Rewriting Evolution ~ Darwin was wrong
Options
Comments
-
Yeah but you all in my thread tho' ? .........
Go make your own ? ..........
Ohhhh
I forgot.......
You get ethered every-time you make a wack thread.................
Run along lil' ? .................
-
Yeah but you all in my thread tho' ? .........
Go make your own ? ..........
Ohhhh
I forgot.......
You get ethered every-time you make a wack thread.................
Run along lil' ? .................
Nah, i get a stalker uping threads i gave no ? about begging for attention. But i see your one trick pony doing numbers. Congratulations. -
The True Flesh wrote: »Seriously, are these posters trolling? please tell me they trolling!
If not they're literally that dumb that they read the OP and page after page of the thread and still think the threadstarter is claiming/has claimed that "evolution" as a whole is "false"
Am I really the only one who understands what this thread is about?
Why does everybody think this has something to do with religion?
Imma break it down real quickly for the remedial:
Obviously things evolve adapt and mutate.
Only dumb religious people say "evolution is a lie"
.......what they mean to say is:
Evolutionary theories (Darwin's or any others) have proposed that every living thing has a common ancestor, however they haven't been able to prove it nor will they ever prove it.
NOW!
With absolutely no religious bias, scientists have discovered that Darwin's tree of life theory is incorrect, thus making it even harder to substantiate claims of all living things having a common ancestor.
The FACT that this is a STRICTLY SECULAR development in biological science is what makes it a HUGE lauce for the anti-creationists.@ohhhla ...... Et.al
I have no intentions of indoctrinating anyone into my "religion" or belief system.......
Again.....
This thread was created for scientific discussion
-
Sean Price be going off b..
-
60 years from now people will laugh at all the scientific dogmas that we use to believe
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/02/25/10-scientific-dogmas-that-should-be-questioned-to-assist-our-evolution/ -
I Am Jay ? wrote: »60 years from now people will laugh at all the scientific dogmas that we use to believe
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/02/25/10-scientific-dogmas-that-should-be-questioned-to-assist-our-evolution/
Evolution is on the list.............
-
I apologize for the delayed response; I'm not here 24/7.
You have yet to find the example of where your article states that the common ancestor theory is out the window. As I've stated, the tree of life as a concept has been proposed to be discarded and then replaced with the web to more accurately explain how evolution occurs.
Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing
traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely
swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with
them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into
an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being
closely related in some respects but not others.
We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more
genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of
relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were
routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often
across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal
gene transfer (HGT).
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
-
This thread is actually presented to you by Allah.............
Through me and the research of many evolutionary scientists.........
-
? who believe evolution is a myth are fundamentalist
Hindu and Muslim or people who don't care for it -
The True Flesh wrote: »If not they're literally that dumb that they read the OP and page after page of the thread and still think the threadstarter is claiming/has claimed that "evolution" as a whole is "false"
Am I really the only one who understands what this thread is about?
Did you not read the OP???This thread was established for the sole purpose of "debunking" or "proving" that the theory of evolution is bogus......The True Flesh wrote: »Obviously things evolve adapt and mutate.
^^^ .. including genes, which is the cause of speciation.
-
Science isn't a dogma.
That is religion -
I apologize for the delayed response; I'm not here 24/7.
You have yet to find the example of where your article states that the common ancestor theory is out the window. As I've stated, the tree of life as a concept has been proposed to be discarded and then replaced with the web to more accurately explain how evolution occurs.
Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing
traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely
swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with
them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into
an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being
closely related in some respects but not others.
We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more
genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of
relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were
routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often
across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal
gene transfer (HGT).
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
LOL......
I have had some downtime.............
Regardless.....
I made a spinoff thread in the R&R for your feelings........
What exactly dont you understand about this post??????Gold_Certificate wrote: »How does this involve Darwin?
This.....
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself
with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy
grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an
evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in
Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was
within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces
by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that
the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
On The Origin of Species 22 years later, Darwin's spindly tree had grown into a mighty oak. The book contains numerous references to the tree and its only diagram is of a branching structure showing how one species can evolve into many.
The tree-of-life concept was absolutely central to Darwin's thinking, equal in importance to natural to natural selection, according to biologist W. Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Without it the theory of evolution would never have happened. The tree also helped carry the day for evolution. Darwin argued successfully that the tree of life was a fact of nature, plain for all to see though in need of explanation. The explanation he came up with was evolution by natural selection. ...
From tree to web
"As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life was more like a web. In 1999, Doolittle made the provocative claim that "the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Science, vol 284, p 2124). "The tree of life is not something that exists in nature, it's a way that humans classify nature," he says."
http://youtu.be/-bMQkAqxNeE
-
I already explained that article to you. The real question is what do you not understand about it?
Again, you have yet to show me in that article where the common ancestor as a theory has been proposed to be thrown out the window. -
I have had some downtime.............
as alwaysI made a spinoff thread in the R&R for your feelings........
No, you made a spinoff thread in the R&R because you have not been able to properly debate this topic. That is why you've continued to rehash it since I've known of your existence. It stays on your mind and probably keeps you up at night. You wanted more opinions on the topic so you included a poll in your thread in order to decide whether or not you really want to accept evolution as fact. -
And what is it you don't understand about the paradigm shift from a tree (common descent) to a web (no common descent).............
I created the other thread for individuals who claim to be a part of a religion and accept evolution.....
As I have yet to hear a convincing argument that includes one species evolving into many and a supreme creator of mankind..............
I have already come to the conclusion that any theory that states that one species evolved into many is ? .......
-
This is the reason for the shift from a tree to a web. The article lays out the explanation in clear English.
Darwin assumed that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing
traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely
swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with
them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into
an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being
closely related in some respects but not others.
We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more
genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of
relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were
routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often
across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal
gene transfer (HGT).http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
And still, it does not necessarily say that common descent has been disproved. If you think it does, explain it. You continue to avoid that because you cannot explain it. You are making leaps that you cannot afford to make.
-
The article and referenced materials states that all life has the same molecules/DNA based.............
However it does not descend into what is metaphorically understood as a tree...........
With all life forms descending from one ancestor............
Instead......that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into
an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being
closely related in some respects but not others.
We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more
genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of
relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were
routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often
across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal
gene transfer (HGT).[/i]http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
Your L's are becoming quite extensive.................
-
The only thing that says is that descent was thought to be "exclusively vertical" when now it shows itself not to be. The web conceptualization still does not get rid of common descent. A web still springs from one point.
-
The only thing that says is that descent was thought to be "exclusively vertical" when now it shows itself not to be. The web conceptualization still does not get rid of common descent.
C'mon son.........that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into
an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being
closely related in some respects but not others.
We now know that this is exactly what happens.
It became clear that the patterns of
relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were
routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often
across huge taxonomic distances -
The web conceptualization still does not get rid of common descent. A web still springs from one point.
Correction........
A web springs from one creator........
Material on one side is only related to material on the other by its creator........................
-
A web springs from one creator........
that "creator" being the first lifeform, i.e. common descent
-
LOL......
You are reaching brother......
You have not had the chance to look at the material and fully digest the paradigm shift.............
These things take a while to be fully accepted and understood by the scientific community...........
Relax & take notes.......
As I take tokes of the marijuana smoke.................
-
C'mon son.........
that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into
an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being
closely related in some respects but not others.
What is the reason for interrelatedness? Evolution by common descent. The interrelatedness is best explained by way of the web as opposed to the tree?. Why??
It became clear that the patterns of relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were
routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often across huge taxonomic distances
As the article explains, this is called horizontal gene transfer. The tree of life concept supposed that descent was solely verticle meaning that species only passed down traits to their offspring through reproduction. However, horizontal gene transfer is the process where genes are transfered in a way other than reproduction. Darwin did not consider this; therefore his tree metaphor is not completely accurate and does not tell the whole story.
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) refers to the transfer of genes between organisms in a manner other than traditional reproduction. Also termed lateral gene transfer, it contrasts with vertical transfer, the transmission of genes from the parental generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction. HGT has been shown to be an important factor in the evolution of many organisms, including bacteria, plants and humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
Again, you would have to explain why the common descent theory should be discarded. -
As I take tokes of the marijuana smoke.................
I would suppose you're on something other than marijuana -
Only trees.......
Sorry to disappoint you..............
Not just me saying this again this 2 min video explains in full detail why "there is no tree of life"........
Again......
Interesting that Darwin's destruction comes from @Oceanic biology............http://youtu.be/-bMQkAqxNeE
