Killer Whales Are Evolving Into Two Different Species

[Nathan Poe]

Please research the subject before you say nonsense.

Isn't it against forum rules to suggest someone leave CF permanently?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please research the subject before you say nonsense. There was a lot of research and peer review into stellar bodies, their composition, mass, density, size, etc. And all this research and new evidence, such as the fact that Pluto is only one of around 70,000 similar stellar bodies in its region, including some larger ones, is why the IAU had a vote on the matter.

How do you 'peer review into stellar bodies, their composition, mass, density, size, etc.'?

I thought someone does that first, then it's peer reviewed.

 

[sandwiches]

How do you 'peer review into stellar bodies, their composition, mass, density, size, etc.'?

I thought someone does that first, then it's peer reviewed.

How do you peer review evidence of composition of stellar bodies? How do you peer review findings of thousands of stellar bodies the size of Pluto? How do you peer review findings of the mass, density, and size of said objects? If you can't understand how those findings can and were peer reviewed, then why are you even talking about peer review as though you know anything about the subject?

 

[SkyWriting]

You think peer review is easy? Wow... you have obviously never seen, the viciousness and rabid attacks your work gets by your own 'peers' and 'colleagues.'

I have a trunk full of personal anecdotes as well. In building 503 where I worked, all the test chemicals went through the peer review process. "Of the 19 brain tumor victims who have been identified by Amoco...."

Are cars biological organisms that inherit traits and self-replicate with variation? If not, then as I said before, you've no idea what you're saying.

I can change the illustration into self replicating nanobots from different countries if you insist on a better model. Just because this group of nano-bots have the same structure as this other group of nano-bots, does this prove they have a common origin?

What if the Chinese group replicates in a new and different way. Then months later Nanobots from Russia begin to replicate the same way. The two countries are side by side and a 100% accurate trail of paperwork PROVES that first one appeared, then the other.
The two sources are 1/4 mile apart straddling the border.
The two samples are 1 month apart.
First China.
Then Russia.
Do you have proof of a common origin?

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't even get the point of this post. Are you saying that sex offenders have no descendants or relatives?

Just that I don't have enough proof to convict yet.

 

[BananaSlug]

See, here's the problem. If you and I go to a grave yard, and we dig up people who look more like you than me, It doesn't mean we've just found some of your relatives.

So are you saying there is no relation on the simple fact the bones belong to humans?

No matter how many graves we open, and no matter how many scientists gasp! at the similarities. No matter how many "peer reviews" approve the methodology. I don't care if your LAST NAME is on the headstones, and I don't care if you have WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION that a SAM SMITH was indeed your great-grandfather.

We've stated time and time again that fossils cannot show direct lineages. So what would you think of a fossil that half of its characteristics are mammalian and half are reptilian? It has to be either one or the other but which one?

If you say that SAM SMITH was a sex offender I am NOT going to accuse you of being a descendant based on the bone structure of the corpse. So don't try the "relatives" ploy. Even if I'm motivated to, I won't go there.

It is general relation based on bone structure, not specific relation. Do you also disagree with identifying humans based on bone structure? Should we throw out cases where the victim was identified by using the bone structure of the skeleton?

And you should have picked up on this by now, New research is subject to trashing over time. I get to use it because you believe in it. But I only trust the old research that's been properly shot down.

We see through your thinly veiled attempts at falsification. Better luck next time.

 

[sandwiches]

I have a trunk full of personal anecdotes as well.

As long as you realize that your opinion doesn't change reality.

I can change the illustration into self replicating nanobots from different countries if you insist on a better model. Just because this group of nano-bots have the same structure as this other group of nano-bots, does this prove they have a common origin?

What if the Chinese group replicates in a new and different way. Then months later Nanobots from Russia begin to replicate the same way. The two countries are side by side and a 100% accurate trail of paperwork PROVES that first one appeared, then the other.
The two sources are 1/4 mile apart straddling the border.
The two samples are 1 month apart.
First China.
Then Russia.
Do you have proof of a common origin?

If these bots made of the same or similar material, constructed in the same manner, and behave in a similar way, and no other EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE evidence points them being made at different times, it would be reasonable to assume they had a common origin, yes. Point being?

 

[sandwiches]

Just that I don't have enough proof to convict yet.

You guys are truly the ultimate skeptics. You're saying then that morphology, genetic evidence, names, documents, or any observation is good enough for you to link someone to a relative?? How do you even believe your parents are related to you then?

If only you would apply this level of skepticism and required this rigorous evidence to support your belief in your deity...

 

[SkyWriting]

But you would say the skeletons were human and therefore related.

In that they are descendants of Adam and Noah, sure. But no proof that any DNA has passed between them in 10,000 years. No matter how similar.

 

[sandwiches]

In that they are descendants of Adam and Noah, sure. But no proof that any DNA has passed between them in 10,000 years. No matter how similar.

I don't know if it's just me but you seem to be making less and less the more you write. Are you saying that we are all Adam's descendants (therefore all related) but we're not related because genes haven't passed between every single human and every other human in existence?

I am completely lost as what you're trying to say or prove at this point.

 

[SkyWriting]

You guys are truly the ultimate skeptics. You're saying then that morphology, genetic evidence, names, documents, or any observation is good enough for you to link someone to a relative?? How do you even believe your parents are related to you then?

LOL...Good Point! In some cases...children find they are not, Dude.

If only you would apply this level of skepticism and required this rigorous evidence to support your belief in your deity...

That can take minutes. I'll time it...

 

[sandwiches]

LOL...Good Point! In some cases...children find they are not, Dude.

So, you don't believe your parents are your parents, then. Good to know.

That can take minutes. I'll time it...

???

Again... you lose me. I have to say, your strange thinking is reminscent of AV and AoS. Although AV is not quite as... eccentric as AoS.

 

[BananaSlug]

In that they are descendants of Adam and Noah, sure. But no proof that any DNA has passed between them in 10,000 years. No matter how similar.

So do you agree that paternity tests should be thrown out the window as well? If not, why do you accept the validity of paternity tests but not the validity of genetic testing for species relatedness? Do you not realize that parental genetic testing and genetic testing for evolutionary relationships use the same method?

Do you have anything else to say to the rest of my post?

 

[SkyWriting]

You guys are truly the ultimate skeptics. You're saying then that morphology, genetic evidence, names, documents, or any observation is good enough for you to link someone to a relative?? How do you even believe your parents are related to you then?

Naw....what I'm saying is that you can have all those things and still be wrong. The bodies may have no linage at all. Just because they look like you and have the correct name, and the correct time frame...It MAY be the wrong guy.

 

[SkyWriting]

As long as you realize that your opinion doesn't change reality.
If these bots made of the same or similar material, constructed in the same manner, and behave in a similar way, and no other EMPIRICAL, VERIFIABLE evidence points them being made at different times, it would be reasonable to assume they had a common origin, yes. Point being?

Perfect. But as I said. One was built in Russia. The other China.
There is no connection between the two teams.
And there is nothing wrong with your analysis.
Your just wrong...that's all.

Same with Evolution.
There's nothing wrong with your analysis of the situation.
Nobody set out to fool you.
It didn't happen the way you think it did.
Some of the evidence points toward an evolutionary leap
where one species changes into another.
Or chemicals congeal to form life.
But it didn't happen that way.
You've just reached the wrong conclusion.

 

[sfs]

Is it just because I'm sick at the moment, or is this one of the most incoherent threads ever?

 

[SkyWriting]

So, you don't believe your parents are your parents, then. Good to know.

Baby mix ups are a statical reality.

 

[pgp_protector]

Baby mix ups are a statical reality.

So is winning the lottery multiple times, I just wouldn't count on that.

 

[UnionJack]

Is it just because I'm sick at the moment, or is this one of the most incoherent threads ever?

Yeah this thread blows.

 

[sandwiches]

Perfect. But as I said. One was built in Russia. The other China.
There is no connection between the two teams.
And there is nothing wrong with your analysis.
Your just wrong...that's all.

Same with Evolution.
There's nothing wrong with your analysis of the situation.
Nobody set out to fool you.
It didn't happen the way you think it did.
Some of the evidence points toward an evolutionary leap
where one species changes into another.
Or chemicals congeal to form life.
But it didn't happen that way.
You've just reached the wrong conclusion.

Alright. Then, you're in agreement that it is indeed reasonable and logical that we would've reached this conclusion based on the currently available evidence.

Now, we could be completely wrong, as you say, but how do we check to see if we're, indeed, wrong? After all, as you've pointed out, based on what is verifiably evident, evolution is true.