Why male and female?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, the "Theory of Everything" has not been found, although I find it to be a bit of a misnomer, since it suggests that after you find it, you're done and all the physicists can go home.

I wonder if that is possible? I mean if finding the ultimate theory of everything meaning there is then nothing more of any significance to study in physics and all meaningful physics research, at least in cosmology and fundamental physics, would come to a permanent end? I hope not.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Not understanding how natural selection and mutations can lead to new species is like not understanding how you can travel 50 miles if you can travel 10 feet.

I'm able to understand that, but I can also understand how to travel 50 miles along 5 different stretches of 10 mile roads, if I hop from one to the other. It implies a rather large hop and doesn't necessarily mean I've traveled 50 miles in one direction... so even in a straight line it's possible to travel 50 miles along 5 different roadways and only be 10 miles from where I started.

You said 10 feet, and I do understand feet are much smaller units than miles... but the analogy still works. I didn't want to complicate things by converting miles into feet.

Originally posted by humy

By "link" I mean something or some idea that can unify natural selection within a species and the theory of evolution.

the statement “ unify natural selection within a species” doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
What does “unify natural selection” mean? "unify" in what sense and with what? Please explain.
[quote] Einstein looked for ...[text shortened]... thinking? they were working on two totally different things that are totally unrelated.

Of course it doesn't make sense, not the way you're saying it. If your questions actually reflected what I did say then I might be able to answer you.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Not understanding how natural selection and mutations can lead to new species is like not understanding how you can travel 50 miles if you can travel 10 feet.

Are you saying because I question evolution it means I don't understand it?
If so, does this mean every time you question something I've said it means you don't understand it? I don't understand your logic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So why not list some of the so called 'inconsistencies'.

Its not true that 'evolution needed to divorce itself from abiogenesis'. It has never been dependant on abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a conclusion from the Theory of Evolution, or from the fact that we exist. If anything, the Theory of evolution allows for a single abiogenesis event whereas without common ancestry, one must conclude there were large numbers of abiogenesis events.

Darwin himself rambled on about how abiogenesis might have happened, so he did recognise the connection between that and his theory. He didn't just recognise it, he assumed it.

If a woman becomes pregnant no one in their right mind assumes the baby didn't start from a point of conception, or assumes aliens seeded the womb. It's ridiculous to assume evolution didn't have a starting point. To say that evolution has never been dependent on abiogenesis is denying a fundamental premise of the theory. I could deny I started from a point of conception too, but that doesn't mean it would be true.

There are more "so called" inconsistencies than I can remember, so maybe I will have to take some time to find more than just a few. Abiogenesis is one example. Punctuated equilibrium was quickly pulled out of thin air to explain the sudden appearance of highly developed organisms during the Cambriam period. There is no evidence of PE other than the need to explain sudden leaps from one species to the next.

This is why evolutionists get so excited when they think they've found even one example of a transitional species, and then quietly sweep the "discovery" under the rug. For instance, the skull of a modern day female gorilla really isn't the missing link in mans evolution. I don't know why... I don't have a problem with the first man being a modern day female gorilla. Do you?

Or how about the level of preservation in a dino bone that befuddles the experts but doesn't befuddle you. Is there something you know that the experts don't know, or have overlooked?

Originally posted by humy
yes. And you have seen it; just choose to ignore it.

There wasn't any to ignore in the first place.

The Instructor

Originally posted by lemon lime
Again, I was not defining the word evolution. I was describing something, not defining it... I assumed it was obvious from the context just what it was I was describing.

It was not obvious from the context, especially since you had this sentence in your context:

We appear to agree that a definiton can be a description

Then you proceeded to give a description that you now say was not a definition.

I don't see why you are confused by point 3. Darwin was attempting to find a link between natural selection within a species and his theory.
I now understand what you are saying, the confusion arose because you seem to think Darwins theory consists entirely of common ancestry, when it is really much larger than that and includes natural selection. So when you say 'a link between natural selection and his theory' it is confusing.

I did not repeat point 5. It's not a point that can be agreed upon because not everyone agrees it's a fact. Only people who have no doubts about it will call it a fact. That's why I dropped it from the list.
Its still not clear what you dispute about 5. Do you dispute the existence of mutations, or do you dispute the effects they have on evolution?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm able to understand that, but I can also understand how to travel 50 miles along 5 different stretches of 10 mile roads, if I hop from one to the other. It implies a rather large hop and doesn't necessarily mean I've traveled 50 miles in one direction... so even in a straight line it's possible to travel 50 miles along 5 different roadways and only be 10 miles from where I started.

It appears you don't know what the word 'species' means. So lets clarify what your understanding is:
1. Are dogs and wolves different species? Do you think they are related?
2. Are great danes and chihuahua's different species? Do you think they are related?
3. What species are mules?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Darwin himself rambled on about how abiogenesis might have happened, so he did recognise the connection between that and his theory. He didn't just recognise it, he assumed it.

Of course there is a connection. That doesn't mean that abiogenesis is part of the Theory of Evolution or that it is required for evolution. Your claim that abiogenesis has been 'divorced from the Theory' is blatantly false.

If a woman becomes pregnant no one in their right mind assumes the baby didn't start from a point of conception, or assumes aliens seeded the womb.
If aliens seeded the womb, would you change your theory of pregnancy? Would it make the placenta any different? Would it mean the woman was in fact not pregnant, but just fat?

To say that evolution has never been dependent on abiogenesis is denying a fundamental premise of the theory.
Now you are changing it around. Now you are saying that if we can prove that the woman was not near a man within the last 9 months, then the whole theory of pregnancy is wrong. This is nonsense and you know it. Evolution implies abiogenesis, it is not dependent on it. If a woman is pregnant, it implies conception, but once pregnant, she is going to abort, or go into labour (theory of pregnancy) whether or not the pregnancy started from conception.

I could deny I started from a point of conception too, but that doesn't mean it would be true.
And you could deny that evolution started with abiogenesis, but that doesn't mean it would be true. But surely that argument works against you, not for you?

This is why evolutionists get so excited when they think they've found even one example of a transitional species, and then quietly sweep the "discovery" under the rug.
Now you are just making stuff up. Give actual examples of people sweeping discoveries under the rug.

For instance, the skull of a modern day female gorilla really isn't the missing link in mans evolution.
Of course not, so whats your point? Who claims it is?

Or how about the level of preservation in a dino bone that befuddles the experts but doesn't befuddle you. Is there something you know that the experts don't know, or have overlooked?
What doesn't befuddle me is the the claims of an anonymous person on the internet reporting on rumors he heard a long time ago. There are as yet no experts involved, nor any actual dino bones. When you present a reference to the experts and dino bones and I will look at it and tell you whether or not I am befuddled.

What is befuddling, is when you hear that a dino bone was broken open and the interior turned red, you concluded that the bone must be much younger than all the other evidence we have to the contrary. Surely an as yet unidentified chemical reaction makes far more sense? But no, you jumped to a totally unwarranted conclusion based on hearsay and guesswork. Why? Do you have religious reasons for disputing the Theory of Evolution?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It was [b]not obvious from the context, especially since you had this sentence in your context:

We appear to agree that a definiton can be a description

Then you proceeded to give a description that you now say was not a definition.

I don't see why you are confused by point 3. Darwin was attempting to find a link between dispute the existence of mutations, or do you dispute the effects they have on evolution?

I'm assuming we have the same understanding of what the original theory was and what Darwin was attempting to do. I know that mutations play a part in evolution theory. I don't necessarily agree with what mutations are able to do to support the theory's claim that organisms transform into progressively more complex organisms. I understand the theory, but this doesn't necessarily mean I agree with everything the theory says.

I agree with natural selection or variation within a species because it has been proven. It has been demonstrated long before it ever could have been proven by science, so there is no disagreement between us on that point.

The sticking point here seems to be "mutation". I don't know how you define mutation. Maybe you define it as one of the natural internal processes of selection already present in DNA. If so then I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the assumption this 'mutation' (as I've imagined you might be defining it) is what is able to cause organisms to develop into progressively more complex organisms.

I'm trying to choose my words carefully, but I'm also assuming you can gather my meaning whether I've used the correct word or not. I won't nick pick over your words if I'm able to gather your meaning, because frankly I think it's a waste of time and intellectual energy. IMO fools who only want to argue and have no interest in honest dialogue are just that... they are fools.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It appears you don't know what the word 'species' means. So lets clarify what your understanding is:
1. Are dogs and wolves different species? Do you think they are related?
2. Are great danes and chihuahua's different species? Do you think they are related?
3. What species are mules?

Pffft

1. By species do you mean they conform to the same specs? What do you mean by "related"? Do you mean are they cousins, or brothers by a different mother? What do you mean by "different"? What does that mean? You are not being very clear.

2. Same species, but watching them attempt to mate is a hoot.

3. Mules are the same species as you. Stubborn as hell.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm able to understand that, but I can also understand how to travel 50 miles along 5 different stretches of 10 mile roads, if I hop from one to the other. It implies a rather large hop and doesn't necessarily mean I've traveled 50 miles in one direction... so even in a straight line it's possible to travel 50 miles along 5 different roadways and only be ...[text shortened]... the analogy still works. I didn't want to complicate things by converting miles into feet.

You completely confuse your understanding how you can travel 50 miles if you can travel 10 feet by insisting on doing it in difficult single 10 feet hops and insist on keep changing the direction of the hops at that! Utterly ridiculous! Why do that? Why can't each 10 feet be done, say, with several very short easy steps instead of insisting on a single difficult hop? And make the direction of each 10 feet the same direction as all the other 10 feet?
-Now we have a clue of why you might be confusing your understanding of evolution.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Pffft

1. By species do you mean they conform to the same specs? What do you mean by "related"? Do you mean are they cousins, or brothers by a different mother? What do you mean by "different"? What does that mean? You are not being very clear.

2. Same species, but watching them attempt to mate is a hoot.

3. Mules are the same species as you. Stubborn as hell.

What do you mean by "related"?

he means the same thing as the rest of us with at least half a brain; they share a common ancestry. Is that too confusing for you?

You didn't intelligently answer is question about which species of mules belong to (just gave an extremely unintelligent insult); are mules a species of donkey or a species of horse or both or which species if neither?

Originally posted by lemon lime
1. By species do you mean they conform to the same specs? What do you mean by "related"? Do you mean are they cousins, or brothers by a different mother? What do you mean by "different"? What does that mean? You are not being very clear.

I am being very clear. I am asking whether you think dogs and wolves are the same species. What is so unclear about that?
What do I mean by 'species'? That is what I am asking you, what do you mean by 'species'? I know what my definition is, and by my definition wolves and dogs are in different species, but by my definition, some of what you said earlier simply doesn't make any sense, hence my request for your definition.

3. Mules are the same species as you. Stubborn as hell.
I see you don't really want to clarify what you mean by 'species'.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm assuming we have the same understanding of what the original theory was and what Darwin was attempting to do.

Well clearly your assumption is wrong. You don't seem to know what Darwin's original theory was. You seem to think it was an attempt to achieve something, when in fact it was an explanation of the observed facts.

I know that mutations play a part in evolution theory. I don't necessarily agree with what mutations are able to do to support the theory's claim that organisms transform into progressively more complex organisms. I understand the theory, but this doesn't necessarily mean I agree with everything the theory says.
So what exactly are your objections? So far you have been very vague on the matter.

The sticking point here seems to be "mutation". I don't know how you define mutation. Maybe you define it as one of the natural internal processes of selection already present in DNA.
No, I define it as a change in the DNA due to copying errors or environmental factors.

If so then I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the assumption this 'mutation' (as I've imagined you might be defining it) is what is able to cause organisms to develop into progressively more complex organisms.
Can you be specific as to why you object to that?

I'm trying to choose my words carefully, but I'm also assuming you can gather my meaning whether I've used the correct word or not. I won't nick pick over your words if I'm able to gather your meaning, because frankly I think it's a waste of time and intellectual energy. IMO fools who only want to argue and have no interest in honest dialogue are just that... they are fools.
I only nit pick when I do not gather your meaning. There are a number of times in this thread when you have been extremely unclear about what you are saying.