Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Some things are too cathartic to automate.

Topic: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution (Read 3301 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Faid
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #50
Yes dear.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #51
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 

  • Faid
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #52
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 
Lol no.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #53
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 
And this is where the problem lies. The evidence that I have been quoting from a variety of sources shows that in fact there are no intermediates (in-between species) between the hypothetical circles on the slanting line.

  • uncool
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #54
Sweet, socrates thinks common ancestry is false. He's finally coming out and saying it.

  • socrates1
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #55
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 
And this is where the problem lies. The evidence that I have been quoting from a variety of sources shows that in fact there are no intermediates (in-between species) between the hypothetical circles on the slanting line.
Quote
If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice that
the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind
of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are
found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any
two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more or
less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.
Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics
and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variation.... Therefore the biological
classification is simultaneously a man-made system of pigeonholes devised for the pragmatic purpose of recording observations in a convenient manner and an acknowledgement
of the fact of organic discontinuity.

  • socrates1
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #56
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 
And this is where the problem lies. The evidence that I have been quoting from a variety of sources shows that in fact there are no intermediates (in-between species) between the hypothetical circles on the slanting line.
Quote
If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice that
the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind
of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are
found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any
two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more or
less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.
Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics
and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variation.... Therefore the biological
classification is simultaneously a man-made system of pigeonholes devised for the pragmatic purpose of recording observations in a convenient manner and an acknowledgement
of the fact of organic discontinuity.
Quote
And yet--another unexpected finding from the study--species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.

Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #57
So if common descent isn't a thing, then pterosaurs didn't evolve into birds.
Why do I bother?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #58
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
This is for the guests. The folks here will pretend to not understand this. No point arguing that.
sucky, despite your issuing invitations, there are no guests.
But, you're lucky, you don't have to pretend to not understand.
Are we there yet?

  • socrates1
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #59
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 
And this is where the problem lies. The evidence that I have been quoting from a variety of sources shows that in fact there are no intermediates (in-between species) between the hypothetical circles on the slanting line.
Quote
If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice that
the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind
of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are
found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any
two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more or
less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.
Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics
and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variation.... Therefore the biological
classification is simultaneously a man-made system of pigeonholes devised for the pragmatic purpose of recording observations in a convenient manner and an acknowledgement
of the fact of organic discontinuity.
Quote
And yet--another unexpected finding from the study--species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
This could be explained in more detail for the folks here who pretend not to get it.
The bottom line is that cladistic analysis is based on an incorrect principle.

Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #60
And what " incorrect principle" would that be? Spit it out.

Go on. Spell it out in more detail for the "folks here". I fucking dare you. Show your working. Tell us what you mean. Or are you scared to because deep down you know you've got nothing?
Why do I bother?

  • socrates1
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #61
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 
And this is where the problem lies. The evidence that I have been quoting from a variety of sources shows that in fact there are no intermediates (in-between species) between the hypothetical circles on the slanting line.
Quote
If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice that
the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind
of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are
found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any
two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more or
less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.
Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics
and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variation.... Therefore the biological
classification is simultaneously a man-made system of pigeonholes devised for the pragmatic purpose of recording observations in a convenient manner and an acknowledgement
of the fact of organic discontinuity.
Quote
And yet--another unexpected finding from the study--species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
This could be explained in more detail for the folks here who pretend not to get it.
The bottom line is that cladistic analysis is based on an incorrect principle.
In fact evolution theory is based on that incorrect principle*. Cladistic analysis just covers over the incorrectness.

* The correct principle is that there is an absence of "in-between" species
  • Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 09:30:18 AM by socrates1

Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #62
In fact evolution theory is based on that incorrect principle*. Cladistic analysis just covers over the incorrectness.

* The correct principle is that there is an absence of "in-between" species

When will you be deleting your shithead blog claiming pterosaurs evolved into extant birds?    :parrot:

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #63
In fact evolution theory is based on that incorrect principle*. Cladistic analysis just covers over the incorrectness.

* The correct principle is that there is an absence of "in-between" species

When will you be deleting your shithead blog claiming pterosaurs evolved into extant birds?    :parrot:
Don't be forgetting mosasaurs to whales. Chimpanzees and other great apes into various "racial" groups, etc.

It'd be ironic for sucky to correct his silly blog because of an incorrect POV.
Are we there yet?

Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #64
So is the conclusion Socrates wants us to take from this that there is no common ancestry beyond the species level? IOW, no two species share common ancestry? So, for example, the black-billed wood dove and the blue-spotted wood dove are completely unrelated? And, of course, no birds share common ancestry with any pterosaurs? Because that's certainly what he seems to be implying. I just can't imagine why he would be implying that. I mean on one hand, it's batshit insane, so it makes perfect sense that he'd believe it, but on the other hand, it goes completely against all of his batshit insane pterobird arguments. But I guess consistency doesn't make much difference to the batshit insane.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #65
So is the conclusion Socrates wants us to take from this that there is no common ancestry beyond the species level? IOW, no two species share common ancestry? So, for example, the black-billed wood dove and the blue-spotted wood dove are completely unrelated? And, of course, no birds share common ancestry with any pterosaurs? Because that's certainly what he seems to be implying. I just can't imagine why he would be implying that. I mean on one hand, it's batshit insane, so it makes perfect sense that he'd believe it, but on the other hand, it goes completely against all of his batshit insane pterobird arguments. But I guess consistency doesn't make much difference to the batshit insane.
One of the side effects of addiction to the fumes of Scrubbing Bubbles is a rejection of anything not batshit-insane, indeed, a very strong attraction to such.
Are we there yet?

  • socrates1
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #66
People are striving to misunderstand. But you will never match Faid.

  • Faid
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #67
*bows*
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • socrates1
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #68
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 
And this is where the problem lies. The evidence that I have been quoting from a variety of sources shows that in fact there are no intermediates (in-between species) between the hypothetical circles on the slanting line.
Quote
If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice that
the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind
of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are
found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any
two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more or
less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.
Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics
and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variation.... Therefore the biological
classification is simultaneously a man-made system of pigeonholes devised for the pragmatic purpose of recording observations in a convenient manner and an acknowledgement
of the fact of organic discontinuity.
Quote
And yet--another unexpected finding from the study--species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
This could be explained in more detail for the folks here who pretend not to get it.
The bottom line is that cladistic analysis is based on an incorrect principle.
In fact evolution theory is based on that incorrect principle*. Cladistic analysis just covers over the incorrectness.

* The correct principle is that there is an absence of "in-between" species
People think that I have to make a case. Given the absence of intermediates (in-between species) evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do.

  • Faid
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #69
People think that I have to make a case.
People have given up any hope on that years ago.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #70
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
This is for the guests. The folks here will pretend to not understand this. No point arguing that.
Invoking a ghost audience will not help you.

  • socrates1
Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #71
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 
And this is where the problem lies. The evidence that I have been quoting from a variety of sources shows that in fact there are no intermediates (in-between species) between the hypothetical circles on the slanting line.
Quote
If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice that
the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind
of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are
found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any
two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more or
less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.
Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics
and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variation.... Therefore the biological
classification is simultaneously a man-made system of pigeonholes devised for the pragmatic purpose of recording observations in a convenient manner and an acknowledgement
of the fact of organic discontinuity.
Quote
And yet--another unexpected finding from the study--species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
This could be explained in more detail for the folks here who pretend not to get it.
The bottom line is that cladistic analysis is based on an incorrect principle.
In fact evolution theory is based on that incorrect principle*. Cladistic analysis just covers over the incorrectness.

* The correct principle is that there is an absence of "in-between" species
People think that I have to make a case. Given the absence of intermediates (in-between species) evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do.
But evolutionists pretend there is no need to address the problem of the missing intermediates (missing "in-between" species).
  • Last Edit: June 04, 2018, 02:17:51 PM by socrates1

Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #72
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
This is for the guests. The folks here will pretend to not understand this. No point arguing that.
Your ghost audience will not help you.

Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #73
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 
And this is where the problem lies. The evidence that I have been quoting from a variety of sources shows that in fact there are no intermediates (in-between species) between the hypothetical circles on the slanting line.
Quote
If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice that
the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind
of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are
found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any
two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more or
less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.
Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics
and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variation.... Therefore the biological
classification is simultaneously a man-made system of pigeonholes devised for the pragmatic purpose of recording observations in a convenient manner and an acknowledgement
of the fact of organic discontinuity.
Quote
And yet--another unexpected finding from the study--species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
This could be explained in more detail for the folks here who pretend not to get it.
The bottom line is that cladistic analysis is based on an incorrect principle.
In fact evolution theory is based on that incorrect principle*. Cladistic analysis just covers over the incorrectness.

* The correct principle is that there is an absence of "in-between" species
People think that I have to make a case. Given the absence of intermediates (in-between species) evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do.
But evolutionists pretend there is no need to address the problem of the missing intermediates (missing in-between species).
Did you notice how the theory of evolution mentions trees a lot? There is a reason for that.
Just like it is completely unperplexing that all the leaves on a tree are attached to the younger branches, it is completely unperplexing that extant species are relatively recent.
Just like it is completely unperplexing that leaves are not joined to each other by intermediate leaves, but separated by air, it is completely unperplexing that extant species are not joined to each other by intermediate species, but separated by empty space.

Re: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution
Reply #74
Take this for example:


Notice the circles on the slanting line. And notice the principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next.
The circles are called "common ancestors". The principle is that there was an evolution from one circle to the next along the slanting line. 
And this is where the problem lies. The evidence that I have been quoting from a variety of sources shows that in fact there are no intermediates (in-between species) between the hypothetical circles on the slanting line.
Quote
If we assemble as many individuals living at a given time as we can, we notice that
the observed variation does not form a single probability distribution or any other kind
of continuous distribution. Instead, a multitude of separate, discrete, distributions are
found. In other words, the living world is not a single array of individuals in which any
two variants are connected by unbroken series of intergrades, but an array of more or
less distinctly separate arrays, intermediates between which are absent or at least rare.
Each array is a cluster of individuals, usually possessing some common characteristics
and gravitating to a definite modal point in their variation.... Therefore the biological
classification is simultaneously a man-made system of pigeonholes devised for the pragmatic purpose of recording observations in a convenient manner and an acknowledgement
of the fact of organic discontinuity.
Quote
And yet--another unexpected finding from the study--species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.
"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
This could be explained in more detail for the folks here who pretend not to get it.
The bottom line is that cladistic analysis is based on an incorrect principle.
In fact evolution theory is based on that incorrect principle*. Cladistic analysis just covers over the incorrectness.

* The correct principle is that there is an absence of "in-between" species
People think that I have to make a case. Given the absence of intermediates (in-between species) evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do.

Oh but you have made a case.  A fucking nutcase.