Darwin destroyed in new book

[The Duke]

Which field of science would you like? Geology, anatomy, paleontology, virology, biology? Pick any one they all point to a common ancestor.

Which one are you proficient in and have some kind of meaningful link to support your assertion?

 

[ding]

Why do so many people spend so much effort attacking Darwin? Do they think that would invalidate evolution? He was a just a man who got many things wrong and one thing right. The wrongs won't negate the right and that is that all life came from a common ancestor. Darwin just gave a natural mechanism that could be studied.

Darwin's "Origin of Species" does a good job of explaining the evolution of a species but not necessarily the origin of a species.

 

[The Duke]

Darwin's "Origin of Species" does a good job of explaining the evolution of a species but not necessarily the origin of a species.

Oh! This Dingus's area. He can handle this.

 

[rightwinger]

Where's the facts, Jack?

So where's your documentation of it occurring?

Evolution is well documented

It is called Geology.
Geology documents the evolution of simple creatures into more complex creatures over time.

 

[alang1216]

Which one are you proficient in and have some kind of meaningful link to support your assertion?

I'm least familiar with virology so any of the others will be fine by me. Which one do you know most about?

 

[alang1216]

Darwin's "Origin of Species" does a good job of explaining the evolution of a species but not necessarily the origin of a species.

Absolutely right and absolutely wrong. Darwin does an excellent job of explaining the evolution of a species and an excellent job of explaining the origin of a species. That is why his book, On the Origin of Species, was such a groundbreaking book and why it revolutionized science. Later work has both confirmed and enhanced his most of his theories.

 

[scruffy]

Darwin's "Origin of Species" does a good job of explaining the evolution of a species but not necessarily the origin of a species.

Origin of species is all about topology.

It has to do with the shape of the biological attractors.

For example - there are pairs of species with "almost no" difference in the DNA - meaning one or at most a few proteins are different. Yet, this tiny difference is enough to change the system dynamics.

To understand the influence of topology, I can stick a pin into a tadpole at just the right time, and the frog will end up with an arm where its eye is supposed to be.

 

[ding]

Origin of species is all about topology.

It has to do with the shape of the biological attractors.

For example - there are pairs of species with "almost no" difference in the DNA - meaning one or at most a few proteins are different. Yet, this tiny difference is enough to change the system dynamics.

To understand the influence of topology, I can stick a pin into a tadpole at just the right time, and the frog will end up with an arm where its eye is supposed to be.

If you are referring to Darwin's Origin of Species, Darwin wasn't aware of genes when he wrote Origin of Species. In fact, I'm not sure he was aware of genes before he died even though Mendel published his work on genes about the same time Darwin published Origin of Species. Mendel's work wasn't discovered until two scientists were arguing over which one of them was the "Father of Genetics" until they discovered Mendel's work and realized that Mendel was.

Now if you are referring to the actual origin of species then I would I say that sounds better than slight successive changes which the fossil record does not really support.

 

[ding]

Absolutely right and absolutely wrong. Darwin does an excellent job of explaining the evolution of a species and an excellent job of explaining the origin of a species. That is why his book, On the Origin of Species, was such a groundbreaking book and why it revolutionized science. Later work has both confirmed and enhanced his most of his theories.

Except the norm is long periods of stasis and then abrupt changes. Ergo punctuated equilibrium.

 

[alang1216]

Except the norm is long periods of stasis and then abrupt changes. Ergo punctuated equilibrium.

As I wrote, his theories have been enhanced by additional data but they have not been found to be fundamentally flawed.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Observed Instances of Speciation

That one is classic. It goes on for paragraph after paragraph trying to blur the definition of “species” so it can claim that new species have been observed.

They don’t know what a “species” is, but I’m supposed to believe such a claim?

It’s like a justice claiming to be a fierce fighter for women’s rights, but not knowing what a “woman” is.

Some More Observed Speciation Events

That one is even worse. Not one of the examples meets the definition of a separate species.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

www.scientificamerican.com

This one at least purports to give an example of actual new species,

But it happened because of intelligent botanists creating a hybrid, not through “natural selection” which is an oxymoron.

It proves nothing about Darwinism.

 

[Hollie]

That one is classic. It goes on for paragraph after paragraph trying to blur the definition of “species” so it can claim that new species have been observed.

They don’t know what a “species” is, but I’m supposed to believe such a claim?

It’s like a justice claiming to be a fierce fighter for women’s rights, but not knowing what a “woman” is.

That one is even worse. Not one of the examples meets the definition of a separate species.

This one at least purports to give an example of actual new species,

But it happened because of intelligent botanists creating a hybrid, not through “natural selection” which is an oxymoron.

It proves nothing about Darwinism.

Your hyper-religionism causes you to believe that your ,"because I say so", dismissal of observations, experimentation and references to peer reviewed data refutes the published data.

Let's see your analysis of the data presented and the peer review of your, "nuh uh" submittals.

You have disproven nothing of biological evolution and unfortunately, have reinforced a host of negative stereotypes about religionism.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Your hyper-religionism causes you to believe that your ,"because I say so", dismissal of observations, experimentation and references to peer reviewed data refutes the published data.

Let's see your analysis of the data presented and the peer review of your, "nuh uh" submittals.

You have disproven nothing of biological evolution and unfortunately, have reinforced a host of negative stereotypes about religionism.

You’re starting to sound desperate, lady.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It proves nothing about Darwinism.

*to you

But nobody cares if it convinces you or not.

 

[Hollie]

You’re starting to sound desperate, lady.

Who is desperate, really. You have been provided with sourced data, fully referenced, that provides relevant examples of speciation. On the other hand, you have provided literally nothing in rebuttal but hopeless denial. You have responded with nothing but goofy, stereotypical slogans you stole from fundamentalist ministries.

Provide something from a peer reviewed publication that seeks to refute any of the data in the links supplied to you.

Thanks.

 

[alang1216]

That one is classic. It goes on for paragraph after paragraph trying to blur the definition of “species” so it can claim that new species have been observed.

They don’t know what a “species” is, but I’m supposed to believe such a claim?

It’s like a justice claiming to be a fierce fighter for women’s rights, but not knowing what a “woman” is.

That one is even worse. Not one of the examples meets the definition of a separate species.

This one at least purports to give an example of actual new species,

But it happened because of intelligent botanists creating a hybrid, not through “natural selection” which is an oxymoron.

It proves nothing about Darwinism.

The theory says that as populations are isolated from each other they will eventually diverge enough that they can no longer interbreed. Horses, donkeys, and zebras can all breed but their offspring are always infertile. I think it is safe to say they are separate species now but were probably share a single ancestral species. Lions and tigers can also breed but their offspring are occasionally fertile so it seems that they are closer to their single ancestral species than the horses, donkeys, and zebras are. Lions and cheetahs are even further apart and cannot produce offspring.

If there is another explanation for what we see, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The theory says that as populations are isolated from each other they will eventually diverge enough that they can no longer interbreed. Horses, donkeys, and zebras can all breed but their offspring are always the infertile. I think it is safe to say they are separate species now but were probably share a single ancestral species. Lions and tigers can also breed but their offspring are occasionally fertile so it seems that they are closer to their single ancestral species than the horses, donkeys, and zebras are. Lions and cheetahs are even further apart and cannot produce offspring.

That makes sense.

If there is another explanation for what we see, I'd love to hear it.

That’s a better explanation than Darwin’s “natural selection” idea.

 

[alang1216]

That makes sense.

That’s a better explanation than Darwin’s “natural selection” idea.

The examples I gave are the results of speciation. Natural selection is one likely mechanism.

 

[Hollie]

That makes sense.

That’s a better explanation than Darwin’s “natural selection” idea.

There is verifiable data for Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Where is the data for your talking snakes?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The examples I gave are the results of speciation. Natural selection is one likely mechanism.

Exactly. I’m looking for examples of speciation via natural selection.