Page 1 of 2

THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:41 am
by anne
THE SPECIES PARADOX
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ADOX.pdf
who did the first bird mate with
who did the first dog mate with
an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new
species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate
with to continue the new species either
1)there was no one to mate with
- so how did the new species B
become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new
individuals of species B at the same time so that these new
individual members of species B could mate together
if this 2) was the way it happened we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of
species A give birth to a whole lot new members of
species B at the same time we are told species form
due to random mutations so it is beyound possibility that th
e same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the
same time the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:03 pm
by Age
anne wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:41 am
THE SPECIES PARADOX
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ADOX.pdf
who did the first bird mate with
who did the first dog mate with
an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new
species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate
with to continue the new species either
1)there was no one to mate with
- so how did the new species B
become common
Evolution.
anne wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:41 am
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new
individuals of species B at the same time so that these new
individual members of species B could mate together
if this 2) was the way it happened we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of
species A give birth to a whole lot new members of
species B at the same time we are told species form
due to random mutations so it is beyound possibility that th
e same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the
same time the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work
There is intelligence. From intelligence there is a knowing that through evolution every thing is created, but not all at once. Everything is in Creation, and through evolution is changing.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Mon Sep 09, 2019 10:46 pm
by HexHammer
anne wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:41 am
THE SPECIES PARADOX
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ADOX.pdf
I see it differently.
It started as microbes which multiplied and spread heavily, which evolved to 1 celled organism that later evolved to more advanced organism like goples ..etc etc.

It isn't just species A and B, it's more like species A ver 0.0001 breeds with A ver 0.1801 etc.

Along the way will occur spontaneous mutations, some big some minor. Further genetic memory will make changes too.

This paper is something I could expect like 20 years ago, it's tragic we haven't come further.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:35 pm
by PTH
anne wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:41 am
THE SPECIES PARADOX
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ADOX.pdf
I'm not entirely clear on what point the paper is trying to make.

I found myself thinking again of something I read recently, along the lines that "genes, as described by evolutionary biologists, only exist in conceptual sense'. A behaviour that's observed is inheritance. That means, in some way, features must be passed from parents to children. Genes explain that. But the full explanation would take a little time to set out.

At the same time, there's variation - different species. Why? Strictly speaking, we can say we don't know. But Darwin seems to be offer a reasonable explanation.

But how did life start, before it speciated? As far as I know, the jury is out on that one. Why do species end up unable to mate with other species, if they've a common ancestor? Again, I don't think anyone can clearly explain why - as the ability to reproduce widely should be favoured by natural selection.

Beyond that, species seem to exist and its meaningful to talk about them. If someone say that Rhinos are endangered in the wild, we don't go "Rhinos, I can never tell them from the stripey horsey things". DNA analysis probably clarifies some things, and complicates others. But it doesn't really change the context we find ourselves in.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:14 pm
by Age
PTH wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:35 pm
anne wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:41 am
THE SPECIES PARADOX
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ADOX.pdf
I'm not entirely clear on what point the paper is trying to make.

I found myself thinking again of something I read recently, along the lines that "genes, as described by evolutionary biologists, only exist in conceptual sense'. A behaviour that's observed is inheritance. That means, in some way, features must be passed from parents to children. Genes explain that. But the full explanation would take a little time to set out.

At the same time, there's variation - different species. Why?
Because of different previous circumstances.
PTH wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:35 pm
Strictly speaking, we can say we don't know. But Darwin seems to be offer a reasonable explanation.

But how did life start, before it speciated? As far as I know, the jury is out on that one.
'Life' did not start. 'Life' always IS. 'Life' also does not end.
PTH wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 4:35 pm
Why do species end up unable to mate with other species, if they've a common ancestor? Again, I don't think anyone can clearly explain why - as the ability to reproduce widely should be favoured by natural selection.

Beyond that, species seem to exist and its meaningful to talk about them. If someone say that Rhinos are endangered in the wild, we don't go "Rhinos, I can never tell them from the stripey horsey things". DNA analysis probably clarifies some things, and complicates others. But it doesn't really change the context we find ourselves in.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:44 pm
by -1-
This thread is a prime example of the travesty that the North American high school education system has become.

In Europe any kid knows the precise answer to: how does speciation occur, how life starts from inanimate, dead matter, and how there is no "first bird" or "first pig" etc.

You guys suffer from ignorance of basic scientific knowledge, that has been established by now for hundreds of years. I AM NOT BLAMING YOU FOR THIS IGNORANCE (NOT STUPIDITY, BUT IGNORANCE.) IT IS YOUR EDUCATORS', PARENTS', AND POLITICIANS' GUILT. IT DRIES ON THEIR SOUL THAT THEY KEPT INCREDIBLY EASILY ACCESSIBLE KNOWLEDGE A SECRET FROM YOU.

Shame on them. I spit on the grave of every high school principal, every school board trustee, every politician who lived and was in charge in North America between 1930 and 2019. They committed a crime against society, by deliberately witholding essential and accessible information from their charges -- from you.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:23 pm
by PTH
-1- wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:44 pm
In Europe any kid knows the precise answer to: ....... how life starts from inanimate, dead matter
Do they know this?

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:19 am
by -1-
PTH wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 5:23 pm
-1- wrote:
Wed Sep 11, 2019 2:44 pm
In Europe any kid knows the precise answer to: ....... how life starts from inanimate, dead matter
Do they know this?
Depends on how you define knowledge.

If on the same level as knowing that the #5 bus goes at a certain time at a certain stop plus or minus two minutes, then yes, they know this. But if you define knowledge as infallible possession of predictive or postdictive value, no.

In other words: the chemistry is quite simple, it is not rocket science. But if someone knows NO chemistry, they will be able to believe the preacher who froths at his mouth as he spits out the words: "Life can't start from inanimate matter."

It's all a matter of what you see as possibility. If you look at a stone and you look at a porcupine, you'll say never in god's green world will a stone become a porcupine. But when you analyze a DNA strain, you realize it comprises very few elements, that are in abundance on Earth, (coal, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen) and it is made up of four types of really simple molecules.

If, however, you have no clue what a molecule is, how the bonds between atoms are formed, and what makes the sun come up every morning in the east, then of course you'll be liable to side with the preacher who froths at his mouth as he spits out the words, "evolution is impossible, there is no proof of it."

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:08 pm
by PTH
-1- wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:19 am
If, however, you have no clue what a molecule is, how the bonds between atoms are formed, and what makes the sun come up every morning in the east, then of course you'll be liable to side with the preacher who froths at his mouth as he spits out the words, "evolution is impossible, there is no proof of it."
We may be slightly at cross purposes.

We know stuff about the chemical composition of living things. I'm not sure anyone knows how life started, though.

Wikipedia agrees with me, which I think is good enough for our purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

As I understand it, Darwin's contribution was to explain why there is such a variety of different living things - i.e. why there are monkeys and crocodiles. He wasn't trying to explain why some things are living, while other things are lifeless like stones.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:52 am
by Age
PTH wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:08 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:19 am
If, however, you have no clue what a molecule is, how the bonds between atoms are formed, and what makes the sun come up every morning in the east, then of course you'll be liable to side with the preacher who froths at his mouth as he spits out the words, "evolution is impossible, there is no proof of it."
We may be slightly at cross purposes.

We know stuff about the chemical composition of living things. I'm not sure anyone knows how life started, though.
I KNOW.
PTH wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:08 pm
Wikipedia agrees with me, which I think is good enough for our purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

As I understand it, Darwin's contribution was to explain why there is such a variety of different living things - i.e. why there are monkeys and crocodiles. He wasn't trying to explain why some things are living, while other things are lifeless like stones.
But stones are NOT lifeless.

Some human beings only SEE no life in them.

This is because absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:48 pm
by Sculptor
anne wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:41 am
THE SPECIES PARADOX
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ADOX.pdf
who did the first bird mate with
who did the first dog mate with
an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new
species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate
with to continue the new species either
1)there was no one to mate with
- so how did the new species B
become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new
individuals of species B at the same time so that these new
individual members of species B could mate together
if this 2) was the way it happened we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of
species A give birth to a whole lot new members of
species B at the same time we are told species form
due to random mutations so it is beyound possibility that th
e same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the
same time the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work
There never was any such thing as the first bird.
When you figure this out you might be near to answering your question.

The oft puzzling question; which came first the chicken or the egg, there is an answer.
And i am pleased to be able to tell you that the answer is the EGG.
Since chickens and all other animals are part of a process of evolution, and that we know there were eggs long before there were chickens we can safely say that eggs precede chickens by millions of years.

"Species" is a scientific category and as science is a social activity, we can also say that "Bird", and "species" are both human interested social categories, invented to facilitate communication between human subjects.

Since it is clear enough that what we like to call species have emerged in a system of evolution we have to conclude that any seeming paradoxes are the result of our methods and means of description and not a natural problem.
Nature abides regardless of human frailties.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:44 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:48 pm
anne wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:41 am
THE SPECIES PARADOX
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ADOX.pdf
who did the first bird mate with
who did the first dog mate with
an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new
species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate
with to continue the new species either
1)there was no one to mate with
- so how did the new species B
become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new
individuals of species B at the same time so that these new
individual members of species B could mate together
if this 2) was the way it happened we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of
species A give birth to a whole lot new members of
species B at the same time we are told species form
due to random mutations so it is beyound possibility that th
e same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the
same time the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work
There never was any such thing as the first bird.
When you figure this out you might be near to answering your question.

The oft puzzling question; which came first the chicken or the egg, there is an answer.
And i am pleased to be able to tell you that the answer is the EGG.
Since chickens and all other animals are part of a process of evolution, and that we know there were eggs long before there were chickens we can safely say that eggs precede chickens by millions of years.

"Species" is a scientific category and as science is a social activity, we can also say that "Bird", and "species" are both human interested social categories, invented to facilitate communication between human subjects.

Since it is clear enough that what we like to call species have emerged in a system of evolution we have to conclude that any seeming paradoxes are the result of our methods and means of description and not a natural problem.
Nature abides regardless of human frailties.
False, the chicken with an egg inside of it. Both came first, there is no contradiction.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:22 pm
by Sculptor
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:44 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:48 pm
anne wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:41 am
THE SPECIES PARADOX
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ADOX.pdf

There never was any such thing as the first bird.
When you figure this out you might be near to answering your question.

The oft puzzling question; which came first the chicken or the egg, there is an answer.
And i am pleased to be able to tell you that the answer is the EGG.
Since chickens and all other animals are part of a process of evolution, and that we know there were eggs long before there were chickens we can safely say that eggs precede chickens by millions of years.

"Species" is a scientific category and as science is a social activity, we can also say that "Bird", and "species" are both human interested social categories, invented to facilitate communication between human subjects.

Since it is clear enough that what we like to call species have emerged in a system of evolution we have to conclude that any seeming paradoxes are the result of our methods and means of description and not a natural problem.
Nature abides regardless of human frailties.
False, the chicken with an egg inside of it. Both came first, there is no contradiction.
Rubbish.
Eggs come first.
Just because you reject evolution does not make you right. It just makes you ignorant.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:32 pm
by Eodnhoj7
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:44 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:48 pm

There never was any such thing as the first bird.
When you figure this out you might be near to answering your question.

The oft puzzling question; which came first the chicken or the egg, there is an answer.
And i am pleased to be able to tell you that the answer is the EGG.
Since chickens and all other animals are part of a process of evolution, and that we know there were eggs long before there were chickens we can safely say that eggs precede chickens by millions of years.

"Species" is a scientific category and as science is a social activity, we can also say that "Bird", and "species" are both human interested social categories, invented to facilitate communication between human subjects.

Since it is clear enough that what we like to call species have emerged in a system of evolution we have to conclude that any seeming paradoxes are the result of our methods and means of description and not a natural problem.
Nature abides regardless of human frailties.
False, the chicken with an egg inside of it. Both came first, there is no contradiction.
Rubbish.
Eggs come first.
Just because you reject evolution does not make you right. It just makes you ignorant.
Actually evolution is just diversity....that is it. There is nothing special about it.

And dont get off topic, neither the egg nor the chicken can come first.


The egg needs nurtured in order to hatch.
The chicken cannot reproduce if it came first.

A Female hen with a Male egg in it simultaneously.

Re: THE SPECIES PARADOX

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:43 pm
by Sculptor
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:32 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:44 pm


False, the chicken with an egg inside of it. Both came first, there is no contradiction.
Rubbish.
Eggs come first.
Just because you reject evolution does not make you right. It just makes you ignorant.
Actually evolution is just diversity....that is it. There is nothing special about it.

And dont get off topic, neither the egg nor the chicken can come first.


The egg needs nurtured in order to hatch.
The chicken cannot reproduce if it came first.

A Female hen with a Male egg in it simultaneously.
Paradoxes are in your mind, not in nature. Eggs existed before chickens. Get over it.