Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

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

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

right now, evolution-wise, one day leads into another. Who knows what tomorrow brings? I mean, evolves to?

 

[John53]

right now, evolution-wise, one day leads into another. Who knows what tomorrow brings? I mean, evolves to?

Ummmm ok.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Yeah, that works in both direction. It's obviously up to you. Whatever...

 

[gnostic]

I was an honor student and a scholarship winner.

I know that you have been saying that a lot, but what use of to anyone, if you are not qualified in any biology-related fields?

And I am talking about qualification higher education from universities or colleges, not high school diploma.

And all you have claimed that you did biology and chemistry at high school.

You say nothing beyond that, like at university.

Qualification in high school really don't count, because nothing taught there in high school, were advanced subjects.

Do you have even a minimum, like a bachelor degree, in either biology or chemistry?

Without even a bachelor in some science subject, all you are doing is expressing your personal opinions with regarding to Natural Selection Evolution.

Do you even know that there are 4 other evolutionary mechanisms?

There are Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking. None of these other mechanisms have replaced Natural Selection, and to date, no biologists have ever refuted Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is actually stronger than ever.

The only real problem with Darwin's original framework, was genetics. Gregors Mendel, Darwin's contemporary had better explanation to genetics, but this issue was resolved back in 1942, when Julian Huxley combined Mendel's genetics with Darwin's Natural Selection; this is called the Modern Synthesis.

Plus the Modern Synthesis have also been updated in the late 20th century and this century, with contemporary molecular biology, biochemistry and the inclusion of monophyletic clade taxonomy.

Actually, it was Huxley who coined clade in the mid-1950s. While phylogenetics is still been used, cladistic classifications are being more frequently used.

There is nothing wrong with today's Natural Selection, and the people against Natural Selection are creationists, who are incompetent even with basic science techniques, and utterly useless.

Anyway, if you don't even have bachelor in any biology-related field, then all you are really doing is expressing biased opinion, simply because you have religion agenda.

And that's the thing, YoursTrue. You are basing on what you personally believe, not what you know and understand in biology:

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.

No one really care what you believe in. We are only interested in what you know and understand.

Belief is not adequate response to knowledge...knowledge, which you clearly don't have

 

[exchemist]

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

Nobody but you brought up anything of the sort. It’s a piece of irrelevant nonsense introduced by you.

 

[exchemist]

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.

As you have been told countless times, but you (probably deliberately) refuse to learn, nothing is proved in science. Science is about evidence, never proof.

Secondly, the theory of evolution does not claim animals evolved from plants. According to the theory, animals, plants and fungi had a common (eukaryote) ancestor, about 1.5bn years ago. There is evidence to support that.

 

[exchemist]

right now, evolution-wise, one day leads into another. Who knows what tomorrow brings? I mean, evolves to?

Perhaps a new variant of covid 19, which has evolved to sidestep the immunity we have acquired.

Or perhaps some poor cancer sufferer will find the drugs no longer work, because the cancer has evolved a form that the drugs cannot control.

Or perhaps again a bacterium that has evolved to resist the antibiotics used in our hospitals.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

Sorry, but post 6,573 is quite responsive to that. I am betting that you don't know that because the words float right past your eyes without conveying meaning at all. They are long and scientific, after all. But they describe events that are directly analogous to the development of a human zygote from the union of sperm and egg cells.

 

[gnostic]

There is nothing to prove that plants become animals.

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.

Where did you get that utter absurdity from?

No one said anything about plants becoming animals.

Beside that, the existence of animals (marine animals) predated any land plants (Embryophyte), which don’t exist until the Ordovician period (485 to 443 million years ago).

But marine animals began appearing in fossil record as early as the Ediacaran (635 to 539 million years ago), marine invertebrates such as the primitive sponges.

Sponge-like animal, known as Otavia antiqua, fossils found as early as 760 million years ago in the Tonian period. The fossils of the Otavia is perhaps the oldest known animal, so it is not possible for animal to evolve from plants.

The current understanding is that land plants evolved from aquatic green algae, and what they have in common is that their cells have chloroplasts, which contained chlorophyll, which is what give plants and this particular algae their green color. But more importantly, chlorophyll is also what capture ultraviolet sunlight, that help with photosynthesis; the ultraviolet light is responsible for causing chemical reaction of water and carbon dioxide into starch, the nutrients needed to sustain life among green algae and plants.

Animals don’t have chloroplasts and chlorophyll, so animals are not capable of photosynthesis. Animals sustain life through feeding and ingesting. That’s the main and very obvious distinction between animals and plants.

Even you should know this in Year 11 high school biology...that you don’t know the distinctions, only show that you were good in high school biology.

Where in the Hades did you get such nonsense that animals evolved from plants? From some ignorant creationist webpages?

 

[gnostic]

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.

But here is the thing, YoursTrue.

Understanding evolution required understanding of genetics, because everything in evolution have to do with genetic variation and hereditary of traits, including understanding the process of how each organisms procreate or reproduce.

You stated that plants and animals cannot evolve from few cells:

Meanwhile what other than conjecture says that animals and plants evolved from a few cells?

Animals have their own ways of reproduction, plants have their own ways of reproduction, as do fungi, bacteria and archaea.

Reproduction may not be evolution, but HOW any organisms reproduce, wouldn’t be possible WITHOUT NATURAL SELECTION or WITHOUT MUTATIONS.

Humans are the only animals to reproduce through sexual intercourse. Most mammals reproduce in the same manner, involving sex, fertilization, retaining the embryo and fetus for period of time, before giving live birth. Other vertebrate land animals, such as reptiles and birds, lay their eggs on dry land.

Fishes and amphibians, the other grouping of vertebrates, on the other hand, lay their eggs in water.

Plants differed from animals, reproduction occur either through spores or through seeds.

But in all cases, all animals that are vertebrates, require reproduction through just two distinct cells, from parents: the egg or ovum and the sperm.

I am not so well acquainted with non-mammalian animals, so that’s why I had given you example on human reproduction in my earlier reply to you.

What is ridiculous, is your nonsensical claim that any biologist would be so stupid to say that animals evolving from plants. No biology textbooks teach this stupidity, so I would summarize that you this idiocy from some dishonest and ignorant creationist webpages.

Please stop spreading this nonsense about animals evolving from plants, because no biologists would say anything as stupid as this. Repeating this nonsense would only make you look dishonest.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know that you have been saying that a lot, but what use of to anyone, if you are not qualified in any biology-related fields?

And I am talking about qualification higher education from universities or colleges, not high school diploma.

And all you have claimed that you did biology and chemistry at high school.

You say nothing beyond that, like at university.

Qualification in high school really don't count, because nothing taught there in high school, were advanced subjects.

Do you have even a minimum, like a bachelor degree, in either biology or chemistry?

Without even a bachelor in some science subject, all you are doing is expressing your personal opinions with regarding to Natural Selection Evolution.

Do you even know that there are 4 other evolutionary mechanisms?

There are Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking. None of these other mechanisms have replaced Natural Selection, and to date, no biologists have ever refuted Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is actually stronger than ever.

The only real problem with Darwin's original framework, was genetics. Gregors Mendel, Darwin's contemporary had better explanation to genetics, but this issue was resolved back in 1942, when Julian Huxley combined Mendel's genetics with Darwin's Natural Selection; this is called the Modern Synthesis.

Plus the Modern Synthesis have also been updated in the late 20th century and this century, with contemporary molecular biology, biochemistry and the inclusion of monophyletic clade taxonomy.

Actually, it was Huxley who coined clade in the mid-1950s. While phylogenetics is still been used, cladistic classifications are being more frequently used.

There is nothing wrong with today's Natural Selection, and the people against Natural Selection are creationists, who are incompetent even with basic science techniques, and utterly useless.

Anyway, if you don't even have bachelor in any biology-related field, then all you are really doing is expressing biased opinion, simply because you have religion agenda.

And that's the thing, YoursTrue. You are basing on what you personally believe, not what you know and understand in biology:




No one really care what you believe in. We are only interested in what you know and understand.

Belief is not adequate response to knowledge...knowledge, which you clearly don't have

I often wonder what the point is for making claims about a high school record and putting those claims on heavy rotation in these discussions. It doesn't say anything about the theory. The only thing I can think is that it is intended imply some negative about the theory second hand. If a student can't learn it and must memorize the details, is that implying that the theory is somehow nonsense?

What it tells me is that a student, concerned about their academic position and winning scholarships, found a way to make the grade without learning by way of rote memorization. That says something about the student, but nothing about the subject matter. And it is obvious that memorization didn't lead to long term retention of the memorized material given the consistent sloppy state of the questions and comments that appear on this and other threads.

 

[John53]

I often wonder what the point is for making claims about a high school record and putting those claims on heavy rotation in these discussions. It doesn't say anything about the theory. The only thing I can think is that it is intended imply some negative about the theory second hand. If a student can't learn it and must memorize the details, is that implying that the theory is somehow nonsense?

What it tells me is that a student, concerned about their academic position and winning scholarships, found a way to make the grade without learning by way of rote memorization. That says something about the student, but nothing about the subject matter. And it is obvious that memorization didn't lead to long term retention of the memorized material given the consistent sloppy state of the questions and comments that appear on this and other threads.

I didn't finish high school, I left to pursue a career in primary producer (AKA farm hand on a dairy)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't finish high school, I left to pursue a career in primary producer (AKA farm hand on a dairy)

See, you didn't need to memorize the material in order to understand it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't finish high school, I left to pursue a career in primary producer (AKA farm hand on a dairy)

I believe my father finished the 8th grade. But poor kids, no matter how intelligent, didn't have a lot of choices back in the 30's and 40's.

When he passed away, my mother told us about all the historians he palled around with in the 50's and 60's before they were married. I was a bit put off that they hadn't mentioned this when he was alive so that we could talk with him about it. I don't know if he thought we wouldn't be interested or what.

 

[YoursTrue]

But here is the thing, YoursTrue.

Understanding evolution required understanding of genetics, because everything in evolution have to do with genetic variation and hereditary of traits, including understanding the process of how each organisms procreate or reproduce.

You stated that plants and animals cannot evolve from few cells:



Animals have their own ways of reproduction, plants have their own ways of reproduction, as do fungi, bacteria and archaea.

Reproduction may not be evolution, but HOW any organisms reproduce, wouldn’t be possible WITHOUT NATURAL SELECTION or WITHOUT MUTATIONS.

Humans are the only animals to reproduce through sexual intercourse. Most mammals reproduce in the same manner, involving sex, fertilization, retaining the embryo and fetus for period of time, before giving live birth. Other vertebrate land animals, such as reptiles and birds, lay their eggs on dry land.

Fishes and amphibians, the other grouping of vertebrates, on the other hand, lay their eggs in water.

Plants differed from animals, reproduction occur either through spores or through seeds.

But in all cases, all animals that are vertebrates, require reproduction through just two distinct cells, from parents: the egg or ovum and the sperm.

I am not so well acquainted with non-mammalian animals, so that’s why I had given you example on human reproduction in my earlier reply to you.

What is ridiculous, is your nonsensical claim that any biologist would be so stupid to say that animals evolving from plants. No biology textbooks teach this stupidity, so I would summarize that you this idiocy from some dishonest and ignorant creationist webpages.

Please stop spreading this nonsense about animals evolving from plants, because no biologists would say anything as stupid as this. Repeating this nonsense would only make you look dishonest.

Genetics does not mean that it has no creative intelligent force behind the mechanism. Yes, I no longer subscribe to the theory that it came about as a result of "natural selection," or survival of the fittest. Thank you, though, for trying to get me to see things as you do, and of course, so many others do also. As I said, however, I no longer subscribe or acquiesce to the theory of evolution as if there is no intelligence behind the mechanism. Now, let me say one thing that I also believe: defects are not caused by God, although He obviously permits this to happen since Adam and Eve. Their constitution changed when they went against their Creator. This is inherent in the Bible. You can find this also at John chapter 9 when Jesus healed a blind man and had a discussion about this with his disciples.

 

[YoursTrue]

But here is the thing, YoursTrue.

Understanding evolution required understanding of genetics, because everything in evolution have to do with genetic variation and hereditary of traits, including understanding the process of how each organisms procreate or reproduce.

You stated that plants and animals cannot evolve from few cells:



Animals have their own ways of reproduction, plants have their own ways of reproduction, as do fungi, bacteria and archaea.

Reproduction may not be evolution, but HOW any organisms reproduce, wouldn’t be possible WITHOUT NATURAL SELECTION or WITHOUT MUTATIONS.

Humans are the only animals to reproduce through sexual intercourse. Most mammals reproduce in the same manner, involving sex, fertilization, retaining the embryo and fetus for period of time, before giving live birth. Other vertebrate land animals, such as reptiles and birds, lay their eggs on dry land.

Fishes and amphibians, the other grouping of vertebrates, on the other hand, lay their eggs in water.

Plants differed from animals, reproduction occur either through spores or through seeds.

But in all cases, all animals that are vertebrates, require reproduction through just two distinct cells, from parents: the egg or ovum and the sperm.

I am not so well acquainted with non-mammalian animals, so that’s why I had given you example on human reproduction in my earlier reply to you.

What is ridiculous, is your nonsensical claim that any biologist would be so stupid to say that animals evolving from plants. No biology textbooks teach this stupidity, so I would summarize that you this idiocy from some dishonest and ignorant creationist webpages.

Please stop spreading this nonsense about animals evolving from plants, because no biologists would say anything as stupid as this. Repeating this nonsense would only make you look dishonest.

The line of ascent (or descent) from a few cells is virtual conjecture.

 

[John53]

I believe my father finished the 8th grade. But poor kids, no matter how intelligent, didn't have a lot of choices back in the 30's and 40's.

When he passed away, my mother told us about all the historians he palled around with in the 50's and 60's before they were married. I was a bit put off that they hadn't mentioned this when he was alive so that we could talk with him about it. I don't know if he thought we wouldn't be interested or what.

I could have kept going but I hated school, I was smart enough to get by without actually doing anything. I learnt more out working than I ever would have continuing on with education.

 

[YoursTrue]

Where did you get that utter absurdity from?

No one said anything about plants becoming animals.

Beside that, the existence of animals (marine animals) predated any land plants (Embryophyte), which don’t exist until the Ordovician period (485 to 443 million years ago).

But marine animals began appearing in fossil record as early as the Ediacaran (635 to 539 million years ago), marine invertebrates such as the primitive sponges.

Sponge-like animal, known as Otavia antiqua, fossils found as early as 760 million years ago in the Tonian period. The fossils of the Otavia is perhaps the oldest known animal, so it is not possible for animal to evolve from plants.

The current understanding is that land plants evolved from aquatic green algae, and what they have in common is that their cells have chloroplasts, which contained chlorophyll, which is what give plants and this particular algae their green color. But more importantly, chlorophyll is also what capture ultraviolet sunlight, that help with photosynthesis; the ultraviolet light is responsible for causing chemical reaction of water and carbon dioxide into starch, the nutrients needed to sustain life among green algae and plants.

Animals don’t have chloroplasts and chlorophyll, so animals are not capable of photosynthesis. Animals sustain life through feeding and ingesting. That’s the main and very obvious distinction between animals and plants.

Even you should know this in Year 11 high school biology...that you don’t know the distinctions, only show that you were good in high school biology.

Where in the Hades did you get such nonsense that animals evolved from plants? From some ignorant creationist webpages?

Plants and animals are supposed to have come from a common ancestor say scientists. According to the theory, of course. Further, scientists say there are problems with dating of fossils. Because the "record is like a movie with most of the frames cut out. Because it is so incomplete, it can be difficult to establish exactly when particular evolutionary changes happened." (New Scientist)

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but post 6,573 is quite responsive to that. I am betting that you don't know that because the words float right past your eyes without conveying meaning at all. They are long and scientific, after all. But they describe events that are directly analogous to the development of a human zygote from the union of sperm and egg cells.

Description in a detailed way of processes does not in any way confirm the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody but you brought up anything of the sort. It’s a piece of irrelevant nonsense introduced by you.

Not true.