(November 28, 2018 at 8:04 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 8:02 pm)Nakara Wrote: ...ok I'm not going to bother getting too involved here. You clearly don't understand that macro/micro evolution are the same gorram thing, evolution. The only "difference" is the time scale, and those terms are often used by creationists to make it seem like the evolution of new species is impossible but adaptation is. That somehow species are "locked" into a certain form and can't diverge into something radically different given time. Right...

And no, evolution is not constrained to millions of years. We have observed many species diverge. You have access to the most powerful informational tool in the history of humanity. Use it.

I understand that you like to pretend they are the same thing, but one species turning into an entirely different species is only speculative.

What species, (that are not plants), have you observed diverging?

(November 28, 2018 at 8:04 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 8:02 pm)Nakara Wrote: ...ok I'm not going to bother getting too involved here. You clearly don't understand that macro/micro evolution are the same gorram thing, evolution. The only "difference" is the time scale, and those terms are often used by creationists to make it seem like the evolution of new species is impossible but adaptation is. That somehow species are "locked" into a certain form and can't diverge into something radically different given time. Right...

And no, evolution is not constrained to millions of years. We have observed many species diverge. You have access to the most powerful informational tool in the history of humanity. Use it.

I understand that you like to pretend they are the same thing, but one species turning into an entirely different species is only speculative.

My my, do tell what your scientific credentials are? Because those WITH credentials who spend their lives studying this subject happen to have a very different opinion on that statement.

(November 28, 2018 at 7:43 pm)Everena Wrote:

---

(November 28, 2018 at 3:09 am)Everena Wrote: Nope. Explain, in your own words, from your own understanding of it, how the complexity of DNA could ever possibly come about without an intelligent driving force.

(November 28, 2018 at 1:07 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Sorry, but  don't feel like chewing your food for you today.

Excuse me? So by that you are saying you have no idea how, and your paper does answer my question at all either.

You haven't even clicked the link have you?

No, I'm saying that I'm not doing all your thinking for you today. You can't seem to figure out what fungi are or what speciation is, so discussing complexity and emergent behaviour with you will be a bit like bike racing against an oyster.

(November 28, 2018 at 1:09 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 2:28 am)Everena Wrote: I will accept your apology for lying about me and pretending that plants are creatures.

No one was lying, except you, Snookums.
Please note # 1, dumbshit.

creature
noun
crea·ture| \ˈkrē-chər      \

Definition of creature      


1 : something either animate or inanimate: such as
a : a lower animal especially : a farm animal
b : a human being
c : a being of anomalous or uncertain aspect or nature creatures of fantasy

2 : one that is the servile dependent or tool of another : instrument

And he was inferring that plants were creatures. So your point is that I was right and you just wanted to supply another definition that also proves that I am right?

(November 28, 2018 at 8:06 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 8:04 pm)Everena Wrote: I understand that you like to pretend they are the same thing, but one species turning into an entirely different species is only speculative.

What species, (that are not plants), have you observed diverging?

BAM 2 second Google search:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sci...ervations/

Also, why can't plants be used as examples? Are only they allowed to evolve but not animals?

(November 28, 2018 at 1:20 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:36 am)Everena Wrote: They are closer to plants than non-conscious life is to animals.

No they aren't and you're wrong again. Most animals are not conscious, so the distance there is zero.

(November 28, 2018 at 3:36 am)Everena Wrote: And what non-conscious life is classified as animal btw?[/b]

Sponges, jellyfish, barnacles, sea cucumbers... There are birds that will gleefully beat their brains out attacking their reflection. The list of conscious animals would be a damned sight shorter.

The fact that consciousness is difficult to define means that it's a lousy criteria for classification, which is why nobody uses it. If you use poorly defined criteria then all of your classifications reduce to mere opinions.

All of those animals are conscious except perhaps sponges (that are basically plants too- yeah I said it). What exactly makes someone like you think they aren't?

Almost 1000 pages. Wow.

(November 28, 2018 at 8:08 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 7:43 pm)Everena Wrote:

---

Excuse me? So by that you are saying you have no idea how, and your paper does answer my question at all either.

You haven't even clicked the link have you?

No, I'm saying that I'm not doing all your thinking for you today. You can't seem to figure out what fungi are or what speciation is, so discussing complexity and emergent behaviour with you will be a bit like bike racing against an oyster.

I read the paper. It in no way addresses my question and you quite obviously cannot come up with any answer.

Stoekle and Thaler's biggest problem is probably that they aren't actually observing speciation. They're tracing a single gene (COI) in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed down solely through the maternal line. The result is that they keep bumping into "mitochondrial Eve", a statistical effect whereby a female ancestor eventually becomes the single female ancestral lineage for an entire species. Human mitochondrial Eve was alive 120,000 to 150,000 years ago, which agrees perfectly with their data. They're likely seeing the same phenomena in all the other species. No population bottlenecks or speciation events required, they just traced the last matrilineal most recent common ancestor. That's actually a bit disappointing.

(November 28, 2018 at 4:35 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 4:04 pm)Everena Wrote: Because they included mold spores, bacteria, plants, and fungi into that 5 billion species, and they are not even conscious life.

---

But according to YOU, your fool god went to all the trouble to design them, now didn't she ?
Still waiting for you to point to where in the articles it says what you claim.

She sure did. And there was obviously some good reason for it all happening the way it did.