• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

Did we evolve from Apes?

  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 41 57.7%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    Votes: 10 14.1%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    Votes: 20 28.2%

  • Total voters
    71
I understand justone, take your time.

To you last question, it is simple. Half of York radiate's genomes is S. squalidus, the other half is S. vulgaris. York Radiates genome is a combination of the two parent species genomes.

Please, please, can you answer the question? Please provide a link to a peer reviewed publication stating what you are stating.

Please understand if you say A cannot mate with his parents B and C I want some proof that B and C are the parents.

And yes it would take a tremendous amount of time i don't have on hand to go through each and every line of BS you posted, at this moment i am taking my time to see how I can do it in the most efficient way - either to go through all of it or just hit the nerves.


I mean common, are you really a biologist ? You what... dissect A and see … genome... and then dissect B and C ... and see thier genomes... and compare?
 
Last edited:
There is a reason why we left the jungle for the savanna in the first place. Their ancestors out competed our ancestors.

A more practical explanation is that their ancestors lived where the jungle didn't dry up, ours saw the trees leave. Nothing to do with "competition", merely geography.
 
A more practical explanation is that their ancestors lived where the jungle didn't dry up, ours saw the trees leave. Nothing to do with "competition", merely geography.

Jungles drying up take thousands of years with the absence of mass deforestation. Which means that those living in the jungles slowly adapt with the changing landscape. By extension, they should have stayed in their initial/natural habitat because the lack of a catalyst.

A reasonable hypothesis is that they were influenced by outside forces (competition), and not just environmental.

If we go with your reasoning, why didn't our ancestors follow the jungle when it started to shrink? Could it be that when it became smaller, that they were forced to compete with the land? If they competed for this land, who did they compete with?
 
Jungles drying up take thousands of years with the absence of mass deforestation. Which means that those living in the jungles slowly adapt with the changing landscape. By extension, they should have stayed in their initial/natural habitat because the lack of a catalyst.

A reasonable hypothesis is that they were influenced by outside forces (competition), and not just environmental.

If we go with your reasoning, why didn't our ancestors follow the jungle when it started to shrink? Could it be that when it became smaller, that they were forced to compete with the land? If they competed for this land, who did they compete with?

Because our ancestors were just dumb monkeys and weren't capable of the complex reasoning you're presuming they did, and because the process took thousands of years, they didn't know the grass was greener in the other valley.
 
Last edited:
I think I should give GarzaUK a day or so before I conclude that he, again cannot answer a simple question, but rather has “taken on 2 weeks vacation” in order then to pop out on another thread with pure defamation and insults under the umbrella provided to such actions of fanatical evolutionists and liberals by moderators.

So while I have some time I will answer the second post I left unanswered when I stopped to make sure that everyone sees that the main business of evolutionists is cheat and lying and deceiving.




Ikari said:
What about gravity necessitates a god?

What about gravity necessitates evolution?
Ikari said:
It shows the change of species on the earth over time.

What fossils have to do when changes have been observed all the time no fossils needed?

Ikari said:
Hmm...I think this is rather contrived and hokey.

Hmm... Blip. Hmm...Blip. You think so because God tells you so? Or you have any arguments to put up besides your decision to start imitating Tussah’s sophisticated vocabulary instead of making things clear and simple?

Try again:

Infinity includes all centimeters and cubic centimeters and all other possible numbers, including … ok I will skip complication… everything. All your measurements are just particular cases of infinity.

True or false?


Ikari said:
God is everything and measurements are part of everything.

Says who?

Ikari said:
Not really anything useful in any of this.

Any of what? Decides who? Common, try to make an argument, an objection or agreement.

Try again:
Infinity includes all centimeters and cubic centimeters and all other possible numbers, including … ok I will skip complication… everything. All your measurements are just particular cases of infinity.


True or false?

Ikari said:
It's a well defined quantum.
.

I understand you are just trying to use Tashah’s sophisticated vocabulary in order to bring in vagueness and mystics instead of making things simple and clear, - but you are not referring to Plank’s quantum. Am I correct?

Ikari said:
There is an uncertainty rule with energy and time, energy conservation can most certainly be violated for brief periods of time. Without this ability, vacuum fluctuations could not occur, and if vacuum fluctuations could not occur, there would be no Lamb shift. But there is, we've measured it.

It is exactly up side down. You are confusing a cause with an effect. Lamb shift was observed. In order to ‘’explain ‘’ and insert the explanation in the model the mathematical abstract of vacuum fluctuations was suggested, as well as the abstract possibility of breaking energy conservation for a moment was. You can use Lamb shift for your mambo jumbo machine. It was observed in an experiment and you know how to cause it using a jumbo mambo machine as a part of your mambo jumbo machine. Think. IBM. Invent. HP.

The energy exchange between the electron and vacuum has not been caught in any experiment, so it is of no use for you. Accepting that it occurs, THE MORE inserting that as true in another theory makes you a shore minded atheist, a blind believer, a fantast. The energy exchange between the electron and vacuum does not physically exist until you cause/observe it in experiments like your observed Lamb shift.

‘’energy conservation can most certainly be violated for brief periods of time’’ is exactly where scientists go completely wrong. Physical laws, observations do not matter for them any more, common sense is abolished, a religion instead is erected. Would you be able to understand what are you saying? This brief period of time would allow us sooner or later to get into it and steal energy from vacuum. Understand? As soon as we have a little gap we always will be working and be successful in squeezing something into it. The common experience tells us if it can happen it will happen and it happens. If there was such a gap in time it would be as huge as brief because both huge and brief are very relative and subjective terms. And if we can squeeze, the Mother Nature would do it with no problem. And the energy would happen to be stolen, and we would observe that and would never come up with the law of conservation in the 1st place. The total inability to draw the line between virtual reality of mathematics and the physical world we live in multiplied by a necessity to represent the virtual world as real in movies and books puts today science in the dark ages.




Ikari said:
So you found a quote. It doesn't prove anything.

It is related to the above. It uses better English and better construction that I could make. Observations it refers to render it to be true.
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” – Einstein.

Ikari said:
Maybe what you state there could be applicable towards theorists (and I'm not sure that would be true even given a theorists penchant for horrible math), but not towards the experimentalists.

If theory is valid it is exactly what you use to make experiments. Otherwise you would be an alchemist or an evolutionist. You are an alchemist and not an experimentalist, because you have no rules to follow but make up your own very vague and ambiguous sentences instead of the 4 rules experimentalists has been using for centuries, starting from Newton and finishing by Einstein.

Ikari said:
We relate everything back to the real world, for the real world is what we deal in. Everything measured has a real result. My work is specifically with ultracold atoms and laser cooling and trapping. I have atoms, atoms tell the truth.


It is as emotional as it is vague. You are not an experimentalist. Experimentalists have been following well defined rules for ages. You are brushing these rules away with no reason to do so, but you make trees tell the truth, atoms tell the truth, gods tell the truth. If atoms tell the truth you have to make me hear it and it has to be the same truth as you hear and everyone else hears. If atoms say that humans and apes have the same ancestor everyone should be able to hear that so nobody would argue aliens or gods.

You either see the deviation of an instrument or not. Things either occur or they don’t. If there is no occurrence why would you be making a theory “proving” the occurrence as ‘’a fact’’?


to be continued
 
continued

Ikari said:
Infinity is good for boundary conditions, and functional infinity can have a place as well. It's not measurable, but it is well defined.

It is as emotional as it is vague. I state: Infinity is neither good nor bad. It exists in both mathematical and physical realms. It is partially defined as immeasurable and including all measurements.

Is my statement true or false?

Ikari said:
They're of the same thing, these are theories and quantum of science. These things have measurement behind them.
Concrete proof is proof built from measurement, not of abstract thought and desires of magic.

The obvious fact is that not any proof built from measurement automatically renders to be valid or scientific even if it meets your vague anti-scientific criteria to be concrete. Alchemists built their theories from measurement, as well as Sagan built his drifters and floaters ‘’The other aerial residents of Jupiter were known as floaters, which Sagan would later describe as being “kilometers across, enormously larger than the greatest whale that ever was, beings the size of cities.” Floaters were seen as drifting across the vast alien sky in great herds, looking like a collection of immense balloons, which in essence there were, using the lighter elements of Jupiter’s atmosphere to stay aloft.’ as well as his calculations of a small-scale nuclear winter in the first Iraq war and all his other scientific blunders from measurement.



Ikari said:
There were good indications the sun was spinning around the Earth till the telescope was invented. More data came in and proved otherwise.

What is your criteria of good and bad? Do you have a slightest understanding of criteria science is operating under?

Ikari said:
And what was the cause of the sun moving… It was gods which did it[/QUOTE=Ikari]
And how it is ever different from your methodology? They looked at the measurable sun and they saw it was moving. They knew if it was moving there should be something which was moving it. It couldn’t be wind because wind blows in all different directions, it couldn’t be water, but it had to be something not visible directly as atoms are not visible, so it had to be some occurrences which where not ‘’observed directly’’, and they called them gods. And if somebody said “I have to see the occurrences’’ they were saying the same as you say, - Do you have a better explanation? And they were treating the one who was asking to see gods and not having a “better explanation” with the same zealously as you treat those who have doubts in evolution here. There is absolutely no difference between your methodology of proving evolution and the methodology of the ancients proving gods moving the sun. The only difference could be is that ancients most likely did not take it seriously, but rather for entertaining purposes, because it was clear that gods wouldn’t spent their time for such a sweaty endeavor, while you believe your fantasies with all your heart.


‘’The next question was — what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth.’’ – Richard Feynman. The Character of Physical Laws (1964)


Ikari said:
before we measured it and found it to be natural force.


Says who? Found - who? According to the text of Newton’s theory God did it, - like everything else measurable.


Ikari said:
Gods were always ascribed as the answer when humans didn't know, and time and time again it was found that gods had nothing to do with it.

Who and when did ascribe and who and when did prove God had nothing to do?

Ikari said:
So is true with evolution, evolution is your new geocentric universe.


If geocentric universe was wrong (it neither was wrong nor is wrong from the scientific POV), then I am wrong? and if Heliocentrism is correct evolution is correct? Oh, man, do you have a slightest understanding of criteria science is operating under? Do you have a slightest idea about logic?

Ikari said:
Heliocentrism was denied for quite some time by the religious fanatics, even in the face of data.

Answer – what data, what is data? Is it Data from the starship on TV? Prove it was denied 1. by religious fanatics, 2. In the face of data.

Ikari said:
Eventually the data became so overwhelming that it had to be accepted. But you fight evolution with the zeal of the geocentrists. Despite there being evidence to the contrary, you rally against science to preserve your ideals of your god.

What data? What is data? Oh, my dear man, is it so bad in universities today? What is data? New occurrences were observed and experiments were made, the propositions (equations) inferred from these occurrences were made. The results of the equations were at last found to be CONFIRMING and/or be more accurate then the results of equations of the geocentric universe model, such as - the calculations were predicting planets and eclipses and star’s positions at least as accurate as in the geocentric universe model.
The geocentric universe model is not ever hinted or described in the Bible, but it was described by Ptolemy, who in your system of beliefs is said to think that gods were moving the Sun. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy]Ptolemy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Seriously, this is what you are saying – 1. that he lived in ancient Rome and 2. he thought that gods were moving the Sun.



Ikari said:
Gods were proven wrong in the past, they'll be proven wrong in the future; and the zealots will change or die out. That's measured reality.
.

Yeah, gods are wrong, you are right. Oh, man. What are your criteria of wrong and right?

Einstein goes to heaven and asks for an audience with God.
- OK, - says God, - what do you want?
- I want to know how you made the universe.
God goes to a chalk board and fills it with long formulas.
Einstein finishes moving his head following the chalk and says, - you have a mistake in the end of the 5th equation.
- I know, - says God humbly.

Oh man, neither you understand simple sentences, statements or questions, nor you understand what you are saying.
 
Because our ancestors were just dumb monkeys and weren't capable of the complex reasoning you're presuming they did, and because the process took thousands of years, they didn't know the grass was greener in the other valley.

You're not making any sense. Can you restate?
 
I think I should give GarzaUK a day or so before I conclude that he, again cannot answer a simple question, but rather has “taken on 2 weeks vacation” in order then to pop out on another thread with pure defamation and insults under the umbrella provided to such actions of fanatical evolutionists and liberals by moderators.

Oh, I'm not done with you justone, not by a long shot. Funny how you didnt rebutt my final big post. I've been busy these days and you would have seen when my last log in time was around the time you asked the question., thats why I gave up the mod position at this site. But I will answer your question tonight.

justone said:
before I conclude that he, again cannot answer a simple question,

Yet you cannot or will not answer a simple question for me, I have asked it 4 or 5 times, still you have ignored it and it is fundamental to your whole argument.

Why would the whole scientific community (atheist and religious) lie about evolution to the whole world??

It is the simplest of questions. Or are you afraid to answer it incase you seem like a whacko?

Also you have yet to rebutt my last big post. Or do you agree with me that a new species has come into existence in nature?
 
Oh right, here we go "But GarzaUK its not turnng into a different kind of plant, like a rose". For all your bravada and knowledge it has come to the old creationist agrument of "kinds". Like I said evolution is a long process. Simply Macroevolution = Microevolution + Time.
This has been disproved mathematically.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes-36.html#post1058010837

Evolution has been disproved. All what is left is to point that evolutionists cheat and lie.
.

The quote says that York Radiate cannot mate with its parent species (

"Other studies have shown that S. eboracensis is reproductively isolated from its parents due to a high level of selfing, phenological separation, sterility of products of back crosses to S. squalidus and reduced fertility of products of back-crosses to S. vulgaris."

Top of page 376 states "A third fertile hybrid derivative was first recorded near York railway station (OS105 594 516) by R. J. Abbott and D. F. Marshall in 1979.
All of these mechanisms have been shown to drastically reduce intertaxon crossing at sympatric sites and in common garden experiments (Lowe 1996, Lowe and Abbott, inreview)."
So here we have a fertile new species, that cannot exchange genetic material with its parents in nature
Pinch. No it does not say that. The result is a new species called S. eboracensis, which cannot mate with any other plant than itself.
As for crossbreeding …it can (albiet weaker offspring), when forced, in lab conditions, but you should know justone if you have researched such matters that this does not define a new speices. It is whether it can breed with others or not in nature without human interference.
Have you read it, they did that and they produced (barely fertile) offspring UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED. However in nature (where it counts), they cannot
You know my answer to this, look above. They reproduce in a lab yes. NOT IN NATURE!! Basic Biology 101 here!
Let us notice. GarzaUK has problems with answering the simple question again. I just looked up [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senecio_eboracensis]Senecio eboracensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ‘’A newcomer to the plant world, York groundsel has been used as an example to support Darwin-like evolution[7] and also as evidence of the opposing theory of creationism[8] among groups who argue these theories. The refusal of S. eboracensis to breed back to its parents is the main point of contention between the rival parties.’’ I did not find contention, yet, but I think I will add this qoute as another example of shameless cheating of evolutionists, the propaganda which fails as usual when it is facing simplest questions.


I cannot wait until GarzaUK looks for the proof of parents. I will do it for him. I bolded it..

Did anybody notice that GarzaUK did not address my reply bolded ‘’Other studies (????)”? Four questions, - no reaction.

I pointed that the GarzaUK’s article did not meet the requirement of observations. There was no report of observations, experiments, but a few references to “Other studies”. I pointed and Garza’s excepted that the Yorker mated with parents in the article, but Garza says it does mean what it means. OK.


R. J. Abbott and D. F. Marshall (Lowe 1996, Lowe and Abbott,


Here we go - the mysterious other source, - R. J. Abbott, Lowe and Abbott: Routes of origin of two recently evolved hybrid taxa: Senecio vulgaris var. hibernicus and York radiate groundsel (Asteraceae) -- Lowe and Abbott 87 (8): 1159 -- American Journal of Botany

It is called self reference. But let us read and see what did the experiments really show.
 
Last edited:
What did the experiments really show?

They show that they took A2 and A3 and A4 … An and experimented on them to see IF they possibly can be parents of A0. They were not aware of biology 101 as Garza states and they “produced (barely fertile) offspring UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED” thinking, – the stupid, - that it could prove things plants do in nature.

They were so stupid that they did not use the term ‘’barely’’, but 71%, 86%, so that I wouldn’t have to guess – is it fertile or not fertile.

‘’The other F2 plant was derived from the cross in which var. vulgaris was the maternal parent (F2a) and was partially fertile (pollen fertility 71%; open seed set 54.9%), and produced radiate capitula (mean ray floret length 10.0 = mm). Though no chromosome count was made of this plant, it was highly interfertile with S. vulgaris (backcross success = 86%) and was presumed to be near tetraploid’’

The experiment does NOT produce positive results. When then they write another article they are cheating making statements.

‘’Seed collection and plant propagation
Seeds of S. squalidus, S. vulgaris var. vulgaris, and York radiate groundsel were collected from natural populations in York, UK, between 1989 and 1993, while seeds of S. vulgaris var. vulgaris and hibernicus were collected from populations in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 1991. All seeds from field populations or generated by experimental crosses were sown on damp filter paper.
Crosses were made between individuals of S. vulgaris var. vulgaris and artificially synthesized tetraploid S. squalidus

A total of 158 plants were raised … under conditions of cultivation described ‘’



I don’t know if I should comment again, how evolutionists do not understand what is an experiment. 158 plants out 158 million, different years and location, different mating period, no conclusive result observed, …..and the bogus conclusion is positively made.

Still the “Other studies” confirm everything I said – A1, A2, A3, were mating quite joyfully. And the stupid ones never thought that ‘’(barely fertile) offspring A01 UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED’’ was not the proof that A2 and A3 could be parents of A0 in nature as they were hoping to find. They did not find what they were hoping for, but they now come up with the bogus conclusion that it is the proof that A0 is a different specie.
It is also clear that when A1, A2, A3….An joyfully mate with each other and produce sterile or fertile hybrids there is no need to call them all different species. The total amount of information in A NEVER increases, but rather is observed to be decreased ONLY. There should be some mathematical objective criteria, shouldn’t? It is clear that S. squalidus, S. vulgaris var. vulgaris, and York radiate groundsel are different forms, strains of the same specie S. and hybrids of the different forms remain hybrids, as they were known to our ancestors. Evolutionists rather bring in confusion when they define species so frivolously just to fit their beliefs.


The reported observations have established that I am correct and the Yorker CAN mate with other Senecios and his parents. The objection is made here that according to Garza who is a biologist I do not know biology 101, and that according to the biologist Garza I was supposed to read out in the article what was not written in it. It is clear the ‘’other studies’’ totally ignore Garza’s biology 101, too.

Frankly this is an eye opening case. I did not think that evolutionists now have no barrier which would stop them from cheating. Evolution should be stopped immediately.

In the conclusion the ‘’other studies’’ say that they couldn’t establish that A2 and A3 were parents of A0. The stupid ones did not know biology 101 and forgot to look at genomes.

‘’Unfortunately, it was not possible to continue the analysis over future generations to the point where it could be said with confidence that stabilized introgressants had been produced that were identical in form to either var. hibernicus or York radiate groundsel’’

’What is clear from the present analysis is that stabilized introgressants of Senecio can be produced in several different ways, which raises the question as to which of these pathways is (or are) most likely to have led to the formation of var. hibernicus and York radiate groundsel in the wild.’’

‘’Finally, the fact that interspecific hybridization occurs regularly, though infrequently, in natural populations and the finding that stabilized hybrid products of later generation are likely to be produced with some ease, would indicate that multiple origins of S. vulgaris var. hibernicus and York radiate groundsel may be common in the British Isles.’’


Anyone who can read can see that the real observation suggests and suggests only but does not prove that A2 and A3 are NOT the sole parents of A0. It does NOT make ANY positive conclusion that A2 and A3 are parents of A0, the Yorker.

The ‘’other sources’’ meet requirements of a scientific publication in spite of the use of the word evolution in the meaning totally different from the meaning we have been using it here. It provides a full report for peers to object, agree, repeat, use the results.

The fact is that that the real experiment was designed to estimate what Senecios could be parents of their hybrid Yorker.
The fact is that the answer was not given with any certainty but rather points to multiple origins of the Yorker.
The fact is that - contrarily to evolution 101 - hybridization occurs regularly in natural populations (according to the authors).
The fact is that there is no indication here that it is the first observation in history of natural and artificial hybridization that it somehow is not a dead end (sterile) or does not lead to mating with the same species.
The fact is that there is no possibility of an intellectually honest answer from an evolutionist. If you are not a biologist, an evolutionist will try to pull all kinds of ‘’biology 101’’ on you, which has nothing to do with biology but rather with evolution 101 aka known as deception.

The bottom line:
1. S. vulgaris and S. S. squalidus are NOT found to be the parents of the Yorker. Evolutionists cheat.
2. Even if they were, the Yorker still mates with them. Evolutionists cheat.
3. Even if did not mate, there is no indication that this is the first hybrid not to be a dead end. Evolutionists cheat.
4. Even if there was such indication, there is no observation that animals and plants are related. Even if evolutionists exhibit plant-like thinking, they still remain apes. Botanic and Biology are 2 different disciplines. Evolutionists cheat.
5. Bubbling that they are scientists because they use measurable they runaway from any attempt to apply any measurements, any mathematics they scream that this is heresy of devil, I mean creationists. Simple measurements like an amount of information in specie puts them into religious stupor. They know mathematics is from devil.
6. In spite of the fact that evolution has been mathematically disproved and they cannot rise any objections they will ignore reason and common sense and will keep on going with their immeasurable fantasies.
7. In spite of the fact that Tucker proved that humans and chimps have 70% in common DNA and we have no idea what does it mean, they will keep on spreading lies that it is 96% and it means that we have a common ancestor with apes, - look they still are making fantasies how apes turned into humans. Tucker can scream, type, prove, they will ignore him, when he dies nobody will remember his discoveries, but one justone with grey hair and a cane will come to his grave to put a glass of vodka covered with a slice of bread on it.

I think I have had enough of it. Neither evolutionists can be reasoned nor they get exhausted in their attacks on human reason in their twists, spins and lies. I just picked up a few from GarzaUK’s posts, but they are full of.

If somebody besides the fanatics has a question or argument of any kind, please don’t think it is stupid, the stupid thing would be not to ask. If I have time I will answer.
 
Last edited:
I thought I already splained evilution.
 

Attachments

  • Evolution & ID.jpg
    Evolution & ID.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 1,718
Actually just took me half an hour to find the data.

Morphically speaking it is obvious the SENECIO EBORACENSIS is a new hybrid species caused by Senecio vulgaris and Senecio squalidis crossing with each other in a chance event. But I got something more.

http://www.ria.ie/cgi-bin/ria/papers/100501.pdf

The latter is most likely the product of fusion between an unreduced gamete of S. squalidus and a normal reduced gamete of S. vulgaris . Lowe and Abbott (2000) proposed that S. eboracensis originated in a few generations by segregation from either the triploid or tetraploid hybrid, or following backcrossing of either hybrid to S. vulgaris . The hybrid status of S. eboracensis is evident from its intermediate morphology and its possession of an additive isozyme profile (Irwin and Abbott 1992).

Now the DNA.

A preliminary survey of RAPD and inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) variation has shown that a high proportion of markers that distinguish the two parent species are present in S. eboracensis , indicating that this new hybrid species contains a significant portion of the genomes of
each parent (Abbott et al. 2003).

All the genetics tests are in the paper below.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1693191&blobtype=pdf (abbot et al, 2003)



RAPD used in standard parental DNA identification cases such as paternal identification for a child or the identification of a murderer or rapist. Basically it is used in the court of law and is pretty damn accurate as many dead beat dads and murderers will attest to.

RAPD - rDNA: Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA (RAPD)

ISSR is used in hybrid work

ISSR - ISSR Resource Website

Oh another paper just for fun, explaining why due to the sexual isolation of the Senecio Eboracensis it should be classified as a new species.

Heredity - Reproductive isolation of a new hybrid species, Senecio eboracensis Abbott & Lowe (Asteraceae)

Thats four papers already and you only asked for one justone.
 
This has been disproved mathematically.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/46932-evolution-did-we-really-evolve-apes-36.html#post1058010837

Evolution has been disproved. All what is left is to point that evolutionists cheat and lie.

Mathematics has nothing to say on evolution, in fact nothing to say on biology at all. Biology is not black and white like Mathematics is or even Physics. Life can mutate and degrade, succumb to random events, make choices to what mate to reproduce with. Life is not rarely bound by rules or laws. You ever wonder why biology has rarely any laws when physics has plenty of them?

You cannot compare the uncertainity of life with the set in stone predictability of mathematics. Doing so, shows a poor understanding of evolution.

Let us notice. GarzaUK has problems with answering the simple question again. I just looked up Senecio eboracensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ‘’A newcomer to the plant world, York groundsel has been used as an example to support Darwin-like evolution[7] and also as evidence of the opposing theory of creationism[8] among groups who argue these theories. The refusal of S. eboracensis to breed back to its parents is the main point of contention between the rival parties.’’ I did not find contention, yet, but I think I will add this qoute as another example of shameless cheating of evolutionists, the propaganda which fails as usual when it is facing simplest questions.

The fact you always use wikipedia in your arguments says ALOT about you justone. How is it a shameless cheat justone, BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH EVIDENCE, rather than just aimlessly slander people.

I cannot wait until GarzaUK looks for the proof of parents. I will do it for him. I bolded it..

I did it.
Did anybody notice that GarzaUK did not address my reply bolded ‘’Other studies (????)”? Four questions, - no reaction.

Studies, you mean those books? Anyone opinated wacko can write a book. Shall I take all those alien abduction books as fact too?
I pointed that the GarzaUK’s article did not meet the requirement of observations. There was no report of observations, experiments, but a few references to “Other studies”. I pointed and Garza’s excepted that the Yorker mated with parents in the article, but Garza says it does mean what it means. OK.

Yeah you pointed it out, yet your points are worthless WITHOUT EVIDENCE justone. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.
 
What did the experiments really show?

They show that they took A2 and A3 and A4 … An and experimented on them to see IF they possibly can be parents of A0. They were not aware of biology 101 as Garza states and they “produced (barely fertile) offspring UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED” thinking, – the stupid, - that it could prove things plants do in nature.

They were so stupid that they did not use the term ‘’barely’’, but 71%, 86%, so that I wouldn’t have to guess – is it fertile or not fertile.


Good Lord. The species in question can produce successfully with one parent IN A LAB. As each generation gets corssed it gets more and more compatable, like genetic blending, until the Senecio eboracensis becomes exactly like Senecio vulgaris.

However in nature due to the natural distributation of the two species (S. eboracensis is more clumped and therefore more likely to mate with others of its kind), S. eborcensis and S.vulgaris reproduce at different seasons and other factors means that they only have a 1% chance of reproducing in the wild, not a good precentage for eborcensis to blend in with its parent, in fact at these low odds the two species will genetically gradually seperate.

The experiment does NOT produce positive results. When then they write another article they are cheating making statements.

They are cheating? Give me evidence to back up your claims. And how do they no produce positive results? Because you say so? Because you have a hunch? Because you don't like what it says?
If a footballer is fined for cheating, there has to be EVIDENCE for the cheating.

I don’t know if I should comment again, how evolutionists do not understand what is an experiment. 158 plants out 158 million, different years and location, different mating period, no conclusive result observed, …..and the bogus conclusion is positively made.

Again ALL YOU HAVE is your own opinion. Its like me saying scientists think differently, but I think the moon is made out of cheese.

Still the “Other studies” confirm everything I said – A1, A2, A3, were mating quite joyfully. And the stupid ones never thought that ‘’(barely fertile) offspring A01 UNDER LAB CONDITIONS WHEN FORCED’’ was not the proof that A2 and A3 could be parents of A0 in nature as they were hoping to find. They did not find what they were hoping for, but they now come up with the bogus conclusion that it is the proof that A0 is a different specie.
It is also clear that when A1, A2, A3….An joyfully mate with each other and produce sterile or fertile hybrids there is no need to call them all different species. The total amount of information in A NEVER increases, but rather is observed to be decreased ONLY. There should be some mathematical objective criteria, shouldn’t? It is clear that S. squalidus, S. vulgaris var. vulgaris, and York radiate groundsel are different forms, strains of the same specie S. and hybrids of the different forms remain hybrids, as they were known to our ancestors. Evolutionists rather bring in confusion when they define species so frivolously just to fit their beliefs.

If lab conditions count justone, we have already observed lots of new species. They don't, all the speciation lab work with fruit flies only shows that speciation is possible, not that it happens. We have to look to nature for answers.

What do you call a group of individuals in the natural world who cannot mate with anyone else but themselves. They cannot share genetic information with anyone else and sustain a population with them. That is a species. That is Senecio eborensis.

The reported observations have established that I am correct and the Yorker CAN mate with other Senecios and his parents. The objection is made here that according to Garza who is a biologist I do not know biology 101, and that according to the biologist Garza I was supposed to read out in the article what was not written in it. It is clear the ‘’other studies’’ totally ignore Garza’s biology 101, too.


No you are wrong, it can mate sucessfully with human hands with ONE PARENT. In nature it can mate sucessfully with neither of them. Funny if S. eborensis and S. vulgaris is one species yet they cannot mate with each other, a bit odd for a species don't you think?

Frankly this is an eye opening case. I did not think that evolutionists now have no barrier which would stop them from cheating. Evolution should be stopped immediately.


If you accuse us of cheating, then show me evidence that we are wrong. Proper emperical evidence, please go on dont be shy.


‘’Unfortunately, it was not possible to continue the analysis over future generations to the point where it could be said with confidence that stabilized introgressants had been produced that were identical in form to either var. hibernicus or York radiate groundsel’’

’What is clear from the present analysis is that stabilized introgressants of Senecio can be produced in several different ways, which raises the question as to which of these pathways is (or are) most likely to have led to the formation of var. hibernicus and York radiate groundsel in the wild.’’

‘’Finally, the fact that interspecific hybridization occurs regularly, though infrequently, in natural populations and the finding that stabilized hybrid products of later generation are likely to be produced with some ease, would indicate that multiple origins of S. vulgaris var. hibernicus and York radiate groundsel may be common in the British Isles.’’


Anyone who can read can see that the real observation suggests and suggests only but does not prove that A2 and A3 are NOT the sole parents of A0. It does NOT make ANY positive conclusion that A2 and A3 are parents of A0, the Yorker.

The ‘’other sources’’ meet requirements of a scientific publication in spite of the use of the word evolution in the meaning totally different from the meaning we have been using it here. It provides a full report for peers to object, agree, repeat, use the results.

The fact is that that the real experiment was designed to estimate what Senecios could be parents of their hybrid Yorker.
The fact is that the answer was not given with any certainty but rather points to multiple origins of the Yorker.
The fact is that - contrarily to evolution 101 - hybridization occurs regularly in natural populations (according to the authors).
The fact is that there is no indication here that it is the first observation in history of natural and artificial hybridization that it somehow is not a dead end (sterile) or does not lead to mating with the same species.
The fact is that there is no possibility of an intellectually honest answer from an evolutionist. If you are not a biologist, an evolutionist will try to pull all kinds of ‘’biology 101’’ on you, which has nothing to do with biology but rather with evolution 101 aka known as deception.

It is not the first specation event we have, thats why there is not mention of it being the first one. :)

Hybridisation does occur quite often in plants. What is rare is they provide a fertile offspring and cannot mate with their parents.

The fact is justone has nothing but opinion. He has no evidence to support his claims. He just repeats that evolutionists are lying over and over again, without backing up his claims.

The bottom line:
1. S. vulgaris and S. S. squalidus are NOT found to be the parents of the Yorker. Evolutionists cheat.
2. Even if they were, the Yorker still mates with them. Evolutionists cheat.

Not in nature. Funny species you have if they cannot mate sucessfully in nature
3. Even if did not mate, there is no indication that this is the first hybrid not to be a dead end. Evolutionists cheat.

It isn't.
4. Even if there was such indication, there is no observation that animals and plants are related. Even if evolutionists exhibit plant-like thinking, they still remain apes. Botanic and Biology are 2 different disciplines. Evolutionists cheat.


No they are not. WTF??? Another Plants don't count whine? Plants evolve too.
5. Bubbling that they are scientists because they use measurable they runaway from any attempt to apply any measurements, any mathematics they scream that this is heresy of devil, I mean creationists. Simple measurements like an amount of information in specie puts them into religious stupor. They know mathematics is from devil.

Mathematics has hardly anything to say in biology. Biology is too chaotic to be mathematical.
6. In spite of the fact that evolution has been mathematically disproved and they cannot rise any objections they will ignore reason and common sense and will keep on going with their immeasurable fantasies.


Fantasies? Suppose all those transitional fossils are just in our imaginations huh? Suppose our 2nd chromosome being made of 2 ape chromosomes is just imagination?

You are living in a dream world of your own making justone.
7. In spite of the fact that Tucker proved that humans and chimps have 70% in common DNA and we have no idea what does it mean, they will keep on spreading lies that it is 96% and it means that we have a common ancestor with apes, - look they still are making fantasies how apes turned into humans. Tucker can scream, type, prove, they will ignore him, when he dies nobody will remember his discoveries, but one justone with grey hair and a cane will come to his grave to put a glass of vodka covered with a slice of bread on it.


Tucker didn't count on ERV DNA it seems.
I think I have had enough of it. Neither evolutionists can be reasoned nor they get exhausted in their attacks on human reason in their twists, spins and lies. I just picked up a few from GarzaUK’s posts, but they are full of.

Evidence?
If somebody besides the fanatics has a question or argument of any kind, please don’t think it is stupid, the stupid thing would be not to ask. If I have time I will answer.

Yeah as long as you don't actually provide evidence justone will hear any arguments and questions lol. All he has is opinion. He hasn't given any facts or evidence for his claims. He says "the fact is" quite alot but yet nothing to back up his fact.

A fact without evidence is like a limp dick...usless.

I don't think you ever expected me to pull up Senecio eborensis because it wasn't on your list lol lol.
Observed Instances of Speciation

AND YET AS ALWAYS YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE MY QUESTION - WHY ARE SCIENTISTS (ATHEIST AND RELIGIOUS) LYING TO THE WORLD ABOUT EVOLUTION? THIS IS THE SIXTH TIME!!! GROW A PAIR AND ANSWER!
 
Tucker didn't count on ERV DNA it seems.

To be fair, I was only pointing out that the 96% number is often cited but the more accurate number for genetic similarity is actually closer to 70%, which would include ERV DNA in it.

My argument was that there is often an over-portrayal, or flawed portrayal of the significance of certain data, not that the theory is false, per se.

Saying 96% shared DNA between humans and chimps is disingenuous because those numbers don't really mean anything regarding the gene variance, which is based more on genetic alignment than the code as a whole.

I also was saying that the conclusions that are reached are extrapolated from these data in such a way that it doesn't necessarily follow with the data as it exists.

For example, your examples from hybridization and such don't fit with the concept of random mutation and natural selection.

All they really show is that 1. Our definition of species requires revising because fertile offspring can come to exist with inter-species mating. 2. That new species can come into existence under certain conditions that do NOT include classical natural selection. These new species come to exist suddenly without any real environmental or competitive cause. It's not "selection" at all. They are produced because the parents have the capabilities to produce such a creature when placed together. That means they are not entirely random. These species can only come into existence under certain conditions that are very far from random.

Also, the idea that a single species can mutate over time into two or more different species is not supported by the data. In fact, in the hybridization case, we can clearly see that two species have come together to make a third species. If we assume that the parent species came from a common ancestor, the evolutionary "branch" is actually a loop where two branches split off and then rejoin! Fascinating stuff, but it doesn't support random selection at all.

It actually gives evidence that speciation is not simply due to random selection or beneficial mutations.

The reason why I have issue with that is that observable data is showing us that the common beliefs may indeed be flawed. Random selection may not be the driving force behind evolution.

The evidence you've cited should, at the very least, give pause. Speciation is not happening as the theory predicted it would. This means that there is at some point along the line, a flaw in the theory.

What we know for sure is that there are striking similarities in Human and Chimpanzee DNA. We also know that speciation can occur under certain not-entirely-random, but not exclusively non-random, circumstances.

What we don't know is what any of this means exactly. All we have is conjecture until more data can be collected. We must be willing to say that our conjectures are flat out wrong when the data fails to support them.

That's the main point in my philosophy vs. science debate. Evolutionary theory is more philosophical than scientific because it seeks to explain something based on logic, not pure, raw evidence being supported over and over again through experimentation.

Most scientific theories are more philosophy than science. Science is the data collection and experimentation phase, while philosophy is the "thinking" phase.

Even if the logic is based on premises that have scientific evidence that supports them, it is still primarily logic.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with correctly labeling something.
 
Also, the idea that a single species can mutate over time into two or more different species is not supported by the data.

You mean like the data the demonsrtates conclusively that hyracotherium, one species, "mutated" into the modern horse, the modern zebra, and the modern donkey, three distinct species?
 
Actually just took me half an hour to find the data.

Morphically speaking it is obvious the SENECIO EBORACENSIS is a new hybrid species caused by Senecio vulgaris and Senecio squalidis crossing with each other in a chance event. But I got something more.

http://www.ria.ie/cgi-bin/ria/papers/100501.pdf

The latter is most likely the product of fusion between an unreduced gamete of S. squalidus and a normal reduced gamete of S. vulgaris . Lowe and Abbott (2000) proposed that S. eboracensis originated in a few generations by segregation from either the triploid or tetraploid hybrid, or following backcrossing of either hybrid to S. vulgaris . The hybrid status of S. eboracensis is evident from its intermediate morphology and its possession of an additive isozyme profile (Irwin and Abbott 1992).

Speaking English they look similar to your eye. I established long time ago that evolution exists only in the eye of the beholder.

Proposed is not established or observed. I quoted the proposition. However the experiment/experiment did not result in establishment of the status of the Yorker as the son of the proposed parents.
Now the DNA. A preliminary survey of RAPD and inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) variation has shown that a high proportion of markers that distinguish the two parent species are present in S. eboracensis , indicating that this new hybrid species contains a significant portion of the genomes of
each parent (Abbott et al. 2003).

All the genetics tests are in the paper below.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pic...1&blobtype=pdf (abbot et al, 2003)

Do you understand what does preliminary mean? This the end of the question. But, but, just for you OK let’s say it is not prelimenary. It does not mean that they do not contain a significant portion of the genomes of any other Senecios, when it is clear that ALL Senecios must have proportions of genomes of Senecios. It does not mean that the authors make a positive statement that they do not.


RAPD used in standard parental DNA identification cases such as paternal identification for a child or the identification of a murderer or rapist. Basically it is used in the court of law and is pretty damn accurate as many dead beat dads and murderers will attest to.

RAPD - rDNA: Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA (RAPD)

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAPD]RAPD - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
This makes the method popular for comparing the DNA of biological systems that have not had the attention of the scientific community, or in a system in which relatively few DNA sequences are compared (it is not suitable for forming a DNA databank).
Its resolving power is much lower than targeted, species specific DNA comparison methods, such as short tandem repeats. In recent years, RAPD has been used to characterize, and trace, the phylogeny of diverse plant and animal species.
Limitations of RAPD
• Nearly all RAPD markers are dominant, i.e. it is not possible to distinguish whether a DNA segment is amplified from a locus that is heterozygous (1 copy) or homozygous (2 copies). Co-dominant RAPD markers, observed as different-sized DNA segments amplified from the same locus, are detected only rarely.
• PCR is an enzymatic reaction, therefore the quality and concentration of template DNA, concentrations of PCR components, and the PCR cycling conditions may greatly influence the outcome.
• Mismatches between the primer and the template may result in the total absence of PCR product as well as in a merely decreased amount of the product. Thus, the RAPD results can be difficult to interpret.


In short RAPD is good for prelimanary estimates. It provides an indication that A1 and A2 either both or one may be be parents of A0, it provides no positive conclusion.

The bottom line is – the experiment. The experiment did not allow to observe that they were the parents and the son does not cross with them. Experiment is the key word of science.



Oh another paper just for fun, explaining why due to the sexual isolation of the Senecio Eboracensis it should be classified as a new species.

Heredity - Reproductive isolation of a new hybrid species, Senecio eboracensis Abbott & Lowe (Asteraceae)

‘’and is a likely consequence of recombining both parental genomes within this new taxon. ’’

Evolutionists cannot understand a simple question – is it a likely consequence or it is the consequence?

‘’No hybrid offspring between S. eboracensis and S. squalidus were found in the wild, [ I guess they have searched ALL the wild] and only one such hybrid was recorded among 769 progeny produced by S. eboracensis surrounded by S. squalidus on an experimental plot.’’

1/769 is not 0, it is 0.13%. In science they do not say ‘’only one’’ they say “one”.

‘’Natural crossing between S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris was recorded to be very low (between 0 and 1.46%) in the wild, but rose to 18.3% when individuals of S. eboracensis were surrounded by plants of S. vulgaris.’’

Common. Please.18.3 % is recorded. In science it does not mean that S. eboracensis and S. vulgaris do not cross. In science it means that they do cross. 1.46% does not mean that they do not cross, it means that they do cross. It is either recorded as I have been stating from the beginning or it is not as you keep on trying… I don’t know what you are trying…

‘’It was concluded that strong breeding barriers exist between the new hybrid species and its two parents.’’

Sure they do exist, I pointed to them.

One can see how evolutionists always cheat. I asked do you have a proof of the parents? And – what? you were waiting for for 2 days? So far you keep on submitting the same numbers, the same observations. I detaily answered all of them, and gave all possible contingences for a case if I am wrong in any of the 7 objections.

Mathematics has nothing to say on evolution, in fact nothing to say on biology at all. Biology is not black and white like Mathematics is or even Physics. Life can mutate and degrade, succumb to random events, make choices to what mate to reproduce with. Life is not rarely bound by rules or laws. You ever wonder why biology has rarely any laws when physics has plenty of them?
I DO WANT Ikari TO HEAR THAT!!!!. There is no measurable in evolution. This is what a biologist says.

Biology exercised by Christian Creationists scientists has plenty of math in it starting from the papers of the Christian Creationists scientist Gregor Mendel, a trained mathematician and physicist. I am not surprised that Darwin couldn’t comprehend the text of Mendel. I am not surprised that you have no clue about abilities of mathematics. I am not surprised that you do not realize that your statement Macroevolution = Microevolution + Time is a mathematical expression (written wrong, it should be Macroevolution = Microevolution *Time.) I am not surprised that you have no clue that random events are a subject of mathematics.



You cannot compare the uncertainity of life with the set in stone predictability of mathematics. Doing so, shows a poor understanding of evolution.

Let me remind you about the uncertainty principal in quantum mechanics. Mathematics and Physics deal with things that cannot even be visualized, which are not even things. I am not surprised that you have no clue about abilities of mathematics.
The fact you always use wikipedia in your arguments says ALOT about you justone. How is it a shameless cheat justone, BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH EVIDENCE, rather than just aimlessly slander people.
I do always use wiki when it is suitable to use wiki. And I slandered exactly what I aimed at – the authors of wiki’s article I used. In other cases I use it to make it simple for the audience. It is not all wrong.

I did it.
Studies, you mean those books? Anyone opinated wacko can write a book. Shall I take all those alien abduction books as fact too?

You say you did and then you ask question what do I mean.

I meant other studies YOU pointed to and I linked to them, because you refused to do in time.


Yeah you pointed it out, yet your points are worthless WITHOUT EVIDENCE justone. Just because you say so doesn't make it true

I quoted YOUR authors. I am afraid you are loosing sense of reality. How many more times you are going to come with the same stuff? You posted the link. I pointed to a number of problems, false statements. You keep on bringing Exactly the same problems the same false statements over and over again. I am afraid you are loosing sense of reality.
 
Last edited:
Yup. Mistakes don't happen on this end. Evoltion is sound science and observed fact.

I notice the people denying evolution aren't telling us what they believe did happen.

Sure they do. The Earth was made in 6 days. Man appeared on Earth slightly over 4,000 years ago. And a bunch of liberals ran all over the planet burying dinosaur bones so it would look like they were here 65 million years ago. :lol:
 
Sure they do. The Earth was made in 6 days. Man appeared on Earth slightly over 4,000 years ago. And a bunch of liberals ran all over the planet burying dinosaur bones so it would look like they were here 65 million years ago. :lol:

Well, they haven't actually said anything as silly as that. I'm sure whatever it is they do believe is equally silly, but it may, for all I can see from what they've posted, be that the Keebler Elves moonlight and cook up pre-designed DNA in their hollow tree or something. Of course, then they have to explain who created the elves, and then they have to explain who created that guy, and then they have to explain where that girl that did that came from, but they're assidiously avoiding all that by merely posting nonsensical easily countered refutations to established science.

Oh, and they apparently say the people who understand the science are lying their asses off, but won't say why.
 
Back
Top Bottom