According to science, how does a new species develop?

[sealybobo]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?

 

[james bond]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?

My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis. It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.

 

[james bond]

Listen to this guy. He doesn't talk about changes over long time, common ancestors or tree of life for origins evolution. Instead, he discusses molecules (God didn't allow humans to create atoms), DNA, RNA, proteins, natural and artificial selection in a test tube and undirected evolution to further our knowledge of biotechnolgy in creating molecules for biosensors and it may further our knowledge of origins.

From the origin of life to the future of biotech: The work of Andy Ellington

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course you were there to document this, right?

What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.

Au contraire, shortbus rider.

Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....

You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.

Evolution is a theory that is unproven, fuzznuts. Prove me wrong.
Good luck with that.

Oh! I almost forgot! Go **** yourself, stupid ****** ****!

You sure do bring up homosexuality a lot....cowboy.

Why would anyone spend an ounce of energy trying to prove anything to you? You believe the dumbest shit regardless of facts...might as well try to teach a dog calculus.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You notice sealybobo never answered my question of where he got the above graphic.

Because that is irrelevant. The principle the graphic represents is a staple of modern science. You can find the same information from any reputable source. Your siirrces are garbage and are producing zero science and have zero evidence. You are embarrassing yourself

 

[sealybobo]

You notice sealybobo never answered my question of where he got the above graphic.

Because that is irrelevant. The principle the graphic represents is a staple of modern science. You can find the same information from any reputable source. Your siirrces are garbage and are producing zero science and have zero evidence. You are embarrassing yourself

And I still don’t know what he’s suggesting. Did god lay a fish that would lead to humans and another fish that led to frogs because either we are all related or we all formed separately and still every land animal was once a fish. If he’s arguing that god poofed land animals into existence I need to know

 

[sealybobo]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?

My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis. It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.

Maybe your evo website is bs

 

[LittleNipper]

Okay my challenge to all of you Christianists who believe that the Bible is literal truth- that life was poofed into existence the first 6 days the Universe existed and that all life was wiped out in the Flood except marine life and what was on Noah's Ark.

How did the life on earth end up where it ended up?

Elephant Birds on Madagascar?
Kangaroos in Australia?
Galapagos tortoises in the Galapagos
Nene geese on Hawaii?

And nowhere else?

The Theory of Evolution- along with continental drift explains why how they could exist where they exist.

How does the Bible explain it?

A GOD directed/manipulated dispersal after the FLOOD. If one believes in GOD, one can certainly try to figure out how GOD did it; however, one doesn't have to make up a "natural" rationalization. I mean I love koala bears --- GOD made Koala bears ---- He must love them!

He made the devil and hell too

God created a perfect angel. That angel decided he was as good as GOD. God created hell as a prison for all the angels who revolted.

 

[harmonica]

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer

 

[james bond]

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?

My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis. It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.

Maybe your evo website is bs

The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS. Chronological layers is BS. Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years. Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life. We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads. As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree. We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species. We are related via human species. Three separate bushes.

ETA: Holy guacamole. It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.

"Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.

“… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”

1]"

...

"What's Wrong with Bushes?
63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.

For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].

We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."

Bushes in the Tree of Life

 

[sealybobo]

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?

My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis. It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.

Maybe your evo website is bs

The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS. Chronological layers is BS. Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years. Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life. We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads. As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree. We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species. We are related via human species. Three separate bushes.

ETA: Holy guacamole. It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.

"Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.

“… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”

1]"

...

"What's Wrong with Bushes?
63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.

For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].

We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."

Bushes in the Tree of Life

Is this purposely incoherent and rambly? What is your point? Ok, so you don't believe humans are on the same tree as monkeys. Fine! Ok so we came from different bushes. That must make you feel special right? Ok, so then please tell us how humans got here. Scientifically explain it to us. Don't cut and paste some long bullshit that no one understands including you. We want to know how you think humans got here.

 

[sealybobo]

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer

I'm trying to get it out of him. In his own words.

 

[harmonica]

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer

I'm trying to get it out of him. In his own words.

they are afraid

 

[sealybobo]

I'll ask again--if you don't believe in evolution, how was man created?....be specific
no anti-evolutionists want to answer this question because they don't have an answer

I'm trying to get it out of him. In his own words.

they are afraid

It really will kill/end the discussion once we find out they believe god poofed land animals into existence.

There is no other explanation besides evolution for how humans and all other land animals got here. Without evolution, which came first the chicken or the egg? Or in our case, which came first mom and dad or the baby?

I want James Bond to answer that question. Which came first, the human baby or the parents.

 

[Syriusly]

What an absurd standard. Damn you are stupid.

Au contraire, shortbus rider.

Well, it appears you know more about french than you do about evolution, scrotum licker....

You know, 11-year olds would laugh at your science knowledge. Evolution is a fact. You are a whiner. Another fact.

Evolution is a theory that is unproven, fuzznuts. Prove me wrong.
Good luck with that.

Oh! I almost forgot! Go **** yourself, stupid ****** ****!

Always fascinating to hear from the Donkey ******* Christianists.

Funny, I've never been to Tijuana, yet your passport says you've been there 7x, sup?

PS: You put forth bullshit.

Well you certainly are an expert on bullshit.

But you donkey ******* evolution deniers always are.

 

[Syriusly]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

>>s: P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up<<

Atheists are wrong again. First, those drawings are just for very early stages. They change dramatically afterward, so it's a bogus argument.

Second, aren't those bushes of life? We got one for human. Another for bird. Another for reptile. Another for amphibian. Another for fish. It doesn't means they are related. Where do you get that?

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Tree of life is not a metaphor. More stuff you got in your head from Chimp U. It's phylogeny and an hypothesis about relationships among organisms.

No. Bush of life is phylogeny, too, but different than the ToL hypothesis. It's relatively new.

The Tree of Life may be more like a bush

LOL- you don't think that there is an actual 'tree of life' do you? Or an actual 'bush of life'?

Phylogeny is about the evolutionary development of species and organisms.

As I said:

The tree of life or universal tree of life is a metaphor, model and research tool used to explore the evolution of life and describe the relationships between organisms, both living and extinct, as described in a famous passage in Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859).[2]

 

[Syriusly]

[
As for Lucy and the rest, It may be a drawing, but it does show the FRAUD OF EVOS which you have ignored and cannot debunk.

No- frankly your cartoon just shows the FRAUD of you Christianists.

There is nothing to debunk- your cartoon is a fraud.

I gave you the citation to the Smithsonian where real scientists have real information about human evolution.

Want more from actual scientists?
Human Odyssey FAQs

 

[Syriusly]

[QUOTE="Marion Morrison, post:

Before I forget, here's the Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy argument for apes evolved from humans on the Kent State U official website. Read it and weep sucker.

Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University

Except of course that is another Christianist fraud.


Because of course Prof Lovejoy doesn't say that apes evolved from humans

"People often think we evolved from ancestors that look like apes, but no, apes in some ways evolved from ancestors that look like us," Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."

But then again- we are used to Christianist's lying about Evolution.

Except of course that is another Christianist fraud.


Because of course Prof Lovejoy doesn't say that apes evolved from humans

"People often think we evolved from ancestors that look like apes, but no, apes in some ways evolved from ancestors that look like us," Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi,' we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."

But then again- we are used to Christianist's lying about Evolution.

 

[Syriusly]

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

Second try- lets see of Bond runs away again:

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

 

[james bond]

LOL what is a 'bush of life'? Another Christianist invention.

"Trees of Life" are essentially metaphors- they are graphical representations in general of how life it related to each other.

Maybe one day we will find out 5 different meteors with five different types of life hit one carried what turned into mammals, one birds, one reptiles, etc?

My evo website admits that tree of life and common ancestor is a hypothesis. It's not a fact like people like Syriusly claims.

Maybe your evo website is bs

The part where they state the ToE by natural selection as gradual change over millions of years is BS. Chronological layers is BS. Change by natural selection happens rapidly not millions of years. Darwin's tree of life is BS, too, as life is a collection of bushes of life. We'll have to see where the bushes of life leads. As for common ancestors, we all have common ancestors, but we are not related in one tree. We are not related to apes species nor related to fish species. We are related via human species. Three separate bushes.

ETA: Holy guacamole. It even has a quote by the devil's chaplain Richard Dawkins.

"Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress.

“… there is, after all, one true tree of life, the unique pattern of evolutionary branchings that actually happened. It exists. It is in principle knowable. We don't know it all yet. By 2050 we should – or if we do not, we shall have been defeated only at the terminal twigs, by the sheer number of species.”

1]"

...

"What's Wrong with Bushes?
63]. It is perhaps for this reason that over the years, systematists have emphasized reconstructing the topology of trees, while placing much less emphasis on the temporal information conveyed by unresolved stems. Currently, phylogenetic bushes are considered experimental failures. But that is seeing the glass as half empty. A bush in which series of cladogenetic events lie crammed and unresolved within a small section of a larger tree does harbour historical information [33,56]. Although it may be heresy to say so, it could be argued that knowing that strikingly different groups form a clade and that the time spans between the branching of these groups must have been very short, makes the knowledge of the branching order among groups potentially a secondary concern.

For example, the lack of phylogenetic resolution at the base of the tetrapod/lungfish/coelacanth clade has not hampered in the least evolutionary research on the anatomical changes that occurred early on in the evolution of the tetrapod lineage [64,65]. Similarly, if the origin of most bilaterian phyla was compressed in time [33], more than 550 million years later it may matter little to know the exact relationships between most phyla to understand the evolution of the molecular tool kit that enabled the evolution of the body plans of the 35 or so animal phyla [66–68].

We submit that if the current efforts to assemble the TOL have, by 2050 (if not much sooner), assembled an arborescent bush of life, Dawkins' prediction will have come to fruition."

Bushes in the Tree of Life

Is this purposely incoherent and rambly? What is your point? Ok, so you don't believe humans are on the same tree as monkeys. Fine! Ok so we came from different bushes. That must make you feel special right? Ok, so then please tell us how humans got here. Scientifically explain it to us. Don't cut and paste some long bullshit that no one understands including you. We want to know how you think humans got here.

The article explains that Richard Dawkins believes in Darwin's TOL and so do you, but atheists are usually wrong. The genome research is finding that it's bushes of life. What bushes mean is that Darwin, Dawkins and you were wrong and that we aren't all related. We didn't come from fish nor apes. However, we'll have to wait for their findings. I knew it was still a work in progress, but I had not seen that report until today.

What it means for the evos is they'll have to come up with something else to explain the findings. They'll probably obfuscate and come up with something else. It usually doesn't matter as evolutionary origins usually doesn't affect real scientific work. The only good I ever got using evo was to argue against GMO foods.

I still believe humans got here through Adam and Eve. That's creation science and my views haven't changed. It's actually deepened my faith . The design behind DNA, RNA and how it all works shows that it didn't just happen, but was designed masterfully by a creator.