What doesn't it explain in the natural world?
Evolution - True Or False
- Thread starter darksidZz
- Start date
- Status
What doesn't it explain in the natural world?
The answer would depend on the species in question.
I don't think you are here to troll. Hence I see no reason to use 'red'.
See for instance 'life of mammals' by david attenborough. Several monkey species (5 or so) move through the forest together as one entity with the different species occupying different zones of the canopy/floor. Each have different warning signs. Each species knows each others warning signals. They communicate with each other. Protect each other.
I give you a unspecific reply because your question is unspecific.
Nobody knows how many primate species have lived in africa.
See for instance 'life of mammals' by david attenborough. Several monkey species (5 or so) move through the forest together as one entity with the different species occupying different zones of the canopy/floor. Each have different warning signs. Each species knows each others warning signals. They communicate with each other. Protect each other.
I give you a unspecific reply because your question is unspecific.
Nobody knows how many primate species have lived in africa.
life exists because it reproduces
and
life reproduces because it exists.
it doesn't really explain it.
but since everything is nothing,
i guess there's nothing to explain.
IAC, what exactly is your argument here? Where do you seem to feel evolution falls down?
A species - and I use the Biological Species Concept, and biologists here who don't like it can go soak their heads - is that which can breed effectively among themselves. Humans are a species. Dogs, frankly, are not really a species: they should be grouped with wolves and coyotes and the like, since interbreeding is possible. And so forth. What is the debate here?
A species - and I use the Biological Species Concept, and biologists here who don't like it can go soak their heads - is that which can breed effectively among themselves. Humans are a species. Dogs, frankly, are not really a species: they should be grouped with wolves and coyotes and the like, since interbreeding is possible. And so forth. What is the debate here?
If biologists would rightfully place interbreeders within the same "species" (syngameons), there would be less than perhaps 10% of the number of "species," and these would rightfully be called syngameons, which are often at the Genus level, and sometimes at the Family level on the phylogenic tree, and this would teach students the true demarcations among the kinds of animals.
In other words, what were millions of species would rightfully be described within thousands of syngameons, so there would be a whole new picture for students to consider.
Species is not a meaningless term. However, it is provisional. There are exceptions and grey areas where it doesn't always have meaning. This is because in the 19th and 20th centuries, we assumed that the world could be classified. It was an attempt to force the infinitely variable world into ideal linear definitions. We now know that things aren't so simple.
If you look at many other scientific definitions, you will find the same thing. For instance, "planet", "particle", "red", "blue". In religion, we find "saint". There is at least one saint who's deeds might not be considered saintly by some.
Existence in general doesn't have clear definitions or boundaries. Is the word "you" meaningless just because the atmosphere is flowing through your pores and lungs, because other animals and plants are flowing through (some living in) your guts?
Yorda,
Life exists because long ago the Earth's oceans were a concentrated soup of amino acids and complex organic molecules. As these interacted chemically, a certain configuration had the property of lining up with another kind of abundant molecule to make copies of itself. Since the copies weren't always exact, variations appeared that could copy themselves better. These soon became more numerous, stimulating more and better variations like membranes so it can't get eaten by others. Naturally, these would dominate the oceans until something different came along. Abiogenesis describes how lifeless molecules (IAC's goo) formed a reiterative process using the energy of the sun and the unique conditions of the early oceans. Liquid water at high pressure and temperature at the bottom of the ocean was forced to absorb minerals. Water that hot has unique properties, since it won't form steam at high pressure. This made the oceans well suited for all kinds of chemical interactions. Right now we think of the oceans as simple bodies of water, but these days life uses any organic chemistry that accumulates. Before there was life to break it down, these would accumulate. It probably was a thick gooey substance, perhaps to the ocean floor. It was just a huge chemistry experiment waiting to happen.
Evolution explains how this iterative process was inherently self improving and became an arms race.
If you look at many other scientific definitions, you will find the same thing. For instance, "planet", "particle", "red", "blue". In religion, we find "saint". There is at least one saint who's deeds might not be considered saintly by some.
Existence in general doesn't have clear definitions or boundaries. Is the word "you" meaningless just because the atmosphere is flowing through your pores and lungs, because other animals and plants are flowing through (some living in) your guts?
Yorda,
Life exists because long ago the Earth's oceans were a concentrated soup of amino acids and complex organic molecules. As these interacted chemically, a certain configuration had the property of lining up with another kind of abundant molecule to make copies of itself. Since the copies weren't always exact, variations appeared that could copy themselves better. These soon became more numerous, stimulating more and better variations like membranes so it can't get eaten by others. Naturally, these would dominate the oceans until something different came along. Abiogenesis describes how lifeless molecules (IAC's goo) formed a reiterative process using the energy of the sun and the unique conditions of the early oceans. Liquid water at high pressure and temperature at the bottom of the ocean was forced to absorb minerals. Water that hot has unique properties, since it won't form steam at high pressure. This made the oceans well suited for all kinds of chemical interactions. Right now we think of the oceans as simple bodies of water, but these days life uses any organic chemistry that accumulates. Before there was life to break it down, these would accumulate. It probably was a thick gooey substance, perhaps to the ocean floor. It was just a huge chemistry experiment waiting to happen.
Evolution explains how this iterative process was inherently self improving and became an arms race.
Last edited:
Where is the evidence that all happened, or is it just a hyphothesis?
You can see DNA making copies of itself in the laboratory. Don't you think it's the least bit odd that a lifeless molecule is able to copy itself in a test tube?
Like the creature from the Black Lagoon?
Well does it or doesn't it? Do you deny that your body even functions with DNA, or is that another scientific fraud?
It functions with DNA.
Will the DNA turn into the Creature from the Black Lagoon?
[expletive deleted] off.
Oh, wait, do you mean a manatee? Or perhaps an Amazonian river dolphin? Maybe.
Oh, wait, do you mean a manatee? Or perhaps an Amazonian river dolphin? Maybe.
Nice reasoned response goat.
...to the Black Lagoon question?
...a reasoned response,
...to the Black Lagoon question.
...is that what you expected?
...are you truly 100% insane?
...a reasoned response,
...to the Black Lagoon question.
...is that what you expected?
...are you truly 100% insane?
Well, I may be called a heretic for this - and it's true I'm branching into the heretical aspects of evolution - but I would essentially agree with this part at least. We are, I think, "overspecifying" a bit; I suggest there's a bit of naturalist carryover there, in our Linnean urge to name everything in the classical, distinct manner.
Thanks mate.
The obvious inference with the use of syngameons to classify would be to acknowledge the plausibility of all the kinds of animals being on Noah's Ark, an obviously upalatable notion for the mainstreamers, so the species concept will not go down easily.
Isn't though!
That will change I assure you.
I kinda see where you're going.
Creationist have a long history or trusting God for certain explanations or even not requiring an explanations.
That should be the defining change in science to day. That we ask more questions and get more answers.
But that hasn't been the case...Creationist gave science a great head start. All the great discoveries were accomplished by creationist or should I call them catastrophist such as Copernicus, Newton, Kepler....
They all took "why" for granted.
Later this change. But the change was due to anti-genesis motivations. That which they trusted before they not only believed but vehemently discarded.
Uniformitarianism is the result and it's all linked to that initial anti-genesis motivations. So while I consider getting science and religion away from each other...alienation was not a propper scientific agenda.
For once I get to say this.... * The two understandings are completely and entirely mutally exclusive. * Purpose and chaos.
I'm saying that they aren't challenging the norm...
We are taught creatures...how often do we challenge that teaching when the consquences are so obvious...
we're social animals we consider these consequences. I"ll stop there for times sake.
I'd like to say that your thinking and thus this discussion has been very enlightening.
- Status