Evolutionalary theory.

[JBeukema]

Also the greater the odds of those with six-sided dice killing you and those with 5-sided dice as you prepare to roll...

 

[Missourian]

Convergent Evolution

Environmental circumstances that require similar developmental or structural alterations for the purposes of adaptation can lead to convergent evolution even though the species differ in descent.

Convergent evolution

In evolutionary biology, convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches

An example of convergent evolution is the similar nature of the flight/wings of insects, birds, pterosaurs, and bats.

But hey, I guess you know more than professional scientists who have extensively studied it.

Attempting to pound a round peg through a square hole.

We are not talking about a single trait...these are a plethora of similar traits that manifest in ALL the most complex organisms WITHOUT a common ancestor.

This is more geocentric modeling...rationalizing the results to fit the theory instead of abandoning the theory when it no longer describes the results.

​

 

[JBeukema]

yes... biologists, geneticists, and everybody else have no idea what they're talking about and only this lone poster on an internet message board knows the truth...

You should take your hypothesis to the local university and ask for time to give a presentation

 

[eagleseven]

We are not talking about a single trait...these are a plethora of similar traits that manifest in ALL the most complex organisms WITHOUT a common ancestor.

How do you define traits?

How do you define complex organisms?

How do you prove there is no ancestry?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Impossible BECAUSE of the trillions and trillions of events Gregg.

With trillions and trillions of events the probability of each animal species reaching the same basic structure DIMINISHES...it is the fact that there are trillions of RANDOM variables that reduces the probability of congruent or even similar results to zero.

No it does not, just means they were both in environmental conditions where that trait was beneficial to their survival

What trait Gregg? The probability of the same set of traits manifesting randomly...exactly the same way...after trillions and trillions of events..over and over again is zero.

You are conditioned to regurgitate this response but if you reason it out logically random mutation without a common ancestor over billions of years would never produce such congruent results.

Separate evolution cannot produce congruent results.

YOu have no idea what you are talking about

All you focus on, disingenuously, or ignorantly, is mutation, and forget about natural selection. The likelihood of getting a particular mutation in separate species can happen, but if there is no natural selection to help increase the frequency of that mutation in the population, it doesn't become prevalent. Amazing people think they can debunk 120+ years of evidence by scientific experts, by just claiming on a message board that its statistically impossible. YOu think some of the most brilliant minds in the world didn't think about that, and you have come up with some innovative thought that debunks science?

YOu are so vastly uninformed on this topic, solely focusing on mutation, but forgetting all other aspects that lead to evolution, which I'll state some below:

1. Evolution occurs in populations, not individuals. Frequency of mutation, or disappearance of that mutation from the poplulation's genome, depends on whether that mutation is more beneficial or detrimental to survival and passing that mutation on to future generations. THe more

2. As mentioned above, natural selection is the huge driver.

3, Geographical isolation, so they evolve differently without mating with each other, based on their environmental conditions

4. The environmental conditions that put natural selecting forces on the population of a particular species

 

[JBeukema]

We are not talking about a single trait...these are a plethora of similar traits that manifest in ALL the most complex organisms WITHOUT a common ancestor.

How do you define traits?

Any similarity or difference perceived or imagined by an internet poster

How do you define complex organisms?

Being too complicated or having too complex an evolutionary history to neatly fit into said posters ignorant and overly simple idea of evolution

How do you prove there is no ancestry?

Because you can't go back in time and God doesn't make mistakes

 

[Dr Gregg]

yes... biologists, geneticists, and everybody else have no idea what they're talking about and only this lone poster on an internet message board knows the truth...

You should take your hypothesis to the local university and ask for time to give a presentation

Yeah, its obvious people missourian don't really care about the science if they make and continue to argue such absurd claims.

But maybe our explanations will help others reading this thread learn what the actual theory is.

 

[Missourian]

Impossible BECAUSE of the trillions and trillions of events Gregg.

With trillions and trillions of events the probability of each animal species reaching the same basic structure DIMINISHES...it is the fact that there are trillions of RANDOM variables that reduces the probability of congruent or even similar results to zero.

Were you bad at math?

I give 500 people 6-sided die, and 500 people 5-sided die.

Then, I instruct them to roll the dice, and kill anyone who rolls a six.

The MORE they roll, the MORE I kill, the GREATER the odds of finding a person with a 5-sided die.

---

That's natural selection.

Better example.

Lets say there are 1,000,000 species, all the most complex animal that live or have lived, that share the "classic traits".

We have determine they do not have a common ancestor.

Roll a six sided die (evolution) 1,000,000.

Every roll it comes up 2...never 4, never 3, never 1, only 2.

Not one one eyed creature.

None with one ear or two mouths.

Something is definitely unrandom with your results..

 

[JBeukema]

As a layman, I can tell you it takes no great education to grasp the concept

to not grasp the subject takes willful stupidity

 

[JBeukema]

Natural selection isn't random, you twit

And your 'natural traits' aren't traits at all in terms of singular genetic mutation


and the reason for the number two is because it's the lowest number resulting from bilateral symmetry

 

[JBeukema]

And one-eyed species exist

also creatures with more


your strawman is the argument of the retarded

 

[Missourian]

And one-eyed species exist

also creatures with more


your strawman is the argument of the retarded

Link?

 

[eagleseven]

Better example.

Lets say there are 1,000,000 species, all the most complex animal that live or have lived, that share the "classic traits".

We have determine they do not have a common ancestor.

How? Because their eyes are not identical?

Roll a six sided die (evolution) 1,000,000.

Every roll it comes up 2...never 4, never 3, never 1, only 2.

Not one one eyed creature.

None with one ear or two mouths.

Something is definitely unrandom with your results..

If we kill off every 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 through Natural Selection, only 2s will remain.

Natural Selection was clearly explained in the The Origin of Species. I suggest you read it.

 

[Missourian]

Natural selection isn't random, you twit

And your 'natural traits' aren't traits at all in terms of singular genetic mutation


and the reason for the number two is because it's the lowest number resulting from bilateral symmetry

Randomness shouldn't care about bilateral symmetry.

 

[eagleseven]

Randomness shouldn't care about bilateral symmetry.

Natural Selection

 

[JBeukema]

A composite sketch based on eyewitness accounts

Their DNA is half-pumpkin and half-ape and their evolution of both teeth and photosynthesis debunks the entire premise of evolution from a common ancestor


(I found your textbook, Missourian )

 

[eagleseven]

And one-eyed species exist

also creatures with more


your strawman is the argument of the retarded

Link?

Spider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

Natural Selection was clearly explained in the The Origin of Species. I suggest you read it.

That's some remedial and out-of-date reading right there

 

[eagleseven]

Natural Selection was clearly explained in the The Origin of Species. I suggest you read it.

That's some remedial and out-of-date reading right there

Ya gotta start somewhere.

 

[JBeukema]

Randomness shouldn't care about bilateral symmetry.

Natural Selection

You mean like depth perception?