Speciation

[Outsider]

How do species evolve?

How does a common ancestry splinter into multiple directions and how does it finalize in variations that can no longer intermingle?

[Satyr]

Well, trying to remain true to the current moral high-ground I would imagine that species evolve magically.
The process is far too complex to even approach without treading no some shaky moral grounding.

If we dare be immoral, risking getting beaten up my internet cowboys, we might hazard a guess and say that mutations multiply within a population group, spreading within it due to genetic isolation. The mutations that offer an advantage are replicated by being passed on, the ones that do not face the inevitability of extinction.
This, by itself, is very immoral and unjust and we should stop thinking right there, if we wish to preserve our higher human moral grounding. but, since I am a Satyr, visiting here from another plane of existence, I dare to go on....

In time and if this genetic isolation persists these mutations multiply resulting in a genetic rift which excludes the possibility of procreation.
At this point we have a new species...although intermediate stages are present in nature...such as ass and horse (according to some studies the mule is not always sterile) reproduction and brown bear and polar bear cross-breeding which makes of our general categorization using sexual replication a shaky affair.

Now, if we were not so constricted by modern moral standards and not wanting to be offered a money sum to be beaten up - because we live in an uncensored world, which is part of our moral high ground - then we might apply this to humans, explaining the diversity we perceive.
But that would be immoral and morality, despite what that douche-bag Nietzsche said, is our first guiding principle in thinking...therefore we cannot proceed further.
We have reached the pinnacle allowable by our circumstances and here we must stop, sit down, enjoy the view and pat ourselves on the back for being so strong as to climb so high.

[Atthet]

Speciation is already happening. The problem is, that the PC liberal moral establishment prevents people from seeing it. Species are fracturing right now, but this is censored by schools, television, and historical books.

Take the Negro race. Negro men want to have sex and breed with the Aryan, pale white skin, blonde haired, blue eyed European woman. But the Aryan male, pale white skin, blonde haired, blue eyed European, does not have sex with dark skin, dark eyed, dark haired Negresses. Why not? Why is this a one way sexual demand for beauty? Why is white beauty a one way road? Why aren't coal skinned Negresses in demand, despite billions and trillions of dollars being poured into Mass Media, that proclaim that beauty is skin deep, and black people are the new archetype of beauty?

Why is Oprah so popular? Why is Tyra Banks? But, despite the propaganda, how do people act, what do men and women do?

A relationship and child between white male and black female is very rare. And when it occurs, a mulatto, half-breed, mixed-race is born. These our the postmodern 'mules', like breeding a thorough bred horse with an ass.

The problem is, censorship will not allow people to see what is truly going on. There is political risk to pointing out Truth. This is why philosophy is utterly opposed to politics, in the end. Truth is opposed by pieces of shit, genetic feces, who owe their entire intellectual history and sense of self worth, value, to the system that created them.

That is slave morality, not master morality.

[ForgedinHell]

Well, trying to remain true to the current moral high-ground I would imagine that species evolve magically.
The process is far too complex to even approach without treading no some shaky moral grounding.

If we dare be immoral, risking getting beaten up my internet cowboys, we might hazard a guess and say that mutations multiply within a population group, spreading within it due to genetic isolation. The mutations that offer an advantage are replicated by being passed on, the ones that do not face the inevitability of extinction.
This, by itself, is very immoral and unjust and we should stop thinking right there, if we wish to preserve our higher human moral grounding. but, since I am a Satyr, visiting here from another plane of existence, I dare to go on....

In time and if this genetic isolation persists these mutations multiply resulting in a genetic rift which excludes the possibility of procreation.
At this point we have a new species...although intermediate stages are present in nature...such as ass and horse (according to some studies the mule is not always sterile) reproduction and brown bear and polar bear cross-breeding which makes of our general categorization using sexual replication a shaky affair.

Now, if we were not so constricted by modern moral standards and not wanting to be offered a money sum to be beaten up - because we live in an uncensored world, which is part of our moral high ground - then we might apply this to humans, explaining the diversity we perceive.
But that would be immoral and morality, despite what that douche-bag Nietzsche said, is our first guiding principle in thinking...therefore we cannot proceed further.
We have reached the pinnacle allowable by our circumstances and here we must stop, sit down, enjoy the view and pat ourselves on the back for being so strong as to climb so high.

Damn, it's as if you have never even studied evolution. You have gotten so many things scientifically wrong, it's safest just to toss your entire comment in the trash and recommend anyone who wants an answer to this question to pick up a book on evolutionary biology, cell biology, molecular biology, or genetics, and start studying.

And before you bitch and moan that I am making things up, and that your statement is scientifically correct, you failed to even address genetic drift, where genes that may even be disadvantageous will still become fixed over neutral genes, or even genes with a slight advantage over the neutral ones. Never mind the fact you failed to take into account how evolution occurs, and the failure of direct causal relations between gene mutations and behaviors. Of course, you get your info from hate sites, so what else is new. You think the retards who molest children, like the guy who ran Jewwatch, actually post real science on their websites?

[Satyr]

I offer you $1,000 to teach me evolution.
I need to learn from the best, and you sound like you know what you are talking about.

I love how you used so many scientific terms and said nothing.
But this is typical of you, no?

I think I'll use one of your tactics and just say:
Science proves you wrong.

Thanks for teaching me how environment does not affect genes, and how brilliantly you alluded to nothing except that you know and I should read.
By the way, I asked how species evolve, not you telling me that I should read books or dropping scientific jargon around with no focus.

Let us begin with giving me a concise, play-by-play, as to how species evolve.
Let's keep the "neutral genes" aside and come back to them when you explain how they matter.
Are apes in possession of neutral gens just waiting to be stimulated into action, raising them to the level of a human?
We might go back to how genes are triggered by environment later.

We'll leave the homework and your deference and referencing for another time.
We'll place it next to your implied and yet never delivered definition of the #1, void of philosophical content.

So, we have a common ancestor, right?
Call him/her/it (let's be politically correct here, or risk being accused of hatred) population specimen B: how, pray-tell, does this control group splinter off into two distinct species?
What factors participate and what stages do you imagine?

And please, keep it moral, because nature is nothing if it is not moral.

[Outsider]

failed to even address genetic drift, where genes that may even be disadvantageous will still become fixed over neutral genes, or even genes with a slight advantage over the neutral ones.

Whatever is a "neutral" gene?

[Satyr]

Whatever is a "neutral" gene?

It's a gene that offers no apparent advantage and no disadvantage.
Currently it is believed that despite not participating dynamically that certain parts of the genome lie dormant and can be triggered by environmental conditions. this might explain cancer.

In this case it is simply used to pretend knowledge when you have nothing to say.
It would be like me asking how weather develops and being told about clouds and wind and sun flares...but nothing else.
Just random words.

Genetic Drift can be summed up as such: chance.
It is a way of factoring in random environmental occurrences that result in fitness, reproduction, without actually being attributed to the organism itself.

[Satyr]

Anytime you think you can man-up to see me, feel free. We've already been over this. Your lisp was not impressive, and calling me on the phone making threats is a far cry from standing in front of me while calling me a ****. In any event, calling me Jew-boy, ****, etc., just makes you look like a dumbass.

I'll take this as an admission that you have no clue what you are talking about but only rely on empty threats and word-games to feel like you do.
Looking up Evolution Theory on-line and then posting science terms doesn't mean you have a clue.

I offer $1010 for you to come here and explain evolution to my face.
I promise not to speak, as my lisp might become too much, and to wear a mask, as my ugly mug might make you giggle.

I did not call you any names here.
I understand how hurtful they are to someone like you.
I am not the guy above. You have a problem with him, take it up with him.
Offer him money to fly there so you can beat him up.

I promise never to call you by any name again.
Sensitive souls should have to be protected.

I did not even address you...you came here.

I asked a question...you cannot answer it.

Go away.
You bore me.
How old are you, anyway?
Who the fuck has a tantrum and threatens violence every time he's put on the spot?
If you are over 30 then that is truly sad.

[Satyr]

You still haven't defined #1, jew boy. Why don't you put some coins in, before expecting more out? Quit demanding without providing. Quit stealing without producing. Wait, this is probably demanding too much from your kind. All you know how to do is take, without giving back.

Could you please keep that shit to yourself, dude.
Not here.
This is a forum full of modern, christian souls, that do not appreciate such conduct.

Learn to adapt.
You have a one-tactic mind.
When you growl all the time the deer flees.

[Outsider]

Whatever is a "neutral" gene?

It's a gene that offers no apparent advantage and no disadvantage.
Currently it is believed that despite not participating dynamically that certain parts of the genome lie dormant and can be triggered by environmental conditions. this might explain cancer.

You're too kind to step in for Fih and do the explaining... he was going to teach me what a neutral gene is and how it/genetic drift can independently explain evolution without natural selection...
The way I understand it, evolution cannot occur until natural selection kicks in over the genetic drift.

[reasonvemotion]

You three are back and under the heading "Speciation". LOL



Bit of a Freudian slip, wouldn't you say?

[Jonathan.s]

'Speciation' is still a very vexed question in evolutionary biology. The problem is the absence of fossils that belong to the intermediary forms that the 'gradual change' model seems to require. One example is transitional forms between lizards and snakes, but there are many others.

This is one of the reasons why Stephen J Gould introduced his 'punctuated equilibrium' model.

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

The ultra-Darwinists (Dawkins et al) are strongly wedded to the notion of incremental random changes, so they reject anything like 'laws of form' or underlying prototypes. Simon Conway Morris, a 'dissident biologist', offers a model of 'convergence' which says that nature generally tends to develop along predictable lines. He points out the fact that both visual organs and photosynthesis evolved a number of times via very different routes.

What is interesting is that it is still controversial, and also that it is controversial for philosophical reasons. The ultra-Darwinists would love it if it were all a matter of hard science, but it appears far from the case.

[ForgedinHell]

Whatever is a "neutral" gene?

It's a gene that offers no apparent advantage and no disadvantage.
Currently it is believed that despite not participating dynamically that certain parts of the genome lie dormant and can be triggered by environmental conditions. this might explain cancer.

You're too kind to step in for Fih and do the explaining... he was going to teach me what a neutral gene is and how it/genetic drift can independently explain evolution without natural selection...
The way I understand it, evolution cannot occur until natural selection kicks in over the genetic drift.

LOL. You really don't have a clue. Genetic drift is part of evolution, which proves that it can take place without any posiive selection being involved, which contradicts the original assumption made in starting this thread.

[Satyr]

You are being evasive as usual.
You have no clue, do ya?

Once more, and you can include your "genetic drift" in the equation, you give us a step-by-step process, as you imagine it, where species splinter off a common ancestor.
Is it all dumb luck?
Are you saying that Evolution is about blind luck?
Are you serious?

How old are you?

[ForgedinHell]

You are being evasive as usual.
You have no clue, do ya?

Once more, and you can include your "genetic drift" in the equation, you give us a step-by-step process, as you imagine it, where species splinter off a common ancestor.
Is it all dumb luck?
Are you saying that Evolution is about blind luck?
Are you serious?

How old are you?

A big part of evolution is dumb luck, that's what genetic drift proves. What you need to do is pick up a science book and start reading. Genetic drift is just one of the points you overlooked, and I used it as an example for that reason. It is not the only misconception you have regarding evolution.