(November 17, 2018 at 1:19 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(November 17, 2018 at 1:14 am)CDF47 Wrote: DNA basically operates like machine code.  Regardless of what you think of the definitions of three particular words there is no way the code wrote itself.

Bro it will never click. It won't. But good job bro!

Thanks Mystic!

(November 17, 2018 at 1:04 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:Everena: It did not magically pop into existence with all that we have here, itself. "Things" without intelligence do not do that. It never has happened, never will happen.

Actually, sweetie, they do. Since you had no education, you know nothing about this , but in fact they do .... all the time. 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...icles-rea/

Yes and my argument is that higher intelligence is the cause and yours is that it is just happening by atheist magic. We both get that we on are different sides of the argument too. And I am not your sweetie ditto. 

---

(November 17, 2018 at 12:10 am)Everena Wrote:

(November 16, 2018 at 11:51 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I asked for specifics and you answered that you and someone else mutually experienced feelings which you attributed to the divine.  That's interesting but hardly impressive, as both the fact itself is unremarkable and doesn't necessarily lead to your conclusion and because, depending upon the specifics, it may simply be an example of folie a deux.  Now you are saying that the reason for your inferences had to do with your inability to explain something.  Given your general inability across a range of subjects, I'm not immediately impressed by this, but again I have to press for specifics.  It's a common claim by religious people that something is inexplicable, or at the least, highly improbable which, upon investigation, proved not to be so inexplicable or improbable after all.  Lacking specifics, and especially if you are reluctant to discuss said specifics, our skepticism would be justifiably bolstered.  So I must ask the obvious question.  Just what specifically were these experience that you believe are so improbable as to defy any explanation?

Oh, and as a parenthetical, I'm not sure what you're claiming by saying that I cannot possibly understand what someone else has experienced.  For you to know that, you would have to know what I have experienced, which if I understand your claim, is something you think is impossible, so the claim itself would be self-refuting.  No, I cannot decide what someone else has experienced or why, but I can estimate the probability that said experience may have mundane underpinnings, so I do not need to know conclusively what or why somebody else experienced something.  As long as I can show that there are more probable explanations for their experience than the one they are giving, then I can establish a strong prima facie case that said person's beliefs are irrational and not to be relied upon as indicators of the truth.

Not agreeing with you does not mean that I am lacking in any subjects. And so far none of you has been able to prove me wrong about anything. I have proved other people wrong now numerous times. Perhaps you should re-read the posts. I didn't start until page 588.

My experiences: I was pulled out of my body at age 4 during abuse and could see my body being beaten and could feel no pain while I was out of my body. The abuser even freaked out and said "Where did you go?" Then I had the incredible experience with another person where a huge presense of good energy was in the room with us. Like I said, he mentioned it first, which gave me even more confirmation. I have had the making love experience. I have had an unseen force grab my steering wheel and prevent an accident when I fell asleep driving. And I could go on and on with this. I haven't even mentioned any of the signs and I have had like 40 of them that there is no logical explanation for. Anyway, I am beyond convinced and someday you will be too.

---

(November 16, 2018 at 11:19 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote: Wrong!

Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.

Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian . 2000).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/...peciations

Plants are not convincing to me at all. Any animal would be.

And for the 4 millionth time I said evidence of one species turning into an entirely different species.

(November 16, 2018 at 11:04 pm)Everena Wrote: Now if an animal were ever born anywhere on planet earth that could not mate with the species it was born to, I would also then be convinced.

So, you are looking for a single generation speciation event. Funny. You said you weren't.

(November 17, 2018 at 1:14 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 17, 2018 at 1:00 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: DNA works or operates in the particular way that it does because of the laws of nature.  The same with the wind.  Yet you consider one specified and the other not.  Obviously there is more to function or specification than this or else the notion of function or specification is essentially vacuous and useless for distinguishing designed things from things that weren't designed.  As to the 'proper' way of working or operating, that is a judgement as to its fitness for a particular purpose, or a comment upon someone's subjective valuation of said working or operation.  The first is a teleological appeal and so cannot serve the function of distinguishing designed from non-designed thing, because, as noted, it is not a property of the thing itself, but rather a characteristic of some agent reflecting upon said thing.  The latter does not suffice for similar reasons.  So in the first case, function does not separate design from non-design, so if specification is based upon it, then specification does not distinguish design from non-design.  In the second case, function doesn't distinguish design from non-design because it's not even about the thing itself, so if specification is that, then it can't possibly be the basis of determining design from non-design.

So, in other words, if that is the definition of function you indeed were using, or that you believe that someone else whose opinion you were relying on was using, then you or said person obviously didn't know what they were talking about, as things cannot be distinguished on that basis with reference to the things and their properties themselves.  That's a big fail.

Try again.

DNA basically operates like machine code.  Regardless of what you think of the definitions of three particular words there is no way the code wrote itself.

So, in other words you're backtracking from your claim that the information in DNA is specified and complex and essentially asking me to accept an ipse dixit argument because you can't substantiate those claims.

I'm impressed. Okay, I'm not really impressed.

(November 17, 2018 at 12:14 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(November 16, 2018 at 11:43 pm)Everena Wrote: It could be adaption. And the ring series was proven to not exist... by others in evol bio    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...g-species/

---

Everena: 29? Wow! Where are the billions of misssing ones?

First you asked for ONE example, and when you've been completely pwned on that point you now ask for billions. Thanks once again for demonstrating your blatant ignorance and complete lack of intellectual integrity.

Those are fossils though.. and not convincing ones to me. I'm sorry. Why do you all care that I'm not convinced that one species has turned into an entirely different species? I'm sorry. I'm hard to convince. I have read both sides of this. The skeptics might be right.

(November 17, 2018 at 1:33 am)Everena Wrote:

(November 16, 2018 at 11:53 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote: Wrong again! The article you cited only called into question SOME examples of ring species. There have been plenty of confirmed examples of ring species, to wit:

Evolutionary Relationships Within the Ensatina Eschscholtzii Complex Confirm the Ring Species Interpretation

Craig Moritz
1University of QueenslandQueensland 4072, Australia
Search for other works by this author on:
Oxford Academic
PubMed
[url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Moritz C"]Google Scholar[/url]
Craig Moritz
Christopher J. Schneider
2University of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Oxford Academic
PubMed
[url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Schneider C"]Google Scholar[/url]
Christopher J. Schneider
David B. Wake
3University of CaliforniaBerkeley, California 94720, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Oxford Academic
PubMed
[url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Wake D"]Google Scholar[/url]
David B. Wake
Systematic Biology, Volume 41, Issue 3, 1 September 1992, Pages 273–291, https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/41.3.273

Abstract

Sequences (644-681 bp) from the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene were obtained for 24 individuals representing the geographic range and morphological diversity of the polytypic salamander ring species Ensatina eschscholtzii. These data were used to estimate the phylogeny of components of the ring to test the biogeographic scenario underlying current interpretations of speciation in this complex. The analysis revealed high levels of nucleotide variation among subspecies. Strong subdivision was evident within the subspecies platensis and oregonensis. The phylogenetic hypothesis of minimum length that is best supported by the data contains one monophyletic group that includes populations from the southern Sierra Nevada and mountains of southern California (croceater, klauberi, and southern platensis) and another that includes populations of the southern and central coastal regions (xanthoptica and eschscholtzii) Samples of oregonensis were typically basal, but their precise branching order was unstable. Both oregonensis and platensis were paraphyletic, with several disparate lineages in oregonensis and a strong northsouth dichotomy in platensis. The data were incompatible with a biogeographic model that required all subspecies to be monophyletic but were compatible with slightly modified predictions of a model assuming stepwise colonizations from north to south down the Sierra Nevada and independently down the coastal ranges. These features provide strong support for the biogeographic scenario central to the interpretation of Ensatina eschscholtzii as a ring species. Division of this complex into separate species on the basis of the observed patterns of monophyly for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is unwarranted because further sampling could reveal additional instances of paraphyly across subspecies and, more generally, because mtDNA alone should not be used to infer species boundaries.

-----------

I can find plenty more peer reviewed findings from legitimate scientific journals. You can find them too if you have the intellectual integrity for an honest pursuit of the truth.

Nope, the paper clearly states that there are NO true ring series after all. Sorry Charlie, Why don't you read the whole thing? It even explains why they thought so and why they were wrong. According to the Evol Biologist who wrote it, it doesn't really matter because they have so much other evidence for evolution.

---

(November 17, 2018 at 12:06 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Good answer!  And for my follow up, do you have any recollection of having been there?

No, but when I watch this, I get this weird felling-- like the whole world watched this happen. I know that sounds strange, but watch it and tell me what you think and if you get that same feeling. It's of the Big Bang--  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Om5TNJVmE

Cool video.

---

(November 17, 2018 at 1:49 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 17, 2018 at 1:14 am)CDF47 Wrote: DNA basically operates like machine code.  Regardless of what you think of the definitions of three particular words there is no way the code wrote itself.

So, in other words you're backtracking from your claim that the information in DNA is specified and complex and essentially asking me to accept an ipse dixit argument because you can't substantiate those claims.  

I'm impressed.  Okay, I'm not really impressed.

No, I provided the definitions and you don't like them.  Not my problem.  The definitions are what they are, like any other word is defined.

(November 17, 2018 at 12:22 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(November 17, 2018 at 12:10 am)Everena Wrote: Not agreeing with you does not mean that I am lacking in any subjects. And so far none of you has been able to prove me wrong about anything. I have proved other people wrong now numerous times. Perhaps you should re-read the posts. I didn't start until page 588.

My experiences: I was pulled out of my body at age 4 during abuse and could see my body being beaten and could feel no pain while I was out of my body. The abuser even freaked out and said "Where did you go?" Then I had the incredible experience with another person where a huge presense of good energy was in the room with us. Like I said, he mentioned it first, which gave me even more confirmation. I have had the making love experience. I have had an unseen force grab my steering wheel and prevent an accident when I fell asleep driving. And I could go on and on with this. I haven't even mentioned any of the signs and I have had like 40 of them that there is no logical explanation for. Anyway, I am beyond convinced and someday you will be too.

---

Plants are not convincing to me at all. Any animal would be.

Speciation is not limited to animals. If you had bothered to read the article with the idea of understanding it and followed the links, you would have learned about speciation in animals and insects as well. But that's beyond the capacity of your poor, closed mind. I think it's fairly obvious at this point that you will systematically dismiss any evidence placed before you which conflicts with your faith. You will never learn because you don't WANT to learn. Again, thank you for demonstrating your ignorance and complete lack of intellectual integrity.

I am not dismissing it. And I appreciate you taking the time to post this for me because I know you had good intentions of helping me learn more about evolution. But lets just not talk about it anymore because I have never once said it isn't true. It very well could be. I am just not convinced and I have seen all the evidence before. Something just seems off, but I have confidence in science to find out what that is.

(November 17, 2018 at 1:51 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 17, 2018 at 1:49 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: So, in other words you're backtracking from your claim that the information in DNA is specified and complex and essentially asking me to accept an ipse dixit argument because you can't substantiate those claims.  

I'm impressed.  Okay, I'm not really impressed.

No, I provided the definitions and you don't like them.  Not my problem.  The definitions are what they are, like any other word is defined.

No, you provided the definitions and I pointed out how they didn't fulfill the claims you had made, giving detailed reasons why they did not. It had nothing to do with my liking or not liking them. I'm not even sure I know what it would mean to not like a definition other than to say that a definition is wrong, and that I did not do. So, in addition to proving once again that you can't back up your claims about specified complexity, you're showing that you're a terrible and transparent liar, a fact which I'd already indicated.

Put up or shut up. This whining and lying is unbecoming, even for you.

(November 17, 2018 at 1:48 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(November 16, 2018 at 11:04 pm)Everena Wrote: Now if an animal were ever born anywhere on planet earth that could not mate with the species it was born to, I would also then be convinced.

So, you are looking for a single generation speciation event. Funny. You said you weren't.

Ok well I guess I misunderstood what you meant by that then. Yes, an animal that is in the final stage of evolution, when turning into an entirely different animal would occur. With 7.8 million different species of animals, you would think we could find at least one that was at that stage of evolution.

(November 17, 2018 at 2:23 am)Everena Wrote:

(November 17, 2018 at 1:48 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: So, you are looking for a single generation speciation event. Funny. You said you weren't.

Ok well I guess I misunderstood what you meant by that then. Yes, an animal that is in the final stage of evolution, when turning into an entirely different animal would occur. With 7.8 million different species of animals, you would think we could find at least one that was at the stage of evolution.

You can claim all the education and good grades you want, but this statement shows you know absolutely fuck-all about what evolution is or how it works. No clue at all!

---

(November 17, 2018 at 1:50 am)Everena Wrote: I have read both sides of this.

Your understanding of the subject gives lie to this statement.