Hey, where does he bring up politics and religion? Just wondering cuz Idrc to look for it.
The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
10 hrs ago
0
#48703
Aeacb_7221 wrote:
varelse1 wrote:
Volo-Triumphare wrote:
If you want the pure hard facts for why Evolution isn't possible, here you go. Take Ribonuclease. It is the simplest protein in life and is made of 124 amino acids. Ribonuclease will not work if those amino acids aren't arranged in precise order. The chance for all of those amino acids forming in precise arrangement is 10 to the one hundred and fifty second power! That is an absurdly large number (1 followed by a hundred and fifty two zeros!). In other words; chances are NIL. Please allow me to elaborate. Macroevolution is the "theory" that natural selection, can, overtime produce an entirely different species. This is ridiculous because, although natural selection can makes species have differing traits (microevolution), species cannot change their genetic information! Like literally just can't. It just doesn't work. For macroevolution to occur an entire change has to be made in a species's genetic information, and as stated before, this just doesn't work. It simply is impossible.
Let's move on to the geological column and the fossil record. A big pillar of macroevolution. And if macroevolution did (which it didn't) occur, then the geological column would make a lot of sense. You might be saying it does make sense and it proves macroevolution, because the closer to the top you go the more complex the fossilized creatures are, so macroevolution is obviously correct. Well, there's just one problem. The geological column is entirely incorrect. Let me demonstrate. (By the way if you're still reading this, thanks). The problem exists as a result of some fossils that were "rediscovered" in the mid 1980s, and based on those fossils, we know that the geological column is incorrect. You see, the geological column is used to give the impression that the fossil record indicates that only the "simplest" multicellular life existed in the years represented by the Cambrian rock and then through the years represented by the Ordovician rock the life got more complex. This supposedly continued through to the times represented by the Silurian rock as well as the time represented by Devonian rock. As a result, the diverse life that we see in the oceans did not fully "evolve" until about 400 million years ago.
What is meant by "rediscovery"? Well in the early 1900s, paleontologist Charles Walcott discovered a lot of fossils in a layer of Cambrian rock called the Burgess Shale. However, these fossils weren't what Walcott expected. Remember, according to the geological column, only the simplest of multicellular life was supposed to have existed in the times represented by Cambrian rock. However, Walcott found thousands of fossils of very complex life. In fact, by the time the collection was complete, Walcott had found representatives from every major phylum that exists in our classification system!!! What did this stunning discovery mean? It meant that the geological column as presented in many textbooks is dead wrong. However, instead of making this revolutionary discovery known to the world, Walcott, published his find in a very obscure scientific journal and reburied the fossils in his laboratory drawers, where they would not be found for another 80 years. Okay, moving on to structural homology.
When Darwin discovered structural homology he thought he had discovered a big piece of evidence. Welp, wrong again. Just because some species have similar structures doesn't mean that they evolved form a common ancestor. Why? Because these species DO NOT share genetic information. They don't. They really don't.
I could go on for a whole lot longer but my simple take is wow. Wow. Even the "simplest" of life is obviously EXTREMELY complicated and not in the slightest "simple". Anyone who has taken a basic highschool biology course ought to know this. I therefore, find it simply unutterably unimaginable that macroevolution is even slightly feasible. Quite opposite from being "scientific" the "science" of evolution turns out to be rather unscientific. If you read to the end, Thank you.
Not true. Angiospermae (flowered plants) are not present in the fossil record until LONG after the Cambrian. They did not appear until the dinosaur days.
At that point, the Cambrian was long gone and forgotten.
(Because this phylum required the presence of bees.)
Volo's point, I believe, was that what is called evolution is unscientific. This has nothing to do with the time when the first flowered plants became fossilized. Just because there aren't any preserved fossils of a thing doesn't mean they didn't exist before. Even if what you said were true, it has no impact on what Volo said.
"According to the fossil record, flowers appeared before bees; meaning bees evolved after flowering plants were already present" This is what the AI overview could find, and it seems that what you said isn't even true.
Yes. there were something quite similar to bees. Filling the same role.
"No, bees are not the only method of cross pollination:
Other insects: Wasps, flies, beetles, and butterflies are also pollinators.
Birds: Hummingbirds and other birds are pollinators.
Bats: Bats are pollinators.
Small mammals: Some small mammals are pollinators.
Wind: Some plants have lightweight pollen that can be blown by the wind.
Water: Aquatic plants are pollinated by water."
Even without animals it seems plants can be cross-pollinated. Not that it means anything though
4 hrs ago
0
#48705
His views were a regurgitation of refuted arguments centring on the idea that if someone with very poor understanding cannot imagine something, it cannot be true.
4 hrs ago
0
#48706
Aeacb_7221 wrote:
"No, bees are not the only method of cross pollination:
Other insects: Wasps, flies, beetles, and butterflies are also pollinators.
Birds: Hummingbirds and other birds are pollinators.
Bats: Bats are pollinators.
Small mammals: Some small mammals are pollinators.
Wind: Some plants have lightweight pollen that can be blown by the wind.
Water: Aquatic plants are pollinated by water."
Even without animals it seems plants can be cross-pollinated. Not that it means anything though
While that is so, the purpose of a flower is primarily to attract pollinators. And bees are an extremely important class of pollinators because of their particularly advanced co-operative evolution, which has led to them being responsible for a large fraction of all pollination.
Can someone explain what's going on rn?
Sure.
Somebody who's name begins with 'Volo' is breaking the chess.com rules by discussing a subject not allowed in the public forums by chess.com.
And - somebody who's name begins with 'shadow' wants to jump in and shill for Volo because that's what shadow does. He supports people who want to bring down forums. Jumps in tactically.
But others really are here to discuss evolution.
And some suspect “Volo” and “shadow” are the same person.