes (however caused - remember that bit?) results in a change in the bio-diversity of that environment. Remember?

That part is vague, what exactly do you mean ?