How do I "stimulate", my Evolution? I can be stimulated to embrace the theory, but what next?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well that would happen even without your permission. I'll work at keeping you in the dark then. No point in me being honest.

You're not being honest, you're just jumping to conclusions.

 

[SkyWriting]

You're not being honest, you're just jumping to conclusions.

Jumping to conclusions is what thinking is all about.
Sorry...I promised not to tell you stuff. sorry

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Jumping to conclusions is what thinking is all about.
Sorry...I promised not to tell you stuff. sorry

Thinking and jumping to conclusions are two very different things.

But I really don't care to have a conversation with you on this or anything else really.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Scripturally speaking, we study the scriptures.

Meditatively speaking, we practice meditation.

Your question points out a great difference between science and these practices.

Science is the study of what happens in reality.

We do not need to practice being attracted to the earth via the theory of gravity. Gravity happens. You don't need to understand the theory of gravity in order to be subject to gravity. You cannot 'escape' gravity through ignorance or indifference or defiance.

The same is true of evolution. It is a fact of nature. It happens.

 

[SkyWriting]

But I really don't care to have a conversation with you on this or anything else really.

Oversharing.

 

[returntosender]

Imo, they are mutually exclusive

I wasn't replying to you. I was giving my opinion to anyone posting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I wasn't replying to you. I was giving my opinion to anyone posting.

And I was responding to your open comment on a thread that anyone with an account on this site can respond to.

 

[returntosender]

And I was responding to your open comment on a thread that anyone with an account on this site can respond to.

No, you said I was posting to you.

 

[returntosender]

And that's your opinion. But there are many people who do not seem them as mutually exclusive.

And please, if you're going to reply to me, please use the QUOTE or REPLY buttons. Makes it so much easier.

Get over yourself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Get over yourself.

Says the incredibly rude person.

Don't want to interact with anyone on this thread, don't post on it. Very simple.

 

[Jamdoc]

Hi there,

So, yes, a basic basic concept for you: you have the theory, but how do you "stimulate" the Evolution that the theory makes you aware of?

Scripturally speaking, we study the scriptures.

Meditatively speaking, we practice meditation.

Instinct grows, if it is practiced - it stands to reason that "Evolution" would require a specific (unique?) exercise of instinct (for specifically "Evolutionary" instinct to "grow").

I'm not asking something hard: race car drivers, race; but they also visualize the race, to hone their skills (which is better survival as a race care driver, but not as a direct consequence of choosing to be a race car driver).

What about your proclivity to err against the individual? If one were to practice ignoring the Evolution of the individual, one would understand Evolution more?

Give it some thought?

That's not how evolution works as a biological process or as a theory for biogenesis or biodiversity.

Evolution is at its core, a process that only works as sexual beings sexually reproduce. The crossing over and gametofusion that occurs all the genetic recombination (and its errors that are mutations) make a POPULATION evolve (change at a genetic level) over generations.

The biological process of evolution (microevolution, evolution WITHIN a species) can be demonstrated in bacteria, (or even dogs and cats, and crops, it's what we're doing when creating breeds of dogs or strains of plants) it's a fact.
MACROevolution, that is applying that concept to the point of creating new species, is the theoretical part, and has never been demonstrated to happen.

But even within microevolution, it does not happen within an individual over the course of their lifespan, that's a total and utter fallacy and failure to understand the concept. It is at best ignorance used for the purpose of mocking. It's like if someone who knows nothing about the bible talks to you about how the atonement of Jesus Christ makes no sense, how can someone else pay the penalty for your crimes? But to someone who has biblical knowledge it makes perfect sense.
It is not constructive and it is a pure unadultered display of ignorance.

Where microevolution takes place is within the species as a whole or at least an isolated population of a species.
To some degree you can claim that the fact that Lions and Tigers can reproduce with each other as a pointer to macroevolution, that both cats came out of the same family and are genetically close, but can still be demonstrated to be different species by the fact that those hybrids are sterile.

My thoughts?
We're told in Genesis that things reproduce after their "kind" and people assume kind is a "species" level distinction.
But I would say it is a taxonomic "family" distinction.
You can hybridize, and therefore demonstrate common ancestor origin, between different species of big cats, or horses and donkeys, or wolves and coyotes... you cannot however, make a hybrid between a cat and a dog, their chromosomes are so different it just doesn't work.
Something (and I think we'd agree Someone) made the canidae family and felidae family distinct "kinds" that reproduce after each other. Now they may branch out into different species over time, so 1 species of feline ancestor that God created after their "kind" could branch out into domestic cats, lions, tigers, servals, caracals, lynx, leopards, and jaguars, using an evolutionary biological process.
However that original feline species.. was created directly by the creator.
There are MILLIONS of species that Noah would have had to cram onto the Ark.
But only about 20,000 animal FAMILIES.
Much more tenable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Evolution is at its core, a process that only works as sexual beings sexually reproduce. The crossing over and gametofusion that occurs all the genetic recombination (and its errors that are mutations) make a POPULATION evolve (change at a genetic level) over generations.

Evolution does not require sexual reproduction. Any form of reproduction with heritable variation will do.

MACROevolution, that is applying that concept to the point of creating new species, is the theoretical part, and has never been demonstrated to happen.

if your definition of macroevolution involves speciation, it has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. IOW, the evolution of new species is an observed fact.

You can hybridize, and therefore demonstrate common ancestor origin, between different species of big cats, or horses and donkeys, or wolves and coyotes... you cannot however, make a hybrid between a cat and a dog, their chromosomes are so different it just doesn't work.
Something (and I think we'd agree Someone) made the canidae family and felidae family distinct "kinds" that reproduce after each other. Now they may branch out into different species over time, so 1 species of feline ancestor that God created after their "kind" could branch out into domestic cats, lions, tigers, servals, caracals, lynx, leopards, and jaguars, using an evolutionary biological process.

If a population of one species becomes divided into two isolated sub-populations, each of which continues to microevolve, what is to stop them microevolving to the point where they are no longer reproductively compatible, e.g. unable to interbreed to produce viable offspring?

 

[Ophiolite]

People don't respond to nonsense posts.

Oh, come now. I've seen your posts receive lots of replies.

 

[Jamdoc]

Evolution does not require sexual reproduction. Any form of reproduction with heritable variation will do.

if your definition of macroevolution involves speciation, it has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. IOW, the evolution of new species is an observed fact.

Has not been demonstrated to create a new species that can no longer reproduce with the old, which is supposedly the line at which a new species is created.

If a population of one species becomes divided into two isolated sub-populations, each of which continues to microevolve, what is to stop them microevolving to the point where they are no longer reproductively compatible, e.g. unable to interbreed to produce viable offspring?

That's the part in which it's still theory, because when we do breeding programs we create subspecies .... but ultimately are still able to reproduce with the original species.
Generally in order to make something no longer able to breed at all.. it needs to have a chromosomal difference, not just mutations within the Chromosomes that make them different. and that doesn't happen the same way single point mutations happen.
Even a buildup of single point mutations doesn't cause that.
They'll still have the same number of Chromosomes and be able to breed.
We've not even been able to get it to the point where the offspring are infertile in controlled settings.

 

[Hank77]

You patently just disregarded what I said:



I reflect too much, that's why I find communication so hard - and it is also why I need something better than endless speculation about "what could be", if we just let things take their natural course? Wake up?

This video help me when I was just stuck and needed more clarification.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This video help me when I was just stuck and needed more clarification.

Not that John Lennon guy again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Has not been demonstrated to create a new species that can no longer reproduce with the old, which is supposedly the line at which a new species is created.

Well, no. The popular or 'folk' definition of speciation is reproductive incompatibility, but in the biological sciences, it is one of many. In general, speciation is said to have occurred when two subpopulations are sufficiently different to merit being treated as different species. 'Species' is not a well-defined scientific term, it's more a matter of utility & judgement.

But there are examples of evolution leading to reproductive incompatibility in 'ring species', where a chain of related species can interbreed, but the two species at each end of the chain cannot. For example, species A can breed with species B, B with C, C with D, and D with E, but E cannot breed with A.

That's the part in which it's still theory, because when we do breeding programs we create subspecies .... but ultimately are still able to reproduce with the original species.

What about ring species?

Generally in order to make something no longer able to breed at all.. it needs to have a chromosomal difference, not just mutations within the Chromosomes that make them different. and that doesn't happen the same way single point mutations happen.

Citation?

Even a buildup of single point mutations doesn't cause that.
They'll still have the same number of Chromosomes and be able to breed.

Having the same number of chromosomes doesn't mean species can interbreed, and an accumulation of point mutations affecting the reproductive process, from fertilisation and implantation to placental and embryonic development, can cause reproductive incompatibility. For many closely related species, it is a simple physical incompatibility of the reproductive organs that prevents interbreeding.

 

[Jamdoc]

Well, no. The popular or 'folk' definition of speciation is reproductive incompatibility, but in the biological sciences, it is one of many. In general, speciation is said to have occurred when two subpopulations are sufficiently different to merit being treated as different species. 'Species' is not a well-defined scientific term, it's more a matter of utility & judgement.

By that logic domestic dogs are not Canis lupus, but.. they can breed with wolves.
Breeding is basically the only objective line you can draw for species.

But there are examples of evolution leading to reproductive incompatibility in 'ring species', where a chain of related species can interbreed, but the two species at each end of the chain cannot. For example, species A can breed with species B, B with C, C with D, and D with E, but E cannot breed with A.

What about ring species?

Give an example to what you mean.

Citation?

It's not going to be a citation, but the fact that hybrid species exist between animals that have different or the same number of Chromosomes and are closely related enough within a family, and yet the offspring are sterile shows the concept well enough.
I do throw the bone that evolution within an animal family to create new species does happen.
Where I think it jumps the shark is the idea that animal families themselves evolved from one another on their own. I'm a theistic evolutionist. But I think without God.. the mechanisms are not sufficient to have canidae and felidae separate from a common origin Single point mutations are not sufficient to create those Chromosomal differences needed to separate out the families.

Having the same number of chromosomes doesn't mean species can interbreed, and an accumulation of point mutations affecting the reproductive process, from fertilisation and implantation to placental and embryonic development, can cause reproductive incompatibility. For many closely related species, it is a simple physical incompatibility of the reproductive organs that prevents interbreeding.

It's not always the same number of Chromosomes, as Donkeys and Horses can interbreed despite having a different number of Chromosomes. The Chromosomes more importantly need to be corresponding to each other so they can make pairs..
No pairs, no viable offspring.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

By that logic domestic dogs are not Canis lupus, but.. they can breed with wolves.
Breeding is basically the only objective line you can draw for species.

It's not that simple. What about the vast majority of creatures that are non-sexual? What do you count as 'breeding' - what if they are behaviourally incompatible, i.e. reproductively compatible in other ways but refuse to mate? what if they are anatomically incompatible, i.e. reproductively compatible in other ways but their genitals are incompatible? what if all the offspring are naturally aborted? what if most of the offspring are naturally aborted? what if they all die before reaching sexual maturity? what if most die before reaching sexual maturity? what if they're all infertile? what if most are fertile? etc., etc.

Give an example to what you mean.

Ring Species (definition)
Ring Species (brief)
A Closer Look at a Classic Ring Species (detailed).

It's not going to be a citation, but the fact that hybrid species exist between animals that have different or the same number of Chromosomes and are closely related enough within a family, and yet the offspring are sterile shows the concept well enough.

Are you suggesting sterile hybrids are species despite being unable to breed?

I do throw the bone that evolution within an animal family to create new species does happen.
Where I think it jumps the shark is the idea that animal families themselves evolved from one another on their own. I'm a theistic evolutionist. But I think without God.. the mechanisms are not sufficient to have canidae and felidae separate from a common origin Single point mutations are not sufficient to create those Chromosomal differences needed to separate out the families.

If you agree that evolution of one species can create a new species, what's to stop that process continuing until there are two or more branches leading to groups of species where each group has characteristics that distinguish it from the others? IOW, if you admit speciation can occur, what is the limiting factor that prevents families of species developing? How is that prevented?

It's not always the same number of Chromosomes, as Donkeys and Horses can interbreed despite having a different number of Chromosomes. The Chromosomes more importantly need to be corresponding to each other so they can make pairs..
No pairs, no viable offspring.

And if they correspond, but are unable to pair up? or if they can pair up but meiosis fails? or... etc.? It's a complicated business, and there are a lot of ways it can fail, even within a species.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Where I think it jumps the shark is the idea that animal families themselves evolved from one another on their own. I'm a theistic evolutionist. But I think without God.. the mechanisms are not sufficient to have canidae and felidae separate from a common origin Single point mutations are not sufficient to create those Chromosomal differences needed to separate out the families.

Why?

The first "canidae and felidae" would have just been a simple species splitting no differently than any other new species split.

It's only when each of those splits into many species that we start to think of the groupings as "higher taxa".