You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
PurestEvil on scored.co
8 months ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
If you ignore humans... where did every other animal come from? Plants, fish, corals, fungi, bacteria, viruses? Did they develop on their own, and only we have put into existence overnight? And what about niggers, aboriginals, Arabs and Indians?
See, no matter what, the same answer must apply to all life. Did everything on Earth exist overnight, or did it develop over billions of years?
Rationalize a mechanism that constantly reduces aspecies population, and then explain how said process instead grows it.
Is your thought process that a single cell held all the biodiversity we enjoy? And that while presumably competing over the same resources, diverted into predator/prey?
What? I don't think that makes any sense. The point is very simple: Successful specimen reproduce more while failing specimen reproduce less (or die out). There is no "reducing" or "increasing" population... at least it doesn't make sense in this context. This is observable even today in every life form, including humans, and it is also common sense. It is even used in machine learning - you run millions of iterations, and the successful ones get scored higher, and you let those with the highest scores get a little variance. Then, using that next generation, you repeat the process.
> Is your thought process that a single cell held all the biodiversity we enjoy?
That's like asking if a piece of iron is "holding" the death of hundreds before it got forged into a sword. Evolution is a process of continuous change, so if there is a point in time where there are 1000000 cells, it's quite possible that all of life emerged from those over a large time span. It's also possible that all of humanity evolved from a single cell that simply spread via cell division and eventually changed into getting bigger, having limbs and having sexual reproduction. It's possible humans, niggers, apes all evolved from a single cell.
But this is not something you can predict. It's only hindsight that skews your view. Or do you already know that in 1000000 millions years we evolve into hairless, gray skinned, less muscular, big brain, alien-looking humanoids, where the relation from humans today to that is the same as apes to humans? They might even be as reluctant to accept they evolved from homo sapiens as we are to accept that we evolved from apes.
8 months ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)1 child
>What? I don't think that makes any sense. The point is very simple: Successful specimen reproduce more while failing specimen reproduce less (or die out).
If you have 10 frogs and 2 of them are the "fittest" and the rest die off. That's the system that continually culls members of a system. Always paring down.
>This is observable even today in every life form, including humans, and it is also common sense.
Evolution is not common sense. It's counter intuitive. We all came from a single organism but throughout human history we haven't seen any critter evolve?
>It is even used in machine learning - you run millions of iterations, and the successful ones get scored higher, and you let those with the highest scores get a little variance. Then, using that next generation, you repeat the process.
A continual system that pares down.
>That's like asking if a piece of iron is "holding" the death of hundreds before it got forged into a sword. Evolution is a process of continuous change, so if there is a point in time where there are 1000000 cells, it's quite possible that all of life emerged from those over a large time span.
No, it's nothing like that. Do you think that all carbon based lifeforms came from a single, common, simple organism?
>It's also possible that all of humanity evolved from a single cell that simply spread via cell division and eventually changed into getting bigger, having limbs and having sexual reproduction. It's possible humans, niggers, apes all evolved from a single cell.
So you would agree then that all of human biodiversity came from a single cell? What other possibility would there be?
>But this is not something you can predict. It's only hindsight that skews your view.
I'm not the one believing we came from rocks. I'd review your views before commenting on mine.
>Or do you already know that in 1000000 millions years we evolve into hairless, gray skinned, less muscular, big brain, alien-looking humanoids, where the relation from humans today to that is the same as apes to humans?
In fact I do know. We will not evolve into homonovus because we have never evolved in the past.
>They might even be as reluctant to accept they evolved from homo sapiens as we are to accept that we evolved from apes.
We didn't evolve from apes. There is no missing link. Nothing on planet earth has ever evolved into anything. Speciation, adaptation sure. Nothing else though.
8 months ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)1 child
> If you have 10 frogs and 2 of them are the "fittest" and the rest die off.
And then the 2 lay hundreds of eggs, and 20 of them survive to have the opportunity to reproduce. And merely dying is not the determining factor - genetic reproduction is. The point is that certain *genes* die off or thrive. And in general we are talking about tendencies, not absolutes.
> We all came from a single organism but throughout human history we haven't seen any critter evolve?
They are not pokemon, where you can watch them "evolve" within seconds. Evolution fundamentally occurs when you have 2 specimen, and they reproduce, getting children. These children carry the genes of both specimen plus a little variance. For humans 1 generation is around 20-30 years, meaning it is a single instance of genetic variation. When you get a child, that's where one instance of evolution just occurred. And your child is probably unspectacular as its parents, so what "evolution" do you expect to witness anyway?
Noticeable changes occur over the span of many generations, so it takes many years - aka multiple human lifetimes. But you can observe it in a laboratory with bacteria and fruit flies in the span of less than a year... but I assume you'd dismiss that anyway.
> No, it's nothing like that. Do you think that all carbon based lifeforms came from a single, common, simple organism?
No. But that doesn't really relate to what I said...
> So you would agree then that all of human biodiversity came from a single cell? What other possibility would there be?
We don't know. Why should I muster up certainty about it? Maybe.
> I'm not the one believing we came from rocks.
I'm not believing the anthropomorphized God, one day when he was bored, did a little magic and poof every lifeform existed, kissed Earth and then flew away. This is a childish idea. That's why I wonder if people seriously believe that. If yes - I guess it's typically USA. Neither Europeans nor Orientals believe that, not even Christians.
> Nothing on planet earth has ever evolved into anything.
If that were the case, life couldn't exist, because there would be no mechanism to make life forms adapt to new environments. If Earth's average temperature would change +10°C or -10°C, a lot of species would simply die out. And such harsh temperature changes DID occur in the past - little and big ice ages.
Also you must believe that the children do not carry the genes of their parents, because that is what the theory of evolution is based on. IF you believe that, I don't understand how you can think specieses cannot change over generations. What if the same process occurs for 1 million years? Sure a lot of would change, right? There you go, evolution.
>And then the 2 lay hundreds of eggs, and 20 of them survive to have the opportunity to reproduce.
The hope is they lay 20. But what if they lay 10?
>Evolution fundamentally occurs when you have 2 specimen, and they reproduce, getting children.
That's reproduction bud. Not evolution lmao
>These children carry the genes of both specimen plus a little variance.
How many generations until we can fly?
>But you can observe it in a laboratory with bacteria and fruit flies in the span of less than a year... but I assume you'd dismiss that anyway.
I remember reading about the fruit flies. I think they did 100k generations. And you know what happened? Slightly different fruit flies? Doesn't that disprove your point?
>But that doesn't really relate to what I said
Common ancestors don't have anything to do with evolution?
>We don't know. Why should I muster up certainty about it? Maybe.
You don't know. I do.
>I'm not believing the anthropomorphized God, one day when he was bored, did a little magic and poof every lifeform existed, kissed Earth and then flew away.
Uneducated on both evolution and Christianity? You're a dual threat!
>This is a childish idea.
As opposed to believing we essentially came from rocks? You ought reexamine your belief system.
>That's why I wonder if people seriously believe that.
The great irony here is that men throughout history who were smarter, more accomplished and better than you, and you have the gall to call their belief childish. Laughable.
>If that were the case, life couldn't exist, because there would be no mechanism to make life forms adapt to new environments.
Evolution is a theory. Adaptation is observable.
>Also you must believe that the children do not carry the genes of their parents, because that is what the theory of evolution is based on.
No. You don't understand the argument. I d not believe we carry within our DNA the ability to grow wings, or gills, or anything else similar.
>IF you believe that, I don't understand how you can think specieses cannot change over generations.
Species do change in the micro. But not the macro. We have no evidence that a cat can become a fish, or a fruit fly can be anything other than a fruit fly.
>What if the same process occurs for 1 million years? Sure a lot of would change, right? There you go, evolution.
Adaptation and speciation sure. Evolution? Nah.
The fruit flies themselves disprove your theory. But your faith in it blinds you.
See, no matter what, the same answer must apply to all life. Did everything on Earth exist overnight, or did it develop over billions of years?
Is your thought process that a single cell held all the biodiversity we enjoy? And that while presumably competing over the same resources, diverted into predator/prey?
The *theory* of evolution doesn't make any sense.
What? I don't think that makes any sense. The point is very simple: Successful specimen reproduce more while failing specimen reproduce less (or die out). There is no "reducing" or "increasing" population... at least it doesn't make sense in this context. This is observable even today in every life form, including humans, and it is also common sense. It is even used in machine learning - you run millions of iterations, and the successful ones get scored higher, and you let those with the highest scores get a little variance. Then, using that next generation, you repeat the process.
> Is your thought process that a single cell held all the biodiversity we enjoy?
That's like asking if a piece of iron is "holding" the death of hundreds before it got forged into a sword. Evolution is a process of continuous change, so if there is a point in time where there are 1000000 cells, it's quite possible that all of life emerged from those over a large time span. It's also possible that all of humanity evolved from a single cell that simply spread via cell division and eventually changed into getting bigger, having limbs and having sexual reproduction. It's possible humans, niggers, apes all evolved from a single cell.
But this is not something you can predict. It's only hindsight that skews your view. Or do you already know that in 1000000 millions years we evolve into hairless, gray skinned, less muscular, big brain, alien-looking humanoids, where the relation from humans today to that is the same as apes to humans? They might even be as reluctant to accept they evolved from homo sapiens as we are to accept that we evolved from apes.
If you have 10 frogs and 2 of them are the "fittest" and the rest die off. That's the system that continually culls members of a system. Always paring down.
>This is observable even today in every life form, including humans, and it is also common sense.
Evolution is not common sense. It's counter intuitive. We all came from a single organism but throughout human history we haven't seen any critter evolve?
>It is even used in machine learning - you run millions of iterations, and the successful ones get scored higher, and you let those with the highest scores get a little variance. Then, using that next generation, you repeat the process.
A continual system that pares down.
>That's like asking if a piece of iron is "holding" the death of hundreds before it got forged into a sword. Evolution is a process of continuous change, so if there is a point in time where there are 1000000 cells, it's quite possible that all of life emerged from those over a large time span.
No, it's nothing like that. Do you think that all carbon based lifeforms came from a single, common, simple organism?
>It's also possible that all of humanity evolved from a single cell that simply spread via cell division and eventually changed into getting bigger, having limbs and having sexual reproduction. It's possible humans, niggers, apes all evolved from a single cell.
So you would agree then that all of human biodiversity came from a single cell? What other possibility would there be?
>But this is not something you can predict. It's only hindsight that skews your view.
I'm not the one believing we came from rocks. I'd review your views before commenting on mine.
>Or do you already know that in 1000000 millions years we evolve into hairless, gray skinned, less muscular, big brain, alien-looking humanoids, where the relation from humans today to that is the same as apes to humans?
In fact I do know. We will not evolve into homonovus because we have never evolved in the past.
>They might even be as reluctant to accept they evolved from homo sapiens as we are to accept that we evolved from apes.
We didn't evolve from apes. There is no missing link. Nothing on planet earth has ever evolved into anything. Speciation, adaptation sure. Nothing else though.
And then the 2 lay hundreds of eggs, and 20 of them survive to have the opportunity to reproduce. And merely dying is not the determining factor - genetic reproduction is. The point is that certain *genes* die off or thrive. And in general we are talking about tendencies, not absolutes.
> We all came from a single organism but throughout human history we haven't seen any critter evolve?
They are not pokemon, where you can watch them "evolve" within seconds. Evolution fundamentally occurs when you have 2 specimen, and they reproduce, getting children. These children carry the genes of both specimen plus a little variance. For humans 1 generation is around 20-30 years, meaning it is a single instance of genetic variation. When you get a child, that's where one instance of evolution just occurred. And your child is probably unspectacular as its parents, so what "evolution" do you expect to witness anyway?
Noticeable changes occur over the span of many generations, so it takes many years - aka multiple human lifetimes. But you can observe it in a laboratory with bacteria and fruit flies in the span of less than a year... but I assume you'd dismiss that anyway.
> No, it's nothing like that. Do you think that all carbon based lifeforms came from a single, common, simple organism?
No. But that doesn't really relate to what I said...
> So you would agree then that all of human biodiversity came from a single cell? What other possibility would there be?
We don't know. Why should I muster up certainty about it? Maybe.
> I'm not the one believing we came from rocks.
I'm not believing the anthropomorphized God, one day when he was bored, did a little magic and poof every lifeform existed, kissed Earth and then flew away. This is a childish idea. That's why I wonder if people seriously believe that. If yes - I guess it's typically USA. Neither Europeans nor Orientals believe that, not even Christians.
> Nothing on planet earth has ever evolved into anything.
If that were the case, life couldn't exist, because there would be no mechanism to make life forms adapt to new environments. If Earth's average temperature would change +10°C or -10°C, a lot of species would simply die out. And such harsh temperature changes DID occur in the past - little and big ice ages.
Also you must believe that the children do not carry the genes of their parents, because that is what the theory of evolution is based on. IF you believe that, I don't understand how you can think specieses cannot change over generations. What if the same process occurs for 1 million years? Sure a lot of would change, right? There you go, evolution.
The hope is they lay 20. But what if they lay 10?
>Evolution fundamentally occurs when you have 2 specimen, and they reproduce, getting children.
That's reproduction bud. Not evolution lmao
>These children carry the genes of both specimen plus a little variance.
How many generations until we can fly?
>But you can observe it in a laboratory with bacteria and fruit flies in the span of less than a year... but I assume you'd dismiss that anyway.
I remember reading about the fruit flies. I think they did 100k generations. And you know what happened? Slightly different fruit flies? Doesn't that disprove your point?
>But that doesn't really relate to what I said
Common ancestors don't have anything to do with evolution?
>We don't know. Why should I muster up certainty about it? Maybe.
You don't know. I do.
>I'm not believing the anthropomorphized God, one day when he was bored, did a little magic and poof every lifeform existed, kissed Earth and then flew away.
Uneducated on both evolution and Christianity? You're a dual threat!
>This is a childish idea.
As opposed to believing we essentially came from rocks? You ought reexamine your belief system.
>That's why I wonder if people seriously believe that.
The great irony here is that men throughout history who were smarter, more accomplished and better than you, and you have the gall to call their belief childish. Laughable.
>If that were the case, life couldn't exist, because there would be no mechanism to make life forms adapt to new environments.
Evolution is a theory. Adaptation is observable.
>Also you must believe that the children do not carry the genes of their parents, because that is what the theory of evolution is based on.
No. You don't understand the argument. I d not believe we carry within our DNA the ability to grow wings, or gills, or anything else similar.
>IF you believe that, I don't understand how you can think specieses cannot change over generations.
Species do change in the micro. But not the macro. We have no evidence that a cat can become a fish, or a fruit fly can be anything other than a fruit fly.
>What if the same process occurs for 1 million years? Sure a lot of would change, right? There you go, evolution.
Adaptation and speciation sure. Evolution? Nah.
The fruit flies themselves disprove your theory. But your faith in it blinds you.