Divergent Evolution Of New Species Is Not Genetically Expensive

Professor Baxter said:
The argument has been about your inability to understand that evolution continues within a species whether the species diverges into separate groups or not
Click to expand...

lol.....when have we ever discussed that.....if we had, I would have been on the side that said it obviously continued......you're the one who believes all early humans evolved into a single species, I'm the one who said that was illogical.....your tree is only a trunk......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I mentioned it yesterday as well as mentioning it in the other thread.....however, I'm not going to wade through all those pages just to show you you are wrong.....we can take that for granted by now.......
Click to expand...

Bullshit, your argument has been that evolution only takes place through diverging species. Now you are claiming no species shares genes. Before that you claimed speciation happens in a single generation. You are fucking stupid.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....when have we ever discussed that.....if we had, I would have been on the side that said it obviously continued......you're the one who believes all early humans evolved into a single species, I'm the one who said that was illogical.....your tree is only a trunk......
Click to expand...

No, you argued that a species cannot evolve from archaic forms without divergence. You are lying about it now. You are misrepresenting the multi regional hypothesis and again, I am only telling you what it is and how it is possible, not that I agree with it. You continue to misrepresent and twist things up.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Bullshit, your argument has been that evolution only takes place through diverging species. Now you are claiming no species shares genes. Before that you claimed speciation happens in a single generation. You are fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

/boggle.....I'm curious who you've been debating.....none of those arguments look even vaguely familiar.....isn't all evolution about divergence?.....and when have we ever talked about sharing genes?......I have said that speciation could happen in a single generation if an intelligent designer caused it, but that wouldn't BE evolution now would it......that would be creation.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but how could anything evolve from anything without diverging from it?.....did you think something evolves by remaining the same?......
Click to expand...

The species simply evolves and goes through signicant changes from archaic forms without any divergence. Every species evolves whether or not there is divergence or a speciation event. Again, divergence is less common.

I don't get why you are having trouble with this. Probably because you are stupid and a scumbag liar.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/boggle.....I'm curious who you've been debating.....none of those arguments look even vaguely familiar.....isn't all evolution about divergence?.....and when have we ever talked about sharing genes?......I have said that speciation could happen in a single generation if an intelligent designer caused it, but that wouldn't BE evolution now would it......that would be creation.....
Click to expand...

Theyre not familiar then you repeat them???

No, not all evolution is divergence.

You claimed there has never been a network of genic exchange for any species anywhere at anytime. How stupid are you that you don't understand that you are denying that animals share genes via sexual reproduction?

You claimed that evolutionary theory suggests that speciation occurs in a single generation. You still are equivocating with your vague answer that it has to start in an individual in answer to my question of whether it happens within a group or individual. If you mean some sort of variation, yes. If you mean speciation then you are still extremely confused.

Glad to see you are finally admitting that you reject evolution. At least you have made some progress on your pervasive lying even if you are still just as stupid.
 
Professor Baxter said:
The species simply evolves and goes through signicant changes from archaic forms without any divergence. Every species evolves whether or not there is divergence or a speciation event. Again, divergence is less common.

I don't get why you are having trouble with this. Probably because you are stupid and a scumbag liar.
Click to expand...

on the other hand it may be because every single species on earth has diverged (except humans if you are to be believed).......
 
Professor Baxter said:
No, not all evolution is divergence.
Click to expand...
responded to in previous post....
You claimed there has never been a network of genic exchange for any species anywhere at anytime.
Click to expand...

???....I can't even begin to speculate where you drew that from anything I have ever posted......I have criticized you for claiming that evolution always involves the entire population instead of only the limited population that is diverging, but obviously the diverging population will continue to share almost all of the genes retained by the rest of the population.......of course, once divergence has progressed to the point that interbreeding is not successful it is obvious there will be no further genic exchange...

You claimed that evolutionary theory suggests that speciation occurs in a single generation.
Click to expand...

lol.....no.....I stated that it BEGINS with an individual and continues if there is an isolation from the general population, so that the new trait can be passed on to a diverging population.....if there is no isolation the trait would remain an occasional random abnormality rather than evolving into a new species.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
on the other hand it may be because every single species on earth has diverged (except humans if you are to be believed).......
Click to expand...

You are an idiot. Both theories, of course, agree that human descent includes divergence in the past and both agree that humans have evolved since that divergence. The disagreement is on when this happened last and how often. Every single species on earth has evolved since it diverged or another species diverged from it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
responded to in previous post....


???....I can't even begin to speculate where you drew that from anything I have ever posted......I have criticized you for claiming that evolution always involves the entire population instead of only the limited population that is diverging, but obviously the diverging population will continue to share almost all of the genes retained by the rest of the population.......of course, once divergence has progressed to the point that interbreeding is not successful it is obvious there will be no further genic exchange...

lol.....no.....I stated that it BEGINS with an individual and continues if there is an isolation from the general population, so that the new trait can be passed on to a diverging population.....if there is no isolation the trait would remain an occasional random abnormality rather than evolving into a new species.....
Click to expand...

Not all evolution is divergence. You did not correct your ignorant comment.

In response to the point that there had been a network of genic exchange, you said...

PostmodernProphet said:
yet no such network is visible for any other species of anything anywhere........is this "hypothesis" supported by the scientific method?.......
Click to expand...

Yes, you think speciation occurs in a individual within a single generation. You have some stupid idea about how that spreads (it can't effectively do so if it is the only member of this new species). Also, you stupidly think that the remaining or non divergent population does not evolve but cannot name any species that is identical to its ancient forms.
 
Last edited:
Professor Baxter said:
You are an idiot. Both theories, of course, agree that human descent includes divergence in the past and both agree that humans have evolved since that divergence. The disagreement is on when this happened last and how often. Every single species on earth has evolved since it diverged or another species diverged from it.
Click to expand...

not the argument....the argument is......if every other type of creature evolved into an endless variety of species, why didn't homo sapiens.....

all archaic bears did not end up to be polar bears.....

why did all homo erectus end up to be homo sapiens.....

that question began the argument and you claimed it was the same thing.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
Not evolution is divergence. You did not correct your ignorant comment.
Click to expand...
there was nothing to correct....all evolution IS divergence....

In response to the point that there had been a network of genic exchange, you said...
Click to expand...

I was commenting on the claim that for every species, as for homo sapiens, the ENTIRE genetic makeup was passed on.....


Yes, you think speciation occurs in a individual within a single generation.
Click to expand...

and you continue to believe this even though I have corrected you and told you what I REALLY believe a half dozen times?......why is that?.....

but cannot name any species that is identical to its ancient forms.
Click to expand...

well apart from crocodiles, cockroaches, and perhaps a few others, I doubt any are.....but since I've never claimed they were I'm not certain why you mention it....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not the argument....the argument is......if every other type of creature evolved into an endless variety of species, why didn't homo sapiens.....

all archaic bears did not end up to be polar bears.....

why did all homo erectus end up to be homo sapiens.....

that question began the argument and you claimed it was the same thing.....
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about?

Why haven't polar bears diverged recently into more than one distinct species? If you go backwards into their evolutionary past you will find they have diverged from other species. If you go back into humans evolutionary history you will find the same. The issue of multi regional versus the replacement concerns when was the last divergence or if the differences between homo erectus and homo sapien are just due to evolution of one species from archaic forms.

We have evolved significantly from archaic forms of homo sapiens, that is, after the appearance of what is classed as distinctly homo sapien 200K ya. Why hasn't there been divergence in homo sapiens? This is not a circular question, moron, no one doubts this has happened and it is not a point of contention in the multi-regional vs replacement models, though how much we have evolved in the last 200k years is (replacement model argues we have evolved more in the last 200k years than multiregional).
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there was nothing to correct....all evolution IS divergence....

I was commenting on the claim that for every species, as for homo sapiens, the ENTIRE genetic makeup was passed on.....

and you continue to believe this even though I have corrected you and told you what I REALLY believe a half dozen times?......why is that?.....

well apart from crocodiles, cockroaches, and perhaps a few others, I doubt any are.....but since I've never claimed they were I'm not certain why you mention it....
Click to expand...

Not all evolution is divergence. That's just idiotic.

No, you denied that any species shares genes. Saying there is a network of genic exchange does not indicate that the genetic makeup is passed on without change. That is NOT what the multiregional model suggests.

You have not adequately explained how you think divergence happens. You have said repeatedly that it starts in an individual. It does not. Variations start in individuals but it is accumulation of variation within the separate groups that causes speciation or divergence. Variations can accumulate without speciation or divergence.

Crocodiles have evolved. They have changed less than other animals but they have evolved from archaic forms.
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/crocodilians.htm

So have cockroaches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockroach#Evolutionary_history_and_relationships

There are no species identical to their archaic forms.
 
Professor Baxter said:
If you go backwards into their evolutionary past you will find they have diverged from other species. If you go back into humans evolutionary history you will find the same.
Click to expand...

wrong.....ancient bears evolved in different regions as different species.......polar bears evolved in one region, grizzly bears in another.....ancient humans are all homo sapiens......why aren't there homo sapienpolarpeople and homo sapiengrizzlypeople....

this is why I stated that multi-regional evolution is illogical......observational science does not bear it out.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top