Evolution

[Typhoon]

90% of animals appeared at the same time.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22879 ... e-time.htm

The utility/validity/findings of this method are far from settled.

A Genomic Perspective on the Shortcomings of Mitochondrial DNA for “Barcoding” Identification

The on‐again, off‐again relationship between mitochondrial genomes and species boundaries

A typical amateur error is to fixate on a specific paper in a field without having an overall understanding of the field and its issues.

[Typhoon]

Back on topic.

Quanta Mag | Dividing Droplets Could Explain Life’s Origin

Researchers have discovered that simple “chemically active” droplets grow to the size of cells and spontaneously divide, suggesting they might have evolved into the first living cells.

[Mr. Perfect]

Back on topic.

Quanta Mag | Dividing Droplets Could Explain Life’s Origin

Researchers have discovered that simple “chemically active” droplets grow to the size of cells and spontaneously divide, suggesting they might have evolved into the first living cells.

This does not explain the origin of life. At all.

Everytime I hear the word "suggest" I can't help but think of ancient aliens.



Just switch "aliens" with "abioticgenesis".

[Mr. Perfect]

Lol endless backflips won't change anything. These ideas were began by Sagan, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al going back more than a century and have now filtered down to lowly new hires at CBS.

Gaslighting me on this has never worked.

I can post youtubes on this all day long.

So do Flat Earthers.

So do warming fundamentalists.

[Mr. Perfect]

90% of animals appeared at the same time.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22879 ... e-time.htm

The utility/validity/findings of this method are far from settled.

A Genomic Perspective on the Shortcomings of Mitochondrial DNA for “Barcoding” Identification

The on‐again, off‐again relationship between mitochondrial genomes and species boundaries

A typical amateur error is to fixate on a specific paper in a field without having an overall understanding of the field and its issues.

You could always talk to the guy that did the study NH posted. He doesn't seem to be an amateur.

[Typhoon]

90% of animals appeared at the same time.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/22879 ... e-time.htm

The utility/validity/findings of this method are far from settled.

A Genomic Perspective on the Shortcomings of Mitochondrial DNA for “Barcoding” Identification

The on‐again, off‐again relationship between mitochondrial genomes and species boundaries

A typical amateur error is to fixate on a specific paper in a field without having an overall understanding of the field and its issues.

You could always talk to the guy that did the study NH posted. He doesn't seem to be an amateur.

Too obvious misdirection.

[Nonc Hilaire]

This mantid is 12-14 million years old. The differences between this and modern mantids seem minor.

Evolution is good for explaining some things but not at all useful for others.

[noddy]

the usual explanation is that mantids, like crocodiles, have the basic design so correct for their lifestyle that their arent any signficant variations that make them better at it.

both are ambush predators with solid food supplies and are very good at surviving already.

not saying this is the full story - however evolution doesnt dictate things *will* change due to variance, just that if a variance does increase the survival/breeding rates it can spread throughout the population over generations.

you are right tho - it will be interesting to see how all these things change in perspective over the coming decades as the DNA and fossil research adds more little bits of knowledge.

I have no doubts it will keep changing, trying to piece together evidence from many millions of years ago is hardly a short term task.

[Typhoon]

Never mind the mantids, dragonflies evolved about 350 million years ago.

Their ancestors were larger with a 750 mm (30 in) wingspan. The atmosphere was possibly more oxygen rich back then.

[Nonc Hilaire]

the usual explanation is that mantids, like crocodiles, have the basic design so correct for their lifestyle that their arent any signficant variations that make them better at it.

both are ambush predators with solid food supplies and are very good at surviving already.

not saying this is the full story - however evolution doesnt dictate things *will* change due to variance, just that if a variance does increase the survival/breeding rates it can spread throughout the population over generations.

you are right tho - it will be interesting to see how all these things change in perspective over the coming decades as the DNA and fossil research adds more little bits of knowledge.

I have no doubts it will keep changing, trying to piece together evidence from many millions of years ago is hardly a short term task.

That seems to be the dividing line between science and scientism in common knowledge. Evolution describes why some species succeed and others do not, but ontology describes why species develop as they do.

Evolution and ontology are very different functionally. Evolution is marvelous at understanding change at the species level and below, but you can't look through the telescope backwards and extrapolate the beginnings of a species any more than you can feed sausages through the grinder backwards and produce pigs.

[Mr. Perfect]

Sort of.

Science is about being able to predict into the future, survival of the fittest is 20/20 vision into the past. It doesn't explain or predict anything. Nobody can successfully predict the extinction of a species, therefore survival of the fittest is not science.

[noddy]

the usual explanation is that mantids, like crocodiles, have the basic design so correct for their lifestyle that their arent any signficant variations that make them better at it.

both are ambush predators with solid food supplies and are very good at surviving already.

not saying this is the full story - however evolution doesnt dictate things *will* change due to variance, just that if a variance does increase the survival/breeding rates it can spread throughout the population over generations.

you are right tho - it will be interesting to see how all these things change in perspective over the coming decades as the DNA and fossil research adds more little bits of knowledge.

I have no doubts it will keep changing, trying to piece together evidence from many millions of years ago is hardly a short term task.

That seems to be the dividing line between science and scientism in common knowledge. Evolution describes why some species succeed and others do not, but ontology describes why species develop as they do.

Evolution and ontology are very different functionally. Evolution is marvelous at understanding change at the species level and below, but you can't look through the telescope backwards and extrapolate the beginnings of a species any more than you can feed sausages through the grinder backwards and produce pigs.

thats about right.

I would quibble over the "change at the species level and below" , i see that mostly working, or atleast very strongly hinting at working, across genus and family aswell.

from common ancestor to dog and bear (for example) doesnt seem like a very large amount of changes to me.

the main point however is that yes, we are trying to work out history from scant evidence and its not close to being a complete understanding and possibly wont ever be.

the critical point is that if the story doesnt change to suit the evidence we do find, then its not relevant on any level to understanding that evidence, which is the real meat of the sandwich.

we have found all these fossils, many of which look like halfway houses between other fossils - we have seen that a myriad of wierd and wonderful critters used to exist but dont any more.
we do have all this new DNA evidence and population study evidence.

and we can only be human by trying to tie all that together.

[Nonc Hilaire]

When I was little science pointed to alligators and called them 'living dinosaurs' . Now they point at chickens.

Evolution is not survival of the fittest. It is survival of the most adaptive species, and it must be the same species so they can reproduce.

The really interesting science is ontogeny and development. Evolution is just not that useful unless you are into animal husbandry.

[noddy]

When I was little science pointed to alligators and called them 'living dinosaurs' . Now they point at chickens.

Evolution is not survival of the fittest. It is survival of the most adaptive species, and it must be the same species so they can reproduce.

I truly dislike the term survival of the fittest , it has caused so much misunderstanding. survival of the most succesful breeders is less catchy. which also include the ones that can restrict their breeding.

hah.

however, you dont need to be an adaptive species if your environment doesnt change - for all the earth has constantly changed some environments have stayed exactly the same

crocodiles and alligators lurk in warm puddles of water for days on end waiting for animals to need a drink - this strategy has never changed despite the changes in the menu.

once species seperate from eachother by distance or barrier, changes can accumulate differently in the different groups so the reproduction requirement is not that simple.

The really interesting science is ontogeny and development. Evolution is just not that useful unless you are into animal husbandry.

maybe so.

as i mentioned earlier, i only see evolution as a very thin layer on top of all the actual facts we have found so far, if we end up needing to split it into separate fields to cover all the complexity of the different situations, that would be fine by me.

its not like science doesnt split into seperate fields on a regular basis - reality is a complicated place.

[noddy]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/science/ ... spartanntp

While some news organization have described the melon-headed whale and rough-toothed dolphin hybrid as a new species, in order for that to happen other things need to occur, including more widespread hybridization, Baird said.
“That isn’t the case, although there are examples where hybridization has resulted in a new species,” he said. “There’s no evidence to suggest it’s leading toward anything like species formation.”
The male hybrid presents an opportunity to look for others. Hybrids generally occur when there’s a decline in the population in one of the parental species, so scientists will be looking out for such a decline.
A likely scenario for how the hybrid came to be is a melon-headed whale getting separated from its group and ending up traveling with rough-toothed dolphins.

its all blurry lines and its rarely neat boxes.

[Mr. Perfect]

If you can't define a species you can't claim speciation.

[noddy]

nor can you claim fixed seperation.

[Mr. Perfect]

Sounds like we can't really claim anything yet the claims are a flying.

[noddy]

the fact we squabble over if pluto is a planet or a planetoid is a separate, unrelated topic to researching the solar system and what the lumps of rock are up to.

much the same with the category names we give all the animals and when and why we change those categories.

librarian details, you can call it sally if it pleases you.

[Typhoon]

ArNz8U7tgU4

[Nonc Hilaire]

Sounds like we can't really claim anything yet the claims are a flying.

Ring species are a solid claim to species evolution, but also a special case and rather trivial.

[Mr. Perfect]

the fact we squabble over if pluto is a planet or a planetoid is a separate, unrelated topic to researching the solar system and what the lumps of rock are up to.

much the same with the category names we give all the animals and when and why we change those categories.

librarian details, you can call it sally if it pleases you.

ok but pluto can be observed and studied, where can I go to observe and study evolution happening (that is the propagation of new species)

[noddy]

you can study all the various fields of biology from paleontology right through to DNA and biochemistry at universities and get up to date on the various reasons so many folks think its a reasonable explanation for the animal diversity we have.

its a lot of work across alot of fields and those places are hotbeds of leftism and even worse, arts students, so im not convinced you will find it a valuable use of your time.

as for an origin of life story - evolution has only dabbled in that and its a long way from having even a favoured theory, let alone a confident answer.

[Mr. Perfect]

you can study all the various fields of biology from paleontology right through to DNA and biochemistry at universities and get up to date on the various reasons so many folks think its a reasonable explanation for the animal diversity we have.

Why would I do that. Why would I want to know what people "think". Why wouldn't evolutionists simply demonstrate their theory in action. If it was science they would be able to do so.

BTW I have done that for many years, and they convinced me not only does evolution not happen, but it's also impossible.

[noddy]

well, they did activate part of the latent dinosaurness of chickens with a small gene tweek - but apparently its cheating if you demonstrate DNA changes on a lab bench.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512 ... f-dinosaur