The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[VirOptimus]

That is why I want to clear this up, before I give you examples.
If you want to see a rock that behaves exactly like a biological life does, so you can agree that a rock is alive, then you are not realistic and can never agree on what I would explain. For example, you want me to show you a rock cell which looks or works exactly like a biological cell.

Instead, you need to review an idea or a question: what is a life?
If we found a silicon based "life" form somewhere in space, which does NOT work like carbon based life on earth, would you call that "life"? How could you recognize that it is alive?

In order to demonstrate that rock is alive according to our "concept" of life, I can show you:
Rocks can be born and rocks can die.
Rocks can grow larger and rocks can "produce" other rocks. (for example, if a basalt can "produce" a granite, would you say that basalt is alive? Why not?)
Rocks can interact with their environment, such as they can eat, drink, and breath.
Rocks can interact with each other.
What else do you like to see which can be taken as a performance of a "life"?

In terms of the process and the mechanism that work behind all those features, they do NOT have to be the same as what a biological life does. Why should they?

Based on what's said, if you agree, then we can continue. Otherwise, you can continue to argue, or be dismissed.

Seriously? You cant be this stupid can you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Your story goes like this:
DNA a --> lizard A
DNA b --> lizard B
DNA (0.5a + 0.5b) --> lizard C

If you concluded that the existence of lizard C is because the change of DNA a (or b), then why don't we have
Lizard D --> DNA (0.3a +0.7b) ? [genetics modification in lab]

You can not think the existence of human is caused by the appearance of human genetics. It can go backward.

I am repeating my argument. You did not get what I said.

I, nor anyone else, has claimed that HUMANS were a species that resulted from this kind of hybridization. You wanted examples of a species arising via hybridization, and I gave it. I see no point in you moving the goal posts. If you wanted to talk about human evolution, you shouldn't have asked about species that arose via hybridization, because no one claims that our species is the result of that. Certainly, there are populations of humans that hybridized with Neanderthals, etc., but the genetic impact of that was minimal and doesn't even cover our entire population.

Also, lizard D does exist in those all female lizard populations; gene crossover and conversion still happens in their gametes, so some lineages do end up with more from one species than the other. Note this image http://www.web-books.com/MoBio/Free/images/Ch8D4.gif

However, even in the unlikely event that a specific lineage always ended up with more genes from one ancestral species over and over until it was all from that species, that population wouldn't revert back to being a member of that species rather than the all female one, because that wouldn't undo the fact that the all female species is triploid, and the parent species is diploid.

Having 3 copies of a chromosome instead of 2 has a huge impact on gene expression and is the reason that these lizards reproduce by parthenogenesis. These all female lizard species are permanently reproductively incompatible with their parent species.

However, in many cases (not including these lizards specifically), it is entirely possible for a hybrid population to be reabsorbed into one of the parent populations and for it to never result in a new species. Happens rather frequently, actually.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is why I want to clear this up, before I give you examples.
If you want to see a rock that behaves exactly like a biological life does, so you can agree that a rock is alive, then you are not realistic and can never agree on what I would explain. For example, you want me to show you a rock cell which looks or works exactly like a biological cell.

It'd have to function like a cell in order to be a cell.

Instead, you need to review an idea or a question: what is a life?
If we found a silicon based "life" form somewhere in space, which does NOT work like carbon based life on earth, would you call that "life"? How could you recognize that it is alive?

As in, how it would be distinct from a non-living rock? Silicon would take the place of carbon, and in all other aspects this organism should just function like life on Earth, with various chemical substitutions as necessary. It's internal structure wouldn't be like a normal rock at all, because the rigid, crystalline structure of rocks prevents the dynamic and continuous change needed for a living cell. Furthermore, they'd maintain themselves.

In order to demonstrate that rock is alive according to our "concept" of life, I can show you:
Rocks can be born and rocks can die.

Not really. You've acted as if cracking a rock in two would be synonymous with cell division as a form of reproduction in previous conversations that I've had with you, but it isn't. Why? Because the rock can't internally mediate that. All analogies you can have for rocks having lifelike properties amount to this one fundamental problem: it is always a force outside of the rock itself facilitating it. Cells themselves instigate cell division and reproduction. Sure, cells may divide in response to hormones and other stimuli, but that division is never the direct cause. The hormones themselves aren't splitting the cell.

Rocks can grow larger and rocks can "produce" other rocks. (for example, if a basalt can "produce" a granite, would you say that basalt is alive? Why not?)

It's not multiplying itself, and you know it. Basalt itself isn't converting any of its mass, the environment is, and that entirely determines how the rock changes. The basalt itself is not consuming, other material is being pushed into it by outside forces. Actual living cells actively and selectively integrate molecules that benefit their survival; a rock that forms via droplets carrying sediments depositing said sediments had no input into that formation in and of itself.

Rocks can interact with their environment, such as they can eat, drink, and breath.

Rocks do not respond to stimuli at all. For example, I have a crystal I made when I was in middle school that is water soluble. If I dropped it in a glass of water, it would slowly dissolve, and it wouldn't respond any differently to that environment than it was sitting on the shelf. However, living cells respond to such things by attempting to flee, change their physiology to protect themselves, etc. The crystal does no such thing. In addition to changing in response to stimuli, living organisms resist internal changes DESPITE environmental ones in order to maintain an internal environment that can function. The crystal has no resistance, and thus dissolves.

Rocks can interact with each other.
What else do you like to see which can be taken as a performance of a "life"?

-_- you still haven't addressed that rocks don't have genetic material that they pass down.

In terms of the process and the mechanism that work behind all those features, they do NOT have to be the same as what a biological life does. Why should they?

They don't have those features in the slightest. Rocks do not have a metabolism, they do not take in material and convert it in a useable manner within themselves. All changes in rocks are environment driven exclusively.

Based on what's said, if you agree, then we can continue. Otherwise, you can continue to argue, or be dismissed.

I have no idea why you keep defending your view that rocks could be classified as alive in any sense.

 

[juvenissun]

It'd have to function like a cell in order to be a cell.


As in, how it would be distinct from a non-living rock? Silicon would take the place of carbon, and in all other aspects this organism should just function like life on Earth, with various chemical substitutions as necessary. It's internal structure wouldn't be like a normal rock at all, because the rigid, crystalline structure of rocks prevents the dynamic and continuous change needed for a living cell. Furthermore, they'd maintain themselves.


Not really. You've acted as if cracking a rock in two would be synonymous with cell division as a form of reproduction in previous conversations that I've had with you, but it isn't. Why? Because the rock can't internally mediate that. All analogies you can have for rocks having lifelike properties amount to this one fundamental problem: it is always a force outside of the rock itself facilitating it. Cells themselves instigate cell division and reproduction. Sure, cells may divide in response to hormones and other stimuli, but that division is never the direct cause. The hormones themselves aren't splitting the cell.


It's not multiplying itself, and you know it. Basalt itself isn't converting any of its mass, the environment is, and that entirely determines how the rock changes. The basalt itself is not consuming, other material is being pushed into it by outside forces. Actual living cells actively and selectively integrate molecules that benefit their survival; a rock that forms via droplets carrying sediments depositing said sediments had no input into that formation in and of itself.


Rocks do not respond to stimuli at all. For example, I have a crystal I made when I was in middle school that is water soluble. If I dropped it in a glass of water, it would slowly dissolve, and it wouldn't respond any differently to that environment than it was sitting on the shelf. However, living cells respond to such things by attempting to flee, change their physiology to protect themselves, etc. The crystal does no such thing. In addition to changing in response to stimuli, living organisms resist internal changes DESPITE environmental ones in order to maintain an internal environment that can function. The crystal has no resistance, and thus dissolves.


-_- you still haven't addressed that rocks don't have genetic material that they pass down.


They don't have those features in the slightest. Rocks do not have a metabolism, they do not take in material and convert it in a useable manner within themselves. All changes in rocks are environment driven exclusively.


I have no idea why you keep defending your view that rocks could be classified as alive in any sense.

If you were an space explorer and arrived to another planet, you better be careful. If you still insist to evaluate the "life" on that planet based on what you know on the earth, it could be dangerous.

* A rock is commonly changed by its internal forces.
* The old rock is usually consumed or partially consumed when changed to a new rock.
* A rock responds to outside stimulation actively and sometimes, quickly.
* And a rock DOES pass on its "genetic" information to offsprings. (so the "ancestors" of a rock could be identified.

WHY should a silicon-based life function like a carbon-based life?
You are still young. Don't let your brain be frozen to what the earth has. That is why a life-evaluating space team needs not only biologists, but also geologists.

 

[Kylie]

No. My argument is seriously scientific. It does not need God's intervention. I know what I said and none else in the thread does. Their refutes do not pass the first page of petrology.
Again, I am NOT using it to prove God. It is pure science.

So, do you actually think rocks are alive - Yes or No?

 

[juvenissun]

So, do you actually think rocks are alive - Yes or No?

No.

But, people has to convince me on that.

 

[Jimmy D]

No.

But, people has to convince me on that.

Why should anyone have to convince you of something ridiculous that you know isn’t true?

The thread is about evidence of speciation in the fossil record.

 

[juvenissun]

Why should anyone have to convince you of something ridiculous that you know isn’t true?

To you, rock could be alive. Because you can not exclude the possibility. This proposal is NOT scientifically ridiculous.

 

[stevevw]

Write an article for peer-review. If you cant, well then your ”view” doesnt matter.

I don't need to as there are already peer review papers including the ones I have posted that are sufficent enough so I can just rely on these.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All I said are true.
Take it as your education.

Nothing of what you said was true. It's all complete and utter bull.

 

[Jimmy D]

To you, rock could be alive. Because you can not exclude the possibility. This proposal is NOT scientifically ridiculous.

Whether I subscribe to the notion that rocks are alive or not has got nothing to do with what I posted.

My post pertained to the pointless, off-topic nonsense, that you admitted you don't believe, yet expect people to waste their time discussing.

 

[juvenissun]

Whether I subscribe to the notion that rocks are alive or not has got nothing to do with what I posted.

My post pertained to the pointless, off-topic nonsense, that you admitted you don't believe, yet expect people to waste their time discussing.

I don't expect you to be in the discussion at all.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't expect you to be in the discussion at all.

Well, I'm happy to have met your expectations.

 

[Kylie]

No.

But, people has to convince me on that.

You want people to convince you that a view you don't hold is wrong?

SERIOUSLY?

 

[Kylie]

To you, rock could be alive. Because you can not exclude the possibility. This proposal is NOT scientifically ridiculous.

It is completely ridiculous.

Rocks are not capable of performing ANY of the things that life forms do. Your attempts to show they do are nothing but strawman arguments that illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[juvenissun]

You want people to convince you that a view you don't hold is wrong?

SERIOUSLY?

Yes. Because they are not able to do it.
This would lead to another mistake they made. That is the bottom line.
Your question is much better than anyone which has been asked.

 

[juvenissun]

It is completely ridiculous.

Rocks are not capable of performing ANY of the things that life forms do. Your attempts to show they do are nothing but strawman arguments that illustrate that you have no idea what you are talking about.

This one (not good) falls into a trap which is set by a narrow definition of life.
It was good enough (even 100 years ago). But is no longer now.

 

[Shemjaza]

This one (not good) falls into a trap which is set by a narrow definition of life.
It was good enough (even 100 years ago). But is no longer now.

Why?

People have pointed out the flaws in the overly broad definition of life you are promoting (but apparently don't use yourself).

Using the over broad definition any thing in the universe that can be changed, divided or generated by other process could be considered alive. This, I feel, leaves basically everything material in the definition of 'alive' and thus it is a useless definition.

Could you please present the the definition you personally prefer? (It would also be helpful to understand how this definition determines any given thing is alive or not alive).

I understand humans and animals are alive, but plants are not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes. Because they are not able to do it.
This would lead to another mistake they made. That is the bottom line.
Your question is much better than anyone which has been asked.

Do you just enjoy coming up with complete nonsense and passing it off as something intelligent?

 

[juvenissun]

Why?

People have pointed out the flaws in the overly broad definition of life you are promoting (but apparently don't use yourself).

Using the over broad definition any thing in the universe that can be changed, divided or generated by other process could be considered alive. This, I feel, leaves basically everything material in the definition of 'alive' and thus it is a useless definition.

Could you please present the the definition you personally prefer? (It would also be helpful to understand how this definition determines any given thing is alive or not alive).

I understand humans and animals are alive, but plants are not?

Very good. So you understand the definition of life can be reasonably argued. However, even we can use different processes to define a system as a life, but there is, indeed, a fundamental function which every forms of life should have: it is a cyclic process. This is very important. For example, we can NOT identify a single such process in the rock system, so that rock is not proper to be called a life system.

If a system-critical process of a system does not operate in cycles, then this system should not be called a life. If it does, then it could become a candidate of a "life" system.

Not finished yet, but do you agree so far? Since we are talking about a general, universal principle, so ANY exception should be considered.