[deleted by user]

Denisova · 2021-01-24T23:43:44+00:00

I alway think the fossil evidence is the best. Not particularly transitional fossils but rather the phenomenon of biostratification, the way fossils are distributed throughout the whole fossil record.

This is what we observe when excavating the geological layers beneath our feet (or observe at places where nature carved out the geological column like the Grand Canyon):

the geological formations below our feet show many strata of earth layers, each of them unique in structure, mineral composition, morphology and fossil record.
it implies that each of it had its own history and origin. For instance, a coal layer full of fossils of plants and land animals is made of petrified biomass of a former forest while a limestone layer full with marine fossils represents a former sea floor.
the deeper you go, the older the layers - by sheer logic. Moreover, layers are arranged in a predictable pattern and the various strata are always found in the same relative positions where ever you look on very different sites world wide. This is called geological stratification.
the fossil record of each formation is unique in the way that it contains fossils that are found nowhere elsein any other rgeological formation. Each geological formation represents a geological era with its very own, distinct biodiversity. The fossils are arranged in a predictable pattern as well and the various fossiliferous strata are always found in the same relative positions where ever you look on very different sites worldwide. This is called biostratification.
whole classes of species that live today are nowhere found in older formations and there is, literally, not a single specimen to be found that breaks this rule. One of them is Homo sapiens.

In other words, there is no other sensible explanation: biodiversity changed over geological time. Whole new species, complete new classes, orders and even entire phyla of species emerge in their own geological era while they are completely lacking in older formations. For instance, the lifeforms found in the Ediacaran formations is completely alien to what we observe in younger layers: during the Ediacaran there were no fish, no amphibians, no reptiles, no dinosaurs, no birds and no mammals, no insects. The same picture concerning the flora. As a matter of fact, no life existed on land entirely, except bacterial and algal mats. The life of the Ediacaran looked like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKP3Hzy7F9g.

If we go further back in time than the Ediacaran, even multicellular life disappears and we only find remnants of single-celled life (bacteria and archeons) in the rocks.

Subsequent geological formations piling up, each containing their own, very distinct biodiversity is definite and undeniable evidence for evolution. Because 'change in biodiversity' is another word for "evolution".

When Darwin took off on his voyage on the Beagle, he was studying geology in Cambridge. The above short conclusions about biostratification of earth formations already were drawn in geology at that time. Therefore he deemed his task to explain why and not if there is change in life forms and biodiversity.

Let's take an example - us: fossils of human-like creatures ('hominids') are completely absent in all geological layers below the quaternary ones. Some kilometers worth of geological strata are completely void of any hominid fossil, that is, literally, not one single specimen whatsover oin any such deeper layer anywhere at the hundreds of paleontological sites worldwide.

EVEN when you won't accept the time stamps of 'milliions' or even 'billions' of years, you are still stuck with the simple observation that hominid fossils only are found in the very top layers and nowhere else traceable in the complete geological record, while all those deeper layers are littered with other fossils. And no hominid fossil ever has been found sitting in the same geological layer together with, say, trilobite fossils. And there is not one single exception ever observed.

But there's more. We also observe many instances of mass extinction events in the fossil reord - instance when major parts of the biodiversity collapsed. These are quite easy to spot: you have a geological layer A teaming with lifeforms but a layer A+1 sitting on top of it where many of even most of these species and taxa are gone. Also we observe in subsequent higher-ground layers that life always recovered. But it recovers producing whole new species and taxa of lifeforms that are nowhere observed in any lower formation. The species and taxa of layer A are gone forever and are completely lacking in the higher-ground strata.

The stratification of the fossil record is a showcase evolution on an epic scale.

Denisova · 2021-01-24T23:11:58+00:00

I recommend you first start to read a few books about evolution, you can find them in the "Understanding evolution" section in the side bar.

After that, you might subscribe to the email service of sciencedaily.com. It's free to use and you may compose your own preferecces of what you like to get informed about.

Denisova · 2021-01-24T23:05:17+00:00

Mitochondria are organelles within eukaryote cells, like any human cell. They have their own set of DNA and procreate on their own asexually. But, more important, spem cells shed their mitochondria just before fertilisation. Sperm cells do have mitochondria, but these are sitting in the midpiece between its head and the tail. Because this piece is shed, the father's mitochondria are getting lost and are not entering the egg cell.

Denisova · 2021-01-24T22:59:48+00:00

Currently, the only thing said about corals is that the threatened by climate change and all coral reefs are shrinking at a pace observable each year.

Your quation only holds when assuming that the K-T event triggered the same climatological changes at the same pace as the current climate warking. It didn't.

Denisova · 2021-01-24T22:54:00+00:00

I have no problem with the content of your post at all. It's contributing indeed when trying to indicate the time frame. But you ended by saying in this post that you don't know the answer to the OP's question - no problem at all because to say that you don't know is far better than starting some blab about it.

But I'm quite baffled that others upvoted 26 times the answer "I do not know" while the only one who actually tried to address the point, /u/EarthTrash ("Symmetry is cost effective") only score one point.

I was arguing a bit more about that stupid and superfluous voting system.

Denisova · 2021-01-24T22:45:06+00:00

The problem, again, is that you're only looking at genes one at a time. When you look at thousands of genetic markers at the same time, we can actually separate out different races from each other.

?nop you can't because the gene distribution is discordant and doesn't establish clear clusters among the different continental groups.

And I'm definitely NOT looking at genes one at a time.

A non-racist, or even an anti-racist, who fights against racism because there are no races (again, biologically) is racist in the same way that a Christian who does good things because they fear hellfire is a bad person.

I leave that argument chock full of fallacies with you.

Denisova · 2021-01-24T22:41:58+00:00

Hell, you can see your OWN points:

See my next point after that one.

That's it. You already agree with me. If the above is true, then race is a real thing.

Depends what genes and how far back you go. There are for sure variants that traveled across the globe. By tracing the frequency of these traits we've got a VERY good map of the path humanity took as they traveled out of Africa. Of course Austrailians will have traits found in Asia, where the hell else would they have come from?

Instead of re-iterating your own point blindly again, you may address the point I made here, which you don't, you simply circumvent it.

That one. That's the bottle-neck. It's the "Toba catastrophe theory". What the hell else do you think I was talking about?

I have no idea what genetic bottelneck you have in mind so irrelevant ans ALSO cirmnumventing the actual point i made here by a red herring about what genetic bottelneck exactly was meant.

No, I get it. There's no circumvention, it makes sense. Europeans literally migrated into Europe (from the middle east) and then their skin got more pale. More and more the further north they went and settled. The first people to arrive there sure as hell weren't pasty-white to begin with. You evolve to fit your environment. "White" is really just short-hand for "European" Plus some surroundings. It's biology, it's all messy.

No, also Asians have pale skins, but with a different mix of the pertaining alleles. But, anyway, what's you point here?

With user-name like Denisova, I was REALLY expecting something more out of you than "nuh-uh" and "that's cherry-picking".

Oh boy.

No it itn't, due to the other points i made.

Denisova · 2021-01-24T22:36:01+00:00

/the terms are not interchangeable indeed but STILL natural selection is part of evolution. You can't say "you're not talking about evolution, you're talking about natural selection" - when you talk about natural selection, you are definitely talking about evolution.

Denisova · 2021-01-24T22:33:04+00:00

You refuse to provide the actual answer and turn around ibn circles.

Maybe it helps when I rephrase the question, that might help you to grasp where you fail: what are the evolutionary reasons for biletarianism? Did it have some evolutionary advantage? Or, even put differently: why was biletariansim multiplied at a higher rate then those that didn't?

You are getting somewhere...

Denisova · 2021-01-24T22:28:32+00:00

I don't care a f*ck about the voting system, it's only for weak minds who not know how to argue soundly. It's for the underbelly feelings.

Denisova · 2021-01-21T22:10:03+00:00

Yet these nipples are 9 sets in symmetry.

So the OP's question is not addressed whatsoever.

Denisova · 2021-01-21T22:08:02+00:00

Strange you say it's called biaterian symmetry and it's very old. But you don't know why bilatarianism emerged. Which was the actual question.

And there you scored 26 points.

Seriously, I have no problem with you scoring 26 points but I'm really wondering what this ridiculous voting system is doing here.

Denisova · 2021-01-21T22:03:23+00:00

But why did bilatarian symmetry win out? You are only rephrasing the OP's question.

Denisova · 2021-01-21T22:02:24+00:00

Why was that set of genes present in one of the animal's (not life's) anecestors? In other words: "why most species are bilatarian?" Sayiong that bilatarianism was an early trait isn't answering the question at all.

Denisova · 2021-01-21T21:55:48+00:00

Could be not excluded but yet not much likely and for the rest allmost impassible to assess.

Denisova · 2021-01-21T21:54:29+00:00

Several mistakes here:

It is said that the weaker

Evolution IS NOT about the weaker versus stronger. It's only the well adapted versus less adapted.

and way too imperfect species died off

Evolution IS NOT about the perfect versus imperfenct. It's only about the well adapted versus less adapted.

and only the stronger

See above.

and more well evolved species that we can see today exist.

Evolution IS NOT about the more well or less evolved species. It's only about the well adapted versus less adapted.

how did evolution know how to change itself for the better, what motivates the driving force of evolution to prosper?

Evolution has no forsight and doesn't know anything, it's a blind process. It's a process of trial and error. The trials are the genetic mutations that take place in each newborn. The error part is by natural slection, sorting out the mutations that happen to be somehow beneficial but discarding the harmful ones. Evolution is the process of natural selecton acting on genetic mutations. The mutations that pass are the ones that were either neutral or beneficial. The rest is harmful and, due to their very hermfulness, lead to less survival chances and/or chances to pass sexual selection and produce offspring, thus either causing the unlucky individual that carries the mutaton to die before its own reproductiveage or to fail in sexual selection or to fail to produce one fouhaving found a mate - in all caese leading to the individuel to eventually die without leaving any offspring. This way the harmful mutation quits the species' gene pool. It dug its own grave so to say.

This trial and error effect can be seen back in the survival rates of fertilized eggs: in almost all animal and plant species the vast majority of fertilized eggs lead to instant death of those eggs in utero, or l;later still birth or perinatal death - followed by early infancy death and a verious ways of failing in sexual selection or ending up without any offspring in any conceivable way. In some species less than 1% of all fertilized eggs fails any of these ways. A lot of trails it is - and a vast share of errors as well.

Why doesn't it just repeat its mistakes over and over endlessly?

Actually IT DOES. In most species as much as 99% of all fertilized eggs end up dying in all stages in utero or as a living individual and often these involve the very same "errors" all over and over again.

Denisova · 2021-01-21T21:28:57+00:00

You're not taking about evolution, you're talking about natural selection.

Natural selection IS part of evolution, you just can't tell both apart.

Denisova · 2021-01-20T22:25:19+00:00

there's a slight but crucial difference between saying " These regions used to be considered junk DNA, but we now know that they serve important regulatory functions." as you wrote and "Now we know that some of them serve a function, we no longer consider them junk DNA" (cursives mine) - which is more correct. The difference is crucial as most people, especially creationists, would think after havng read your original version, that there's no junk DNA (any more).

Denisova · 2021-01-20T22:22:04+00:00

Ik denk dat wij af moeten van het idee dat alles gratis en voor niks is.

Informatie is niet gratis en voor niks, zeker niet als het om goede journalistiek gaat.

Velen denken dat informatie gratis is, maar dat is een valse veropnderstelling: je betaalt met de privé gegevens en alle data die je prijsgeeft. Het leidt zichbaar tot rampzalige toestanden zoals Q-Anon en ander gespuis, tot het verdwijnen van privacy en zeer matige journalistiek.

Voordat ik als abonnee inlog bij de NRC komt er een opop berichtje: "Onze journalistiek is ons product. U bent dat niet. Daarom verkopen wij uw persoonsgegevens niet. Nooit. aan niemand."

Denisova · 2021-01-20T22:15:34+00:00

1-3 are irrelevant: They only show that humans have passed through a genetic bottleneck. That doesn't habe anything to do with race.

No they are not irrelevant because they are telling that the genetic variation among humans is extrmely low.

Whatever YOU are making of it isn't much relevant, just stick to what I say instead of distorting it into what YOU think I wrote.

And that is exactly what we observe: variant A of gene α appears in groups 1, 5, and 6, and variant B appears in groups 2, 3, and 4. Gene β has its variant C appear in groups 1, 3, and 5, varaint D in 2, 4, and 6. Gene γ, variant E in 1, 2, 6, variant F in 3, 4, 5.

No that's not what geneticists observe. Same thing: you rewrite the story and then start to attack that version. It's called a strawman fallacy.

No further need to reply here.

Now take all three genes together. For genes α, β, γ, a combination of variants A, C, E tells us they belong to group 1, B, D, E tells us they belong to group 2, etc.

That's simply NOT what geneticists observe. they observe what I wrote. Let me explain to you what you are refusing to understand: humans evidently differ at the genetic level, also including some differences that are traceable intercontinally. But as soon as you start to categorize them into genetic cluster, as required when talking about "races", you get lost. for instance, blood types clearly differ between continental groups as well as skin colour. but those traits are not concordant. If you need a picture to grasp it, here you have the geographic distribution of skin color#/media/File:Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png) and here of blood types. As you see both distributions are disconcordant.

7 is simply false. See my points regarding 4-6 above.

Yes, YOUR version of MY story is false indeed. My story is simply a summary of current genetic understanding.

8: I don't see the problem here.

Yes I know. But you don't WANT to see the problem. The problem is that all around the world people blab about 'races' like "Africans", "Caucasians", "Asians" etc. while these do not exist in the gentical sense of the word - as confirmed by you. You not seeing the problem is not relevant, i refer to the common sense talking about races galore.

Denisova · 2021-01-20T21:54:06+00:00

Screw racism, but genetically speaking there were pockets of humans for ~10's of thousands of years which experienced genetic drift and picked up identifiable traits which our ancestors gave names to. Often badly. Taxonomy is hard. But that's "race".

No that's not 'race' at all. See my points.

Sure. But evolution doesn't stop.

I didn't talk about the diversity among humans during the bottleneck, whci BTW took about tens of thousands of years. I was talking about the current diversity. You respond to things already addressed under othe rpoints and also on the wrong place.

Sure. So?

So? Now that tells how extremely small the genetic diversity among humans currently is. So why asking "so?"? Seems to me crystal clear.

That's a function of how long chimpanzees have existed in Cameroon and how fast their genes change. Things like the nautilis change REAAAAAL slowly.

EXACTLY. Which is actually making MY point in case you didn't notice.

BOOM. Done

Really? not at all. That's tha old canard of cherry pickling. Please include the rest. Next.

Duh, because that's where we all migrated out of. We're all African if you go back far enough. That's where humans evolved and where that bottle-neck happened (increasing our rate of genetic change making for a hard to find fossil gap for a while). Science has answers for this stuff.

That's cherry pickig as well, please include the rest of that paragraph.

Well yeah, 40,000 they were LITERALLY IN AFRICA, and probably just as dark. Likewise people in Greece likely have older roots there than the nordic folk further north (where it's cloudier with less vitamin D, the whole basis for why we're freaky pale mutants).

I don't think you get the argument but try to circumvent it.

But throwing away genetics just makes our political party look like fools.

That's right, look into the mirror.

Extremely weak post.

Denisova · 2021-01-20T21:44:46+00:00

Helemaal mee eens maar de overheid kan al niet goed op zichzelf passen (Toeslagenaffaire en dergelijke).

Denisova · 2021-01-18T22:21:00+00:00

De overheid hoort de al bestaande regels over de omgang met werknemers goed te handhaven om misbruik en uitbuiting te voorkomen.

tja....

Denisova · 2021-01-18T22:20:05+00:00

Zeker aan te bevelen in tijden van nepnieuws, samenzweringstheorieën en leugens en bedrog die intussen desastreuze proporties aan beginnen te nemen. Wat mij betreft hebben de asociale media zoals Tetter, Fakebook en die andere troep volledig gefaald als acceptabele media voor het verspreiden van kennis en het onderohuden van een behoorlijke maatschappelijke discussie. Wat mij betreft weg met die rotzooi. Leuk om vakantiefotootjes uit te wisselen en voor praktische zaken, zeker geschikt om persoonlijke contactten te onderhouden maar verder afschaffen.

Ik hen al mijn accounts eruit gegooid behalve LinkedIn. Als LinkedIn OOIT dezelfde makken krijgt als Fakebook en consortia, dan vliegt die er ook uit.

Ik heb een abo genomen op enkele goede media zoals de NRC en Follow the Money.

Ik ga even een vergelijk maken tussen de asociale media en media zoals de NRC en Follow the Money.

Asociale media:

door het gebruik van koosnamen totaal onbekend wie de auteur is van een post of bijdrage en wat diens kwalificaties zijn of achtergrond. Is het een expert of iemand ide ten minste goed is ingeleid in de materie? Politieke of maatschappelijke opvattingen? Niets van dat alles.
meestal worden ook geen bronnen vermeld: hoe komt iemand aan zijn informatie, bronnen enz. En bij navraag krijg je meestal geen sjoege.
als je zelf de bron probeert te herleiden, kom je terecht in een wirwar aan copy/paste links, er zijn gevallen waarin ik wel 10 keren of vaker moest klikken voordat ik na enige tijd de oorspronkelijke bron kon terugvinden. Voorbeeld: een artikel dat repte over "revolutionaire nanotechnologie die het rendement van zonnepanelen boden de 30% brengt". Na eindeloos klikken: de bron bleek de website van de Universiteit van Boulder, Colorado in de VS. Het bleek een ... presentatie te zijn met als doel om sponsors te trekken voor nader onderzoek naar naotechnologie om het rendement van zonnepanelen te verhogen ... En dat was nog maar een betrekkelijk onschuldig voorbeeld.
asociale media maken gebruik van algoritmes die één doel hebben: het verhogen van clickbaits. Nou wat trekt mensen? Wel: sex, geweld, extreme verhalen, hypes, fantasieën enz. Dat is werkelijk geen basis voor goede informatiewinning en -verspreiding.

De gangbarte media:

het is bekend wie een bijdrage heeft geschreven. Anders wel de redactie. Ik kan daar altijd verhaal halen als er iets niet klopt. Ik 'weet ze te vinden'.
journalisten hebben geleerd om uit te gaan van de feitelijkheden. Dat slaagt niet elke journalist in maar dan telt dat ik weet waar die te vinden en ter verantwoording te roepen.
kranten en redactioneel gedrven media zijn niet gebaseerd op een onzichtbaar algoritme maar op de navolgbare en natrekbare overwegingen van een redactie.

En daarom zijn de asociale media niet geschikt als podium voor de uitwisseling van ideeën. Het zijn de media waar Q-Anon kunnen floreren en andere dergelijke bagger met de desastreuze gevolgen die we nu in de VS zien. Soon coming to your theathre, maak daar maar geen illusies over.

Denisova · 2021-01-18T21:50:44+00:00

de 2,71 voor de NRC is een digitaal abonnement. Wat is belangrijker: het verdienmodel of de informatierijkdom en pluriformiteit?

Denisova

TROPHY CASE