Evolution My ToE

[blü 2]

Serious communication problem, and again claiming I said things I never did say.

On things you didn't say, as far as I can tell you never got back to me on my observation that evolution, as expounded by the theory of evolution, is the only credible explanation for the origin of species; and my invitation to you accordingly to name a more credible explanation if you thought there was one.

If in fact you responded to this, grateful if you could point me to that post.

If not, I'm still interested in your answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

Plants, animals and fungi are evolutionary related in the eukaryotes (Protista). A kingdom of life containing plant-like, animal-;like, and fungi like protists. Basically they evolved differentiating within these mostly unicellular kingdom of Eukaryotes.

The following is from a Science 101 study lesson plan for senior high school students. When I was in school it was not covered until college, and not as detailed as in today's texts.

The Evolution of Protists: Importance & Evolutionary History - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

Characteristics of Protists


The cellular structure of protists

"You know the basics of what plants, animals, and fungi are, but what about those eukaryotic organisms that don't quite fit within these groups? Within our system of classification, these organisms fall into the Protista kingdom. Protists are eukaryotic, mostly unicellular, and mostly aquatic. 'Eukaryotic' means that they have cells with a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles and are similar to the cells that make up our bodies. Because they are eukaryotic, protists fall within the domain Eukarya. Most protists are unicellular, meaning they are only made of one cell. However, some protists are multicellular and are made of more than one cell. Most are aquatic, meaning that they live in the water.

Types of Protists
Protists are broken up into three main groups based on how similar they are to other eukaryotic kingdoms. The three groups are animal-like, plant-like, and fungus-like protists.

Animal-like protists are heterotrophs and get their nutrients by ingesting food, which is how animals, who are also heterotrophs, get their nutrients and energy. Animal-like protists are also called 'protozoa,' which means 'first animals.'

Plant-like protists are autotrophs and get their nutrients by performing photosynthesis, which is a process that uses sunlight to make sugars and oxygen and is also performed by plants to make nutrients and energy. Plant-like protists are also called 'protophyta,' which means 'first plants.'

The third group, the fungus-like protists, are also heterotrophs and get their nutrients by absorbing food. Now, this may seem a bit unusual, but this is how fungi get their nutrients and energy. Rather than eating food and then digesting it like animals and protozoa, fungus and fungus-like protists externally digest food and then absorb the nutrients."

More to follow . . .
.

Whoa boy. And you think I should not only understand this, but accept it? I accepted what they taught me in school because for one thing, I believed that was my job -- to remember what the teacher said and not to question if it was true and how did they know it was true. It was in my naive and innocent mind to believe it was true and way above me in the level of understanding, since these were the "good guys," teaching me, and wouldn't teach me falsehoods. They were the good guys. And my parents made sure I studied. And I got scholarships. Never thinking I wasn't learning da truth and nothing but. But thanks for trying to explain. I guess you believe that's the way it happened by chance force of nature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, explain this: from my research, scientists find genes in soil. Now I don't know too much about this, so let me ask you this first. Do you believe there are genes in soil, and if so, how did they get there? Puleeze, even if you think I'm dumb, can you try to explain it so I can understand? If not, well then, I'll just leave all the intellectual scientific stuff up to you and those who believe that there is no intelligent power that caused life to exist on the earth. To reiterate--does soil contain genes?

Where oh where do research scientists find genes in soil?

 

[Astrophile]

OK, explain this: from my research, scientists find genes in soil. Now I don't know too much about this, so let me ask you this first. Do you believe there are genes in soil, and if so, how did they get there? Puleeze, even if you think I'm dumb, can you try to explain it so I can understand? If not, well then, I'll just leave all the intellectual scientific stuff up to you and those who believe that there is no intelligent power that caused life to exist on the earth. To reiterate--does soil contain genes?

I am neither a biologist nor a soil scientist, so I can't answer this question. However, on googling 'genes in soil' I obtained ten million results, with several papers on the first page about antibiotic resistance genes in soil. I suppose that this must refer to the genes of bacteria and other micro-organisms that live in soil; soil itself is not a living substance, so it cannot contain genes of its own. However, I must leave the question to people with qualifications in these subjects.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between plants and animals, and how do scientists conjecture it happened, meaning if you don't get my point, did plants turn into animals through microevolution?

No. Plants and animals represent divergent lines from a common ancestor; eukaryotes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Whoa boy. And you think I should not only understand this, but accept it? I accepted what they taught me in school because for one thing, I believed that was my job -- to remember what the teacher said and not to question if it was true and how did they know it was true. It was in my naive and innocent mind to believe it was true and way above me in the level of understanding, since these were the "good guys," teaching me, and wouldn't teach me falsehoods. They were the good guys. And my parents made sure I studied. And I got scholarships. Never thinking I wasn't learning da truth and nothing but. But thanks for trying to explain. I guess you believe that's the way it happened by chance force of nature.

You asked this question claimed it was a sincere question not responded to, and I responded with sound recognized science.

↑
Let me ask you this: what is the difference between plants and animals, and how do scientists conjecture it happened, meaning if you don't get my point, did plants turn into animals through microevolution?

Your response had absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. Apparently your dodging responding to sound science. Over 150 years of advances in science supported by 98%+ of the scientists of the world. There was a question concerning the divergence of the evolution of plants, animals and fungi, and I gave the information in a fundamental high school level. Probably when you were in high school what was taught was more simple. We have more knowledge of science now, therefore more details are taught.

In general in our school system does not teach falsehoods in science, except radical Christian private schools based on a religious agenda.

How did they know it was true? I am assuming your referring to evolution. I believe I am hearing a religious agenda speaking here and not science when you fail to respond on subject.

 

[nPeace]

You didn't answer the question....do you prefer I engage you from a conversational standpoint, or from a debating standpoint?

I suppose until you answer, I will go with what you said HERE and reply to your posts from a debating standpoint: "I don't mind someone stepping in to help, as you did, because I might be missing something, which the person may provide, and that happens. It happened in the case of the stick insect. However, having the view that I ask questions because I need help, is in my opinion, not appropriate, for debate forums. Q&A yes. Or some other DIR."

BTW @nPeace in your last post to me you accused me of "claiming I said things I never did say". Since we are in debate mode, I will now demonstrate how that is a false accusation. Here are the things I described about you saying or doing (in my previous post)....

"you tacitly admitted that you've not read through scientific journals on evolutionary biology, taken courses in evolutionary biology, or attended conferences on evolutionary biology"

In THIS POST I asked "Have you spent significant amounts of time pouring through the scientific literature? Have you been attending evolutionary biology conferences? Have you taken any college level courses in evolutionary biology?" In YOUR REPLY you dodged, which I told you I took as a tacit admission that you'd not done any of those things. You did not object to that conclusion, thus it stands unrefuted.

"You also chastised me for attempting to "tutor" you on the subject."

In THIS POST you stated "Please don't think that when I ask a question, I am asking for a tutoring. Please?"

"you accused me of being "serpent like""

In THIS POST you stated "Your actions, I consider to be serpent like."

And finally "reminding me that this is a debate forum and as such you're here to debate".

We've been over this before, but again in THIS POST you stated "However, having the view that I ask questions because I need help, is in my opinion, not appropriate, for debate forums".

In sum, your accusation that I "claimed things you didn't say" is demonstrably false.

Still not getting it, are you. .. and why not. Communication problems.... huge.
Here I am, explaining to you that you are missing what I am saying; pointing it out to you, and all you seem to care about is what you say, and what you want.
For example....
You say: "I saw what seemed to me as you sorta complaining about that approach, and reminding me that this is a debate forum and as such you're here to debate, not discuss."
I'm pointing out to you that you are saying things I didn't say.
Rather than acknowledge your mistake, or misunderstanding, or whatever, you proceed with your questions, which makes no sense if you realize and acknowledged that what you said is not true.
If that's not one sided, I don't know what is.

If you can show me where I said I am not here to discuss, it might make sense. Right now, it doesn't.
Take care.

 

[nPeace]

On things you didn't say, as far as I can tell you never got back to me on my observation that evolution, as expounded by the theory of evolution, is the only credible explanation for the origin of species; and my invitation to you accordingly to name a more credible explanation if you thought there was one.

If in fact you responded to this, grateful if you could point me to that post.

If not, I'm still interested in your answer.

I don't remember how the conversation went exactly, but I think I did give you an explanation, but you did not accept it, because it must be an explanation that fits into what you consider acceptable.
I'm speaking from a vague memory, so you would have to remind me, where exactly that conversation is, or I can give you the explanation again.

 

[blü 2]

I don't remember how the conversation went exactly, but I think I did give you an explanation, but you did not accept it, because it must be an explanation that fits into what you consider acceptable.
I'm speaking from a vague memory, so you would have to remind me, where exactly that conversation is, or I can give you the explanation again.

Back then I was rephrasing a point I'd made earlier, in the terms I mentioned above:

There is only one credible explanation of the origin of species on the table, and that's evolution, as expounded by the theory of evolution.

If you disagree, please set out the more credible explanation of the origin of species that you have in mind.

 

[nPeace]

Back then I was rephrasing a point I'd made earlier, in the terms I mentioned above:

There is only one credible explanation of the origin of species on the table, and that's evolution, as expounded by the theory of evolution.

If you disagree, please set out the more credible explanation of the origin of species that you have in mind.

I'll do more than that, but I have work to do, right now, and tomorrow, so later.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree with you here. Again, that there are similarities in genetic structure does not prove the theory of evolution.

For the bazillionth time.

It's not about mere similarities. It's about the pattern thereof. And not just "similarities", but "matches" as well.

It proves that there are similar DNA in creatures

Would you say that the "similarity in DNA" between you and your sibling, is evidence of you both sharing ancestry or not?

As if God is supposed to use absolutely different genes when He created the earth in order for non-believers in God to come to a different conclusion

The "earth" isn't made out of genes.

Having said that, it's quite curious that this god off yours would go so out of his way to create life in such a way as to make it look as if it's the result of an evolutionary process that he had nothing to do with.

One would have to do such a thing on purpose. Nobody "accidentally" creates a product line that falls into a nested hierarchy. That just doesn't happen. You have to go out of your way and pre-plan that, or it won't end up that way. It's an extremely ineficient and wastefull way to create things. Extremely.

Conversly, evolution can ONLY result in a nested hierarchy.

This is not to say that some things may not have come about with a direct creative force behind it. To rephrase, it is possible that some things -- what they are I certainly don't know -- have come about simply by the force of energy within the organisms themselves. Such as: two-headed snakes, or a tail coming out of a dog's head.

ow boy..............................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lots of evidence for evolving NO evidence that evolving is how life got here in all it's splendor and variety.

That makes no sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If they could prove that only by evolving could any life exist

Not at all what evolution says.

As it is, they do not know that the evolving/adapting we see today is even similar to the evolving that happened long ago. Nor do they know that there was or was not a grand creation event, that started the whole thing rolling. I could not even say they are playing with half a deck!

Yes, yes, we do not know that the universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, weren't created just Last Thursday.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a possibility. I think it's more of a possibility than figuring it just 'happened' because...the time and physical, combustible connections were right so the genes moved along, forming something else kind of, sort of.

So really, it's just an argument from incredulity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can you explain in a simple manner how relatedness testing is conducted? And what is relatedness? I thought it was like the 98% or so of genes that are like humans in bonobos, as one example. So please, what is relatedness? and how is it tested? If you can present it in a way that I understand.

Basically the same way that geneticists can tell your sibling from a random person, while only having access to random DNA samples, 1 of which is your sibling and the others aren't.

You do accept that we can test for such, right?
By ONLY having access to DNA samples, geneticist can tell your sibling from your distant cousin, from random other people.

It's the same principle.

Ever heared of the genographic project? It's really cool. You send in a DNA sample and they'll send you a dvd with the tale of your human ancestry and the migration path your human ancestors took out of africa, going back thousands and thousands of years.

Again, same principle.

And the principle is really simple: DNA is passed on to off spring in mutated form. So the closer related, the more DNA matches you'll have.

You and your sister have the genetic markers of your parents and I don't.
Humans and chimps have the genetic markers of their shared ancestor and gorilla's don't.
Humans, chimps and gorilla's have the genetic markers of their shared ancestor and dogs don't.
Humans, chimps, gorilla's and dogs have the genetic markers of their shared ancestor and pidgeons don't.

Etc etc etc

The simple secret is that DNA is hereditary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me ask you this: what is the difference between plants and animals, and how do scientists conjecture it happened, meaning if you don't get my point, did plants turn into animals through microevolution?

Everything in evolution happens through "micro" evolution, as "macro" evolution is just the continued accumulation of "micro" evolution. Or just evolution, if you will.

How many times must it be repeated that micro/macro aren't different processes?
They are one and the same process.

Just like taking 5 meters is accomplished by the same process of "walking" as is walking 10 kilometers.
It's just walking. Step by step. Left, right, left, right, left, right,.... Covering the distance of 10 kilometers is just accomplished by the accumulation of more steps.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You know that the sun and moon are visible from earth and look differently from each other, right?

So what’s so remarkable about Paul’s observation, that anybody who can look up can easily make?

I guess the bar is just set ridiculously low?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Creation.

How does creation explain genetic matches organized in a nested hierarchy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

[QUOTE="Subduction Zone, post: 6420992, member: 63191"You depend upon the same nature past every time that you drive your car.

Pretty lame to compare today with Noah's day. Noah didn't drive any car.[/QUOTE]

The point unsurprisingly went flying over your head

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Myths cannot drive cars. You could not drive your car if scientists did not base their theories on reality. In other words you are being hypocritical every time you go for a spin around the block.

Let's not even mention how experts know where to go drill for oil to make the fuel to make the engine work.