Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

I stumbled on an example of Darwin getting it wrong while watching a Sir David Attenborough documentary. Darwin said when writing about sexual selection that only male songbirds sing but it turns out that in the majority of songbird species (64%) the female does sing. To be fair to Darwin his statement was correct for the birds of the northern hemisphere, there had been no studies of southern hemisphere songbirds in his time.

I wonder if he had known if it would have changed his thoughts on sexual selection?

Yeah right. Let the theorists figure it out, hmm? lololol! Thanks again.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't understand the process of sedimentary rock, you don't understand the process of fossilization and you don't understand the process of dating method of the rocks & fossils.

What exhemist and Astrophile have explained to you, are correct:





The sediments that buried plants and animals, are either sand or mud, or both mixture of both sand & mud, but these sediments don’t turn into rocks immediately.

The transformation of sediments into sedimentary rocks will vary how long it will take, depending on the numbers of conditions, eg how many other different layers of sediments burying on top of the layer where the bodies or plants, how much of the original layer of the sediments are compacted, etc.

It is all the silicate minerals in the sediments that cause sediments to crystallize and solidify.

The 3 most silicate minerals are quartz, feldspar and mica.

So if bodies and plants were buried in layer of sand, then quartz would be the primary mineral to cause the sediments of sand to eventually turn into sandstone.

If mud was the sediments, then clay minerals plus quartz, will turn the sediments into mudrocks. There are number of different types of mudrocks, eg claystone, siltstone, slate, shale, etc.

Now most of description referred to how sediments turn into rocks, and less about organisms would turn into fossils. Those minerals I have mentioned play essential roles in fossilization. So if you want to know more about fossilization, then my reply/post would be lot longer.

If you really to know more about sedimentary rocks, then you really should ask qualified geologists, like @shunyadragon, for instance. shunyadragon is really a geologist, so he will be the one who would really know the process of how sediments would or could turn into rocks.

I did learn geology during my civil engineering course, but I am not a qualified geologist.

Ask shunyadragon if you want to understand the process of sedimentary rocks.

Doesn't matter. You can't explain it well so you tell me what to believe. Thanks, you guys have really taught me a lot probably without realizing it. Have a good one!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Doesn't matter. You can't explain it well so you tell me what to believe. Thanks, you guys have really taught me a lot probably without realizing it. Have a good one!

Well, if it is all subjective belief, then I don't believe you, because I am right and your God is Satan in effect. That is the end game of everything is decided on subjective belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I liked learning about Mendel's experiment also, while genetics were explored, the plants stayed as plants. Laugh as you will...

That only confirms that you have no idea of what evolution is. You keep getting it amazingly wrong. Your understanding of evolution is worse than a person that thinks that Christianity is a religion that says if you can nail some randome guy to a tree that you will live forever. That sounds pretty silly too when you put it that way.

 

[John53]

Not to call anyone stupid, but was the soil tested for dates during Mendel's time? haha, and hehe. I'm really beginning to learn from you guys, no kidding intended.

Speaking of kids. Remember if you want speckled goats you must breed them when they're looking at sticks you've peeled the bark off.

Big time to demonstrate just how fallacious the "theory" of Darwinian style of evolution is.Thank you, y'all!!!!

Umm ok. Is that lyrics from a Peter Gabriel song?

 

[YoursTrue]

Speaking of kids. Remember if you want speckled goats you must breed them when they're looking at sticks you've peeled the bark off.



Umm ok. Is that lyrics from a Peter Gabriel song?

I have no idea about speckled goats and looking at sticks, but they didn't turn into sheep. Hey have a good one. Enjoy the theory of evolution, as you will.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, if it is all subjective belief, then I don't believe you, because I am right and your God is Satan in effect. That is the end game of everything is decided on subjective belief.

It's obviously up to you. Whatever...

 

[exchemist]

Not to call anyone stupid, but was the soil tested for dates during Mendel's time? haha, and hehe. I'm really beginning to learn from you guys, no kidding intended.
Big time to demonstrate just how fallacious the "theory" of Darwinian style of evolution is.Thank you, y'all!!!!

So now you have sunk to mere trolling. I think you would be better advised to just stop posting in this thread. The spectacle you present is rather pathetic.

 

[YoursTrue]

So now you have sunk to mere trolling. I think you would be better advised to just stop posting in this thread. The spectacle you present is rather pathetic.

There is nothing to prove that plants become animals. Period. And talk about trolling? Look at some of the snide comments from your fellow believers in the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

So now you have sunk to mere trolling. I think you would be better advised to just stop posting in this thread. The spectacle you present is rather pathetic.

Your friends brought up about the soil dated during Mendel's time, if I remember correctly. Not me. Stop denying, please.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have no intention of reading more than 6,500 posts in this thread, but out of curiousity, has any Darwin-denier in this thread posted any other possible theory for the diversity of life on earth --- other than magic, I mean?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no intention of reading more than 6,500 posts in this thread, but out of curiousity, has any Darwin-denier in this thread posted any other possible theory for the diversity of life on earth --- other than magic, I mean?

The diversity has nothing to do with the theory as promoted by those declaring that all living forms arose from a few cells by "natural selection." Again...plants are plants, they don't become fishes. Unless you can show otherwise.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The diversity has nothing to do with the theory as promoted by those declaring that all living forms arose from a few cells by "natural selection." Again...plants are plants, they don't become fishes. Unless you can show otherwise.

But you are making a categorical statement, one that you may BELIEVE, but for which you cannot provide one tiny shred of evidence either. Nor do you provide any theory that explains your opinion that there are, therefore, two kinds of life -- plants and animals -- and how that happened. Your actual KNOWLEDGE on the subject is precisely zero, is that not correct?

Edited to add:

Out of curiousity, here is an abstract from a thesis on that topic.

Abstract​

Animals and plants evolved from prokaryotes and have remained in close association with them. We suggest that early eukaryotic cells, formed by the fusion of two or more prokaryotes, already contained prokaryotic genetic information for aggregation and the formation of multicellular structures. The hologenome theory of evolution posits that a unit of selection in evolution is the holobiont (host plus symbionts). The hologenome is defined as the genetic information of the host and its microbiota, which function in consortium. Genetic variation of the holobiont, the raw material for evolution, can arise from changes in either the host or the symbiotic microbiota genomes. Changes in the hologenome can occur by two processes that are specific to holobionts: microbial amplification and acquisition of novel strains from the environment. Recent data from culture-independent studies provides considerable support of the hologenome theory: (i) all animals and plants contain abundant and diverse microbiota, (ii) the symbiotic microbiota affects the fitness of their host and (iii) symbiotic microorganisms are transmitted from parent to offspring. Consideration of the dynamic aspects of symbioses of hosts with their diverse microbiota leads to the conclusion that holobionts can evolve not only via Darwinian but also by adaptive Lamarckian principles.​

© 2010 Society for Applied Microbiology and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.​

 

[YoursTrue]

But you are making a categorical statement, one that you may BELIEVE, but for which you cannot provide one tiny shred of evidence either. Nor do you provide any theory that explains your opinion that there are, therefore, two kinds of life -- plants and animals -- and how that happened. Your actual KNOWLEDGE on the subject is precisely zero, is that not correct?

No, it is not correct. Meanwhile what other than conjecture says that animals and plants evolved from a few cells? By natural selection, of course. Meanwhile I leave it to you and others to figure it, if they can beyond conjecture. One says one thing and another says another thing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, it is not correct. Meanwhile what other than conjecture says that animals and plants evolved from a few cells? By natural selection, of course. Meanwhile I leave it to you and others to figure it, if they can beyond conjecture. One says one thing and another says another thing.

I edited my post while you were responding, so my answer to your second remark is there.

As to your statement that "No, it is not correct," I not that you leave it at that, and do not go on to tell us what that KNOWLEDGE is. Is it a secret? Are you expecting to earn royalties from it? Or did you just hope I wouldn't notice?

 

[gnostic]

We clearly see things like humans operating on their beliefs and it is obvious that in animals genetics and behavior are closely related. Cats don't feed at the bottom of rivers and catfish don't use a litterbox. A dog and no other individual selects what it looks like but almost every individual selects what it eats. You're simply arguing against the obvious and tautologies.

What utter strawman nonsense.

I don’t think any biologists would propose either of these pseudoscience claims about cats and catfishes, so you just make up some ridiculous BS and then blame your inventions upon biologists.

You are creating ridiculous strawman arguments, with a bit of conspiracy theory on top of totally intellectual dishonesty.

Can you cite a biology sources that biologists would claim that cats feed down the bottom of rivers, or that catfishes use litter boxes?

None of these have anything to do with Natural Selection or with any of the other evolutionary mechanisms.

It doesn’t even have to do with Artificial Selection or Sexual Selection.

You just fabricated some things as idiotic as possible and blame them on Evolutionary Biology or it’s theory.

Your examples are just absurd fabrication.

You simply refuse to see unnatural selection from a different vantage point. If you breed only the tame wolves then you are effectively creating a bottleneck. Everything else is semantics and an insistence on viewing reality only in terms to which you are accustomed. You are simply choosing not to see that all the excluded wolves are effectively dead as far as breeding a new species, dogs, is concerned. If every dog not in your purple poodle experiment suddenly died it would just leave you with fewer dogs to work with. But if every wolf died when the dogs were created it would have no effect on the outcome because we know they got dogs. You probably would not get a purple dog because this is not how "change in species" works. Even if you did get a purple one it would still be a poodle because no poodle has ever decided its color.

And here, you still don’t understand what “genetic bottleneck”.

You are fabricating your own meaning to bottleneck, which no biologists would use.

This isn’t just intellectual dishonesty...well it is you being intellectual dishonest person, but it is also about your total disregard to learning some basic biology...it is about your willful ignorance.

You keep persisting on your twisted version of bottleneck you’ve created, never learning what this term “bottleneck” really mean or how the term being really use.

I don’t know why you’re insistent on showing how ignorant and how dishonest you look to us, because you keep making erroneous claims, compounding them.

Is it simply your ego that you won’t acknowledge you have made errors, and thereby refusing to learn what you fabricated have nothing to do with Evolution or with biology.

I know that @Dan From Smithville , @It Aint Necessarily So & @Valjean have corrected you before on the matter of your misuses of genetic bottleneck, but you stubbornly refuse to learn from your errors.

 

[gnostic]

No, it is not correct. Meanwhile what other than conjecture says that animals and plants evolved from a few cells? By natural selection, of course. Meanwhile I leave it to you and others to figure it, if they can beyond conjecture. One says one thing and another says another thing.

You have no qualifications to correct anyone on the matter of biology, when it is apparent you did not even do well in high school biology.

Now this isn’t in regards to evolution, per se, but more about basic biology in reproduction.

You are basically claiming that animals and plants cannot grow from just a few cells.

Guess what, YoursTrue...

...each humans were reproduced and were born by ONLY TWO single cells, one cell from your father and another single cell from your mother. They are called sperm and ovum (or the egg).

The sperms and egg are produced during sexual intercourse, and the egg become fertilized once the sperm penetrate the membrane of the egg, unifying into a single cell, the zygote.

The zygote grow larger than the original ovum, before cell division occurred making daughter cells. Over short time more cells are made, to create human embryos. More and more new cells to form every tissues and every bones and every drop of blood in the continuously growing fetus.

That just all happened because it started from two separate single cells.

The question is why you would insist on talking about biology, in which you either weren’t good at or failed...because you obviously didn’t leave high school, to learn more biology at any university.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have no qualifications to correct anyone on the matter of biology, when it is apparent you did not even do well in high school biology.

Now this isn’t in regards to evolution, per se, but more about basic biology in reproduction.

You are basically claiming that animals and plants cannot grow from just a few cells.
a
Guess what, YoursTrue...

...each humans were reproduced and were born by ONLY TWO single cells, one cell from your father and another single cell from your mother. They are called sperm and ovum (or the egg).

The sperms and egg are produced during sexual intercourse, and the egg become fertilized once the sperm penetrate the membrane of the egg, unifying into a single cell, the zygote.

The zygote grow larger than the original ovum, before cell division occurred making daughter cells. Over short time more cells are made, to create human embryos. More and more new cells to form every tissues and every bones and every drop of blood in the continuously growing fetus.

That just all happened because it started from two separate single cells.

The question is why you would insist on talking about biology, in which you either weren’t good at or failed...because you obviously didn’t leave high school, to learn more biology at any university.

I was an honor student and a scholarship winner. I am not speaking about reproduction. Although that in itself is more than 'amazing.' I am saying that the idea of natural selection is not something I subscribe to any longer. I used to believe it because I believed whatever I was taught in science and biology.

 

[YoursTrue]

I edited my post while you were responding, so my answer to your second remark is there.

As to your statement that "No, it is not correct," I not that you leave it at that, and do not go on to tell us what that KNOWLEDGE is. Is it a secret? Are you expecting to earn royalties from it? Or did you just hope I wouldn't notice?

You claim to have the knowledge. Yet you and others keep it kind of hidden.

 

[John53]

I have no idea about speckled goats and looking at sticks, but they didn't turn into sheep.

You should pay more attention to old testament genetics.

Goats and sheep family group Bovidae, subfamily Caprinae however they split at the genus level so close relatives but definitely a difference.

Gene study shows how sheep first separated from goats

Scientists have cracked the genetic code of sheep to reveal how they became a distinct species from goats around four million years ago. The study is the first to pinpoint the genetic differences that make sheep different from other animals.

www.sciencedaily.com

Hey have a good one. Enjoy the theory of evolution, as you will.

Sure will, got out of a trip to Costco so my day has evolved nicely so I will enjoy, thanks.