Argumentum ad populum

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, this is our understanding of evolution. I believe our understanding is incorrect.

It is a great distance from believing something and having evidence to support hypotheses.

No doubt speciation can occur in this manner but the real question is what caused giraffes to arise or birds to fly.

Natural selection did it.

Such major changes apparently come from bottlenecks that select for behavior just like early humans created dogs from wolves or cats from dangerous hunters.

That has no evidence to support it and is loose conjecture that can be readily dismissed as such.

Perhaps birds came from land loving animals which were all wiped out except those in trees and giraffes came from shrub loving animals which like a specific leaf from a tree.

This is a typical misunderstanding of evolution. The ancestor does not have to die out in order for a new species to form.

I've seen no evidence for slow moving "evolution". No experiment shows a slow change. We interpret "missing links" as fossils not yet found but the reality is they never existed at all.

Then you have ignored all the evidence that everyone else has looked at.

Behavior is key to change in species, not fitness.

Behavior could be an element of speciation, but it is not key to the process of speciation. The formation of a barrier that separates a species into distinct populations and leaves them separated does not reveal any basis for behavior driving the evolution of the resutant species.

Fitness only assures the health of a species and not the direction it changes, typically.

Fitness has nothing to do with the health of a species. It is how successful they are at reproducing. A population with specific genotype and higher average reproduction in a particular environment has greater fitness. You clearly do not understand the terms used in reference to biology and are using meanings that have little if any value in the context of evolution, genetics or biology in general.

 

[Thief]

The ancestor does not have to die out in order for a new species to form.

I believe the garden event
sent Man into a new direction

and the population noted in Day Six
is still with us

can you tell the difference?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've never heard of this and a quick wiki search yields nothing.

See. That is part of your misunderstanding. You are claiming expertise and are not even aware of the observations. A quick search of Google using "genetic bottleneck in humans" yielded 845,000 hits in .66 seconds.

It's curious that your number coincides with my dating for the arrival of Homo Sapiens.

The arrival of H. sapiens where. The evidence indicates that our species has existed for close to 300,000 years. The bottleneck did not result in a change in our species.

Can you point me toward research or confirmation? Perhaps, it wasn't mutation at all that created the first humans.

It wasn't mutation alone. It was variation, largely supplied by mutation, and natural selection that drove the evolution of humans and all other living things.

I gave you Google. The rest you will have to do on your own. Though, given your present misunderstanding, I do not see much coming from it, unless you actually learn something from science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe the garden event
sent Man into a new direction

and the population noted in Day Six
is still with us

can you tell the difference?

I believe the story in Genesis is an allegory and does not have to be interpreted as an actual event. Really it shouldn't be interpreted that way.

 

[cladking]

See. That is part of your misunderstanding. You are claiming expertise and are not even aware of the observations. A quick search of Google using "genetic bottleneck in humans" yielded 845,000 hits in .66 seconds.

Nope. 70,000 years ago is far too far in the past to be relevant to humans which arose around 45,000 years ago.

Obviously, the bottleneck affected the individuals which composed the proto-humans before this transformation.

Maybe instead of "species change" I'll start using "transformation" since the term is more accurate and descriptive.

...The Theory of the Transformation of Species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nope. 70,000 years ago is far too far in the past to be relevant to humans which arose around 45,000 years ago.

Sorry. You are wrong. The evidence shows that humans have existed for around 300,000 years. The evidence supports a population bottleneck in humans.

Obviously, the bottleneck affected the individuals which composed the proto-humans before this transformation.

Still human. No change in species has been demonstrated.

Maybe instead of "species change" I'll start using "transformation" since the term is more accurate and descriptive.

Like Dr. Strange? Cool!

...The Theory of the Transformation of Species.

Still not going to help you to call your beliefs a theory. Intelligent Design has you beat and they understand science better and most of them accept evolution.

 

[blü 2]

So there are biological machines working in a biological factory?
Yet they had no designer?

Just so.

If you say they needed a smart designer, who do you say designed the smart designer? And who designed the smart designer designer? And who &c &c &c backwards to the Big Bang?

The theory of evolution is an extremely powerful explainer. Why, in your view, is evolution incapable of evolving a biological machine? Not >this<, I hope?

science - a tool that has considerable limits for accurately knowing truth and reality.

The limitations of science are well acknowledged by science, but when it comes to the question, What's true in reality? nothing else gets close

Let's use this approach.
Reality - God -> Truth -> Test / Examine / Experiment -> Find -> Reality - God -> Truth ...an unbreakable cycle.

Your diagram begins with 'Reality - God' What does that mean? That 'Reality' is the same thing as 'God'? If that's right, why don't we just say 'Reality'? If it's not right, what real thing is the word 'God' intended to denote here, and what is its relationship with 'Reality'?

Then you have 'God -> Truth' which would appear to mean 'God implies Truth': but what specifically does God imply here? That a statement by God about Reality is infallibly accurate? But if we take the cosmology of the bible to be statements of the kind you refer to about reality, they're the product of their time. To pick the lowest-hanging fruit, the earth isn't flat, yet that's the only view of it in the bible; it's not immovably fixed at the center of Creation; the sky isn't a hard dome you can walk on, the stars (&c) aren't affixed to it such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth ... And otherwise there are no known statements by God about Reality, are there?

Next,'Truth -> Test / Examine / Experiment -> Find' which I take it means 'Truth implies reasoned enquiry' which means that if you have a statement by 'God' about reality, you can't rely on it, you have to test it. Is that right? It sounds self-contradictory, self-defeating.

Every house is constructed by someone. True?

We're back to requiring clear definitions again, and since birds, beavers, bees, ants, and so on, build houses, those houses are constructed by something, not someone; and when a bear or a man lives in a cave, that's a house not constructed by anyone. So, not true.

What do we expect? He that constructed all things, is God.

Again, what real thing do you intend to denote by 'God' here?

I say your lifetime experience was all in your head - imagined.

Funny, I could swear that my wife had objective existence and had something to do with my kids and grandkids. I imagined all that, you say? I politely disagree.

False

No, completely true. This time read it carefully >here< and let me have specific comments.

[blü : Just to be clear: It's correct to say that you don't have a definition of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God or not, yes?]

nPeace : No.

Then you do have definition of God such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God or not? Excellent! Please tell me how we can check whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. And that's a serious question, since it illustrates the very broad implications of what I'm asking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe the garden event
sent Man into a new direction

and the population noted in Day Six
is still with us

can you tell the difference?

I have read this a couple of times and am not sure what you mean. Are you saying you believe that all the life that exists today was created as it is on Day 6 and remains unchanged from that time?

 

[Thief]

The ancestor does not have to die out in order for a new species to form.

I believe the garden event
sent Man into a new direction

and the population noted in Day Six
is still with us

can you tell the difference?

I believe the story in Genesis is an allegory and does not have to be interpreted as an actual event. Really it shouldn't be interpreted that way.

I find it remarkable.....the terms of the scenario

Chapter Two has all the earmarks of a science experiment
3,500yrs before Man could see the event as a possibly real event

what?.....cut a rib from a man and he not die?.....!!!!!!
and he slept through the cut and the pulling of his bone?.....!!!!!

and then to make a woman of that sample......

 

[Thief]

I have read this a couple of times and am not sure what you mean. Are you saying you believe that all the life that exists today was created as it is on Day 6 and remains unchanged from that time?

Man was a species on Day Six
no names.....no garden....no law.....

he would have overtaken the planet and all of it's resources looooong before any spirit could gel within

so.....the mind and body had to be altered

Chapter Two

 

[ecco]

Start here. Every house is constructed by someone. True? What do we expect? He that constructed all things, is God. By the way, that's found here - Hebrews 3:4.
Now test it. How? You ask.
What does your experience tell you?

My experience tells me that your religious beliefs are based on writings of mere mortal humans. Humans just like you and me.
My experience tells me that your religious beliefs are no different from all other people who believed written or oral words about a plethora of gods.
My experience tells me that man created god(s) in his own image and man propagates that belief from father to son.
My experience tells me that you will reject all the above because it disagrees with your indoctrinated beliefs. In a similar fashion, a Muslim will reject all the above because it disagrees with his indoctrinated beliefs.
Ditto Hindus, Jews, Scientologists, ad infinitum.

 

[tas8831]

Such major changes apparently come from bottlenecks that select for behavior just like early humans created dogs from wolves or cats from dangerous hunters. Perhaps birds came from land loving animals which were all wiped out except those in trees and giraffes came from shrub loving animals which like a specific leaf from a tree. I've seen no evidence for slow moving "evolution". No experiment shows a slow change. We interpret "missing links" as fossils not yet found but the reality is they never existed at all.

Behavior is key to change in species, not fitness. Fitness only assures the health of a species and not the direction it changes, typically.

cladking can't seem to keep his dissembling and fibbing straight:

"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. "

 

[ecco]

we humans are not healthy
not of body
or of mind

Speak for yourself.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why, in your view, is evolution incapable of evolving a biological machine? Not >this<, I hope?

@nPeace is a Jehovah's Witness, so the answer to your question is THIS. But for some reason, Witnesses are extremely reluctant to acknowledge it.

 

[cladking]

cladking can't seem to keep his dissembling and fibbing straight:

"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. "

2 + 2 = 4 just as 2 x 2 =4.

Remarkable is it not!!!!?

What's far more remarkable is that there are no two identical thing in the universe. There can be no two identical things yet we still imagine the number "4" exists. We define it in terms that can be deconstructed to mean anything at all much like the number itself (which doesn't exist). It is merely a symbol that has no function in the real world but it is necessary to quantify logic we call math and then inappropriately apply to reality.

I know you don't understand the point here any more than you understand bottlenecks cause transformation of species and that extinction events select for behavior.

If you want to understand how speciation actually occurs you must look at consciousness and individuals. Then you might see how behavior (such as suggested in the holy books) is the root of most everything.

There can be no two identical things BECAUSE reality is chaotic.

0 = 0

Everything is "1".

The ancients knew this because their science was different than ours. From our perspective it looks like you can count individuals and discern "laws of nature" in a clockwork universe. We are wrong and it's caused by a language in which only reductionism can be easily communicated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

2 + 2 = 4 just as 2 x 2 =4.

Remarkable is it not!!!!?

What's far more remarkable is that there are no two identical thing in the universe. There can be no two identical things yet we still imagine the number "4" exists. We define it in terms that can be deconstructed to mean anything at all much like the number itself (which doesn't exist). It is merely a symbol that has no function in the real world but it is necessary to quantify logic we call math and then inappropriately apply to reality.

I know you don't understand the point here any more than you understand bottlenecks cause transformation of species and that extinction events select for behavior.

If you want to understand how speciation actually occurs you must look at consciousness and individuals. Then you might see how behavior (such as suggested in the holy books) is the root of most everything.

There can be no two identical things BECAUSE reality is chaotic.

0 = 0

Everything is "1".

The ancients knew this because their science was different than ours. From our perspective it looks like you can count individuals and discern "laws of nature" in a clockwork universe. We are wrong and it's caused by a language in which only reductionism can be easily communicated.

Based on what I have seen, it is you that does not understand bottlenecks and speciation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Man was a species on Day Six
no names.....no garden....no law.....

he would have overtaken the planet and all of it's resources looooong before any spirit could gel within

so.....the mind and body had to be altered

Chapter Two

OK. I think I follow what you are saying based on your belief.

 

[tas8831]

2 + 2 = 4 just as 2 x 2 =4.

Remarkable is it not!!!!?

Remarkable that you made it this far in your self-taught math studies!

What's far more remarkable is that there are no two identical thing in the universe....

What a cool and 100% IRRELEVANT diversionary tactic.

I know you don't understand the point here any more than you understand bottlenecks cause transformation of species and that extinction events select for behavior.

How can I understand something that you never once supplied ANY actual experimental of observational evidence for? I am not an egomaniacal Dunning-Kruger effect sufferer, so I do not just accept something I dream up as fact like you do.

You are clueless, and to try to hide this, you play this indignant martyr game, or your diversionary gibberish game, or your 'i will just delete all that from my reply and bring up something else' game.

All so you can try to hide the obvious fact that there is literally NOTHING that supports your naive "science" claims.

If you want to understand how speciation actually occurs you must look at consciousness and individuals. Then you might see how behavior (such as suggested in the holy books) is the root of most everything.

blah blah blah this is how I run away from providing evidence because none exists blah blah blah

Put up or shut up, Johnny "broccas area."

And stop pretending that I didn't catch you lies and attempted revisionism - the acts of the desperate. and disingenuous.

cladking:
Your assumptions are riddled with errors and half facts.

Really?

And you know this because of your extensive self-education?

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.

Otherwise this will just be chalked up as Cladking Unsupported Fantasy Assertion (aka lie) #261,


You wrote, foolishly:

"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."​

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."​

What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."​

Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."​

Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."​

Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"​

Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...


Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...


Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."​

Argumentum ad populum

"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."​

Weird, I mean, you just deleted all of that from your reply in that thread, as if it never happened - as if you never actually claimed that you never did what I documented you doing 7 times. And keep in mind - there were more, these were just the most obvious ones. I find such refusals to acknowledge and own up to such obvious fibs indicative of far-reaching character flaws. But that is just in my experience dealing with religious fanatics and the like.



Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

 

[cladking]

What a cool and 100% IRRELEVANT diversionary tactic.

...So it's irrelevant that there are no two identical things in the universe!

Here you are trying to understand "Transformation of Species" when there are no two identical things. You're trying to show one plus one equals two despite the fact that in reality two different things like a male and female create most life. One plus one equals three in the real world and you're still trying to reduce reality to equations.

How can you understand life if you don't know why grasshoppers fall in love and create a new generation, a new species, or a hurricane in Indiana? Your world doesn't exist as you model it and understand it but you're still so sure that you and science have the answers. No number of laymen and no number of Peers can invent reality. Reality exists outside of our beliefs and perceptions.

"Species" is a taxonomic word. It is a reductionist word. It is a word that is only possible in the mind and in the mind of people who think reality is what science, priests, or "humanity" says it is. Ancient people didn't have reductionist words or words for "thought, "belief", "assumption", nor other taxonomic words. Ancient people spoke in theory and we speak in our beliefs derived from the ruins of Ancient Language. We and each of our Peers speak a confused language that doesn't require any relationship whatsoever to reality.

 

[sooda]

Nope. 70,000 years ago is far too far in the past to be relevant to humans which arose around 45,000 years ago.

Obviously, the bottleneck affected the individuals which composed the proto-humans before this transformation.

Maybe instead of "species change" I'll start using "transformation" since the term is more accurate and descriptive.

...The Theory of the Transformation of Species.

Nope, humans with their tools migrated from East Africa across the Red Sea to Arabia 100,000 years ago.