|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I think you 'must' - but not for my arguement's sake. The rna distinction is contrived to suit a particular, narror research factor encountered - IOW, you are positing a specific instance, not a generic premise here. Virus' are engenius in manourvering their mode of survival (cancer, AIDS, Diabetes have resisted all cures), nor does an attacking virus have to be retro. Basically, if I'm correct, you are saying if a virus or other form of attacking entity, can attack both an animal and human - the theory of speciation suffers? My point here is that if a virus becomes embedded in the rna or dna, it is not a proof of speciation per se - because it negatively impacts on speciation being a viable guarantee. The other point is that speciation is indeed a perishment of one life form to usher in another. The issue of an ape evolving to a modern human cannot be proven by the factors tended.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No impact.
quote: But the bear is said to have evolved from another bear - which does not survive when the new bear has evolved. We don't see Mamoths anymore - we see elephants. The grammatical rule is, one must take the logical path of what it means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The point was that a retrovirus transmigration via dna/rna would negatively impact speciation. The obvious answer is YES. Whether this negates speciation per se was not the issue, but that the virus is not a deciding factor here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The many species does not impact, because the particular bear in that species is perished. That speciation is the deathknell of its precedence is not disputable. If a protoype is nominated for modern humans - it also says one is abolete and extinct. The categorising does not impact here. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yes - that's a deathknel at ground zero. The execptions of a toad adapting elsewhere does not alter the paradigm. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Its not clumsy in the sense any fine tuning will enhance it. So apes become human because of a viral indent in its dna - a unique event? And that imprint was embedded in all life forms, and Eureka! Why don't we worship this viruas then - at least it will be a religion with some reality cadence. Apes had no immune system - yet they can adapt and survive. Or if they did have one, they carefully took on only that part of the retrovirus which would allow them to survive - they prevailed over the virus's attack. Your problem is much further back: you have forgotten that a virus is also a life, and this one would have survived only because it prevailed over its precedent life forms' immunity defenses. There goes your Ape prevailing this virus premise! And also your 'unique' once only event - this one would be old as the hills! Reading this stuff and gulping it down without playing devil's advocate is very robotic. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: When the thread is followed, it says all life forms incurred the same imprint of a retro, then became a generic syndrome in all life forms, pursuent to speciation:
quote: The population becomes D and E. So are you rejecting my interpretation, while accepting that apes and humans emrged by a unique event of a viral attack? And does this account for life - or speciation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That apes would have no immune system is inferred not by me. The premise the ape was not able to dislodge or reject the virus, says that. It does not matter the virus was harmless - this is probably not the apes' doing in any case. It means that a harmful virus could also have been accepted by the ape - which makes the apes' survival very doubtful!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The time factor between the two events is irrelevent here. That they are critically aligned to the conclusion made is the operative factor. What is said, is that speciation is tracked to the unique once only retro event decribed, and this is here:
quote: and the conclusion:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Agreed.
quote: Agreed. But the above is not the issue. What is being added here is, the ape was infected by a virus which embeds in its dna - which inheriting was outside of the ape's control, while the viral attack was successfully defended via its immunity defense mechanism; and further, that this was one unique event which set a chain reaction for all apes, then with other animals and then with humans. Now the extent of this chain is not the issue here, namely if it applies to a select few apes or animals; also whether this is an inference which signifies humans are ape derived pursuent to this event - is also not the basis of my arguement in this instant. With regard the virus, aside from its lodgement in dna, would not be alive for large epochs of time; with a lesser period its surviving would cause either death or degeneration of the host; culminating either way in a scenario which says either the ape has to defend itself or perish if the virus remains active. Here what is also said, is that the virus was rendered harmless - this is possible only via the ape's successfull immunity mechanism, or the virus perishing of itself. This results in two possible outcomes, respectively: If the virus perished of its own, not by the ape's immunity factor, the issue of a virus becomes muted; except that this is qualified there was a viral imprint embedded in the ape's acquired dna - which the virus performed to survive the ape's defenses, and here the virus was successful: or was it? The virus being harmless says its survival mechanism was ineffective - it perished; yet its dna lodgement was still effective. This is like hiv positive without acquiring aids, but in such a case the virus is still active, only potentially dangerous - which affirms it being alive; further, that virus can activate to 'harming' mode at anytime: the ape would ecome either weakened, or perish in time, pursuent to a virus which attack at any time. Here, the premise of the retro and the ape scenario conflicts with the known process. If the virus perished by the ape's defenses, rendering it harmless - this says also, that the virus' defense of embedding in the dna was a failed effort - because this was the only means it could survive - destroying the virus by making it harmless - destroys its action in the dna! Further, the virus being active itself is a result of its previous successful encounter with another life form - its predessessor. So this is not a unique event, but potentially one of many, and a clear example the precedent life form perishes with speciation. But the ape did not perish - it should have if a human evolved it - in emulation of this constant. That speciation occurs, and the precedent host does not perish - is not possible, and more a selective position taken to validate an end position. It does not pass the reality test.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Evolution, namely the chronological emergence of different life form species, was inroduced in Genesis; this agreement of species is not pursuent to Darwin. Mircoevolution is not the issue - the conclusion made of it, is the issue, and this debate is inclined with genesis being correct.
quote: An extension seen from skeletal and other biological features, common to all life, does not prove any culmination with humans - which are differently attributed than all other life forms by their un-commonalities - not addressed by Darwin, but well addressed by Genesis: Genesis identifies this difference with speech - a fulcrum, unique factor, and that all transmissions are seed generated - not even mentioned in Darwin's Theory, but which transcend the premise of Darwin, rendering them superfluous. Darwin would fail the test of ticking the difference manifest in life forms: humans are not distinquised by similarity of spinal cords, knee joints and dna. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Not so. Time has had no impact on speech being seen elsewhere, which is the highest attribute of adaptation. Nor does the past millions of years of evolution indicate this will occur in the distant future. Here, Genesis is fully vindicated.
quote: The species appear to be graduating within their species only, despite imprints of commonality of all life forms, including with vegetation. This means, animals will change/adapt as animals - unless it is assumed these changes will include speech. A contrived or real link between a pineapple and a zebra does not conclude these derived from those extensions, but that they pursue their own despite these imprints.
quote: But there is a difference between environmental impacts and speciation. Skin color and features are environmental impacts, resultant from 1000s of years of changes. There has been sufficient time passed with no evidence of any life form, anywhere, has changed over time to indicate speciation to human mode. Why are the oldest known life forms not the predominant one, if an accumulated elevation is time based?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Having an immune system is not the issue - this is a positive attribute, and it operates involuntarilly. The issue is that a life form would accept destruction of itself, as a positive attribute, and equated with fighting a flu virus, makes far less sense. The imprints of life are not the same for the particular adaptation of species. Fighting flu is not the same as acceptance of my destruction for another species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Context. The quote by itself does not define the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The originator of a precept is not irrelevent; its original depictions are more impacting than any other factor.
quote: Correct. The differential is more distinuishing than the commonalities of all life forms. Its abscence in the equation makes it deficient in illustrating the difference and connectivity between species. genesis is correct here.
quote: Simple: none of the birds have speech; birds are distinquished from animals and fish by their special air-borne attribute. Genesis' separation criteria is correct. Darwin's criteria is applicable to birds - but since he has categorised them incorrectly, disregading the pivotal differences separating these life forms, the fulcrum differences are not focused or addressed; instead, the factors common to all life are adressed. Thus we know that all life possesses commonalities, but we have no info why they remain different?
quote: It is a pivotal difference which is not acknowledged - this is the only obvious factor here. All other similarities are meaningless, because while they explain commonalities between all life, they do not explain the pivotal differences which separate them. Genesis does this - without infringing any legitimate, proven premise.
quote: I did. The only 'pass' answer is that speech differentiates humans - no other factor applies. Humans are thus a species on their own - regardless of commonalities with all life forms.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024