Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[firedragon]

Once again you're asking something that would require many hours of work I have neither the time or ability for.

I didn't ask you. I asked the person who claimed. You jumped in to assist your comrade. That's your burden.

Anyway. You cannot. So just leave it.

 

[John53]

I didn't ask you. I asked the person who claimed. You jumped in to assist your comrade. That's your burden.

Anyway. You cannot. So just leave it.

It's a public discussion forum, anyone can respond which ironically is what you also did.

 

[blü 2]

You mean empirical evidence. Category error.

How do you define "evidence"?

What categories of evidence exist, according to your definition?

 

[shunyadragon]

You mean empirical evidence. Category error.

Category error??

 

[firedragon]

It's a public discussion forum, anyone can respond which ironically is what you also did.

I never said you cannot respond. Of course it's a public, internet, anonymous, discussion forum.

But the claim was made by someone else. You jumped in. So again, the onus is on you.

Nevertheless, the claim was false. That's bottomline.

I withdraw from this rhetorical exchange now. Cheers.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't ask you. I asked the person who claimed. You jumped in to assist your comrade. That's your burden.

Anyway. You cannot. So just leave it.

Just a tiny bit with phylogenetic analysis of the species and the islands they inhabit.
Evolution

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Free Access

THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF DARWIN'S FINCHES: SPECIATION, GENE FLOW, AND INTROGRESSION IN A FRAGMENTED LANDSCAPE​

Heather L. Farrington, Lucinda P. Lawson, Courtney M. Clark, Kenneth Petren
First published: 26 June 2014

THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF DARWIN'S FINCHES: SPECIATION, GENE FLOW, AND INTROGRESSION IN A FRAGMENTED LANDSCAPE
Citations: 52

 

[Pogo]

Category error??

categories such as subjective, alternate, personal were not included.

 

[Pogo]

It is not random. The evidence for gradual natural change is in the genetics as a result of a change in the environment.

Careful with that word random, its negation is often seen as directed when what you mean is variation for the environment to select.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just for the record I never said speciation does occur to an individual. I said new species arise full blown and as such are not the same species as the parents.

That would be a form of speciation of the individual.

They are typically quite similar, but every individual being the same species as its parents, as Darwin believed, runs counter his own concept that species "Evolve".

No, that the offspring are different species (speciation of the individual) runs counter to the theory evolution. Evolution is a population scale event. Parents don't reproduce offspring that are another species. This is another reason I doubt your knowledge and understanding to draw conclusions about the theory or the evidence.

The mutations occur in individuals within a population. If that mutation confers even a minor advantage, the environment preserves that individual and they have the opportunity to reproduce and get that mutation into a larger pool. Through subsequent generations, the mutant gene can persist and proliferate if the mutant gene continues to provide a fitness benefit within the selection of the environment. Subsequent mutations that increase the benefit (fitness) can drive that portion of the population to become further genetically divergent from the main population. These things do not have to be global and absolute. The ancestral population is not required to die off. The environmental selection does not have to occur throughout the entire range of a population. Over time the divergence can be come so great that there are now two populations.

It is illogical.

Population change is perfectly logical. You are considering a species as discrete. Darwin saw them as continuous.

I believe the fossil record shows no missing links because there never were missing links.

The fossil record contains transitional forms that have ancestral characteristics and divergent characteristics. Archaeopteryx may be a species of bird, but it clearly has characters that are reptilian that modern birds do not have.

Species change in tiny, small, or large jumps between generations and not within them.

More likely small changes accumulated over time from one generation to the next. But this runs counter to what you said above where you claim species reproduce new species individually.

Perhaps if I had imposed an artificial bottleneck on flies according to some fundamental characteristic of flies I would have created a new species.

If you had imposed a bottleneck on the fly population you observed, you would have drastically reduced the numbers of flies to somewhere just above the extinction threshold and as likely caused a marked reduction in genetic variation. Still the same species, just a lot less of them with a truncated gene pool.

What you refer to as a bottleneck is selective breeding for a particular trait. It is not a population or genetic bottleneck. It does not reduce the numbers of the population. It does not reduce the genetic variation of the population. It is intended to introduce specific genetic variation into a portion of the population that is artificially inflated to promote the trait that is being artificially selected.

Perhaps if there were a sufficiently genetically robust population of wingless flies and these were left alone or a population of flies that didn't like sugar they would have produced a change in species.

If there were some selective advantage to being wingless, over time with continued isolation and further mutation, it is possible. But not something we would normally expect to see in our lifetimes. But it is possible. Just not typical. And wingless flies would not be called flies. They would be called walks. Changes in diet can be the start of speciation. None of these are guaranteed to produce speciation. An environment that favors some early mutation could stabilize at its previous state and ruin the advantage the mutation provided.

There are always individuals within populations which are different because of genes and a behavior that reflects these genes and the experience of their always individual consciousness.

Not all genes drive behavior. A change in the population does not require a change in behavior. A mutation ending in some novel behavior is not a guarantee that it will result in a fitness benefit protected by the environment. A mutation leading to a change in phenotype does not require a concurrent change in behavior. The ability to better utilize a novel or unusual food source doesn't require a change in behavior to facilitate it.

Behavior is driven by genes and experience.

But only the genetic portion of that is heritable. Experience is an acquired characteristic that is not heritable. Like calloused hands.

Mother nature is a mad experimenter and reality is very complex.

Sure, but that doesn't mean we can't learn what is going on and see patterns or explain what we see with a theory.

Perhaps no one empathizes with your perspective more than I. I don't even disagree really and just see every word from a different perspective. I'll continue to read your posts and follow links as appropriate but we're only going to agree on some of the broadest points. I'll certainly continue to watch for experiment and facts that show me to be wrong knowing full well it not only could happen but if Darwin was right probably will at least in the long run.

You can do as you like, but I would appreciate you turn that empathy into direct responses to questions and requests that are relevant to the questions and requests and don't seem so diversionary. Your way seems to be counter to productive discourse from my experience. Perhaps it is time for you to adopt a new paradigm with increased fitness in this environment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, there are some of each in a hive. That sounds like proper usage. I don't where you got a different idea of what some means. You're using the word to mean an equal amount rather than an unspecified amount. Look at these dictionary entries:

View attachment 94189

In any event, if you didn't know before, you know now that you have an anomalous understanding of that usage. That doesn't mean you need to change, but if you want to be understood and you want to understand others who use the word more typically, it will help to keep that in mind.

OK. My experience has been very different. All I find there is entertainment value or less. I understand that these sources, Aesop's fables, and Shakespeare tragedies all feature some common human situations, but that kind of thing was only meaningful as a child (the boy who cried wolf, the three pigs), and no more so than aphorisms like "Look before you leap"

OK, this one is nice. I came to a similar conclusion about nature through a different path not involving any mythology, although I like and use the expression Mother Nature.

Science was my path to spirituality. Here's an excerpt from a kindred spirit from a transcript of a video entitled "Science Saved My Soul":

"When I looked at the galaxy that night, I knew the faintest twinkle of starlight was a real connection between my comprehending eye along a narrow beam of light to the surface of another sun. The photons my eyes detect (the light I see, the energy with which my nerves interact) came from that star. I thought I could never touch it, yet something from it crosses the void and touches me. I might never have known. My eyes saw only a tiny point of light, but my mind saw so much more."

[snip]

"The body of a newborn baby is as old as the cosmos. The form is new and unique, but the materials are 13.7 billion years old, processed by nuclear fusion in stars, fashioned by electromagnetism."

This to me is the spiritual experience - a sense of connection to nature and life combined with a sense of awe, a sense of mystery, and a sense of gratitude. But the path to understanding and experiencing that doesn't involve myths like the one you provided. For me, it was education and life experience.

Myths never did that for me, and biblical myths are utterly useless to me as I alluded earlier here. I really don't understand why people say that there is deep meaning there.

You did fine. Thanks.

The discussion you are having over the meaning of 'some' is what I think of as an invitation down a rabbit hole. It is much like the rabbit hole that @leroy has been trying to coax me down to argue over the meaning of 'seems'. The argument diverges straight from the issue at hand that is relevant to discuss and turns into what I see as amounting to an argument about nothing. It isn't my problem that others have reading comprehension issues. Or want that to somehow considered a hit against science, because they lack anything substantial to say that would hold up as valid criticism.

On the other hand, if your interest is in how people come to think about and consider seemingly meaningless details as worthwhile to propagate and proliferate and even consider as some sort of challenge to the sciences, I can certainly see a reason to be interested in that. Unfortunately, I don't know that an argument over what seems to be an inability to admit error might be as useful an opportunity as confusion over categorization and proportion.

Seems I can't figure out how some of this will lead to comprehension. Some may get it. Some may not. Some never will. Or so it seems.

 

[firedragon]

On the other hand, if your interest is in how people come to think about and consider seemingly meaningless details as worthwhile to propagate and proliferate and even consider as some sort of challenge to the sciences

Sincerely, if I understood you correctly you are deeming theology and the metaphysical as meaningless thought and it and its adherents challenge science(s)? Is that a steal man of your statement?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's a public discussion forum, anyone can respond which ironically is what you also did.

That's hilarious. And correct. I checked.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sincerely, if I understood you correctly you are deeming theology and the metaphysical as meaningless thought and it and its adherents challenge science(s)? Is that a steal man of your statement?

Clearly you did not understand. The seemingly meaningless details regard reading comprehension and the meaning of the words 'some' and 'seems'.

What you pulled your comprehension out of, I cannot say. Nor do I know what you mean by steal man? Is that like burning man?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sincerely, if I understood you correctly you are deeming theology and the metaphysical as meaningless thought and it and its adherents challenge science(s)? Is that a steal man of your statement?

I see. Steel man argument. The spelling threw me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sincerely, if I understood you correctly you are deeming theology and the metaphysical as meaningless thought and it and its adherents challenge science(s)? Is that a steal man of your statement?

Not a steel man argument and nothing to do with theology or metaphysics. Just what I think are invitations down rabbit holes to perpetuate meaningless arguments over trivial details that confound the comprehension of others and detract from the real discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not random. The evidence for gradual natural change is in the genetics as a result of a change in the environment.

On a related note on new concepts on mutation I ran across this today:

Zooplankton study challenges traditional views of evolution

In new research, Arizona State University scientists and their colleagues investigated genetic changes occurring in a naturally isolated population of the water flea, Daphnia pulex. This tiny crustacean, barely visible to the naked eye, plays a crucial role in freshwater ecosystems and offers a...

phys.org

 

[John53]

I withdraw from this rhetorical exchange now. Cheers.

Sufficiently showcased your superiority over the evil evolution believers?

 

[YoursTrue]

Also Natural selection has also been determined to not random. Essentially the nature of our physical existence is naturalistic deterministic. This is not a rigid deterministic nature, because in this world we have variability in the outcomes of cause and effect events as fractal described by Chaos Theory.

What do you mean that natural selection has also been determined to not be random as you say above? Don't you mean that the progression of changes by mutations and transference of DNA and changes started out by random changes? Unless you think they were thought about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you provide a so called "verification" of random gradual mutation?

yeah--random gradual mutation till it catches on and forms a new species, evidently for the betterment of the "population.". (Is that good enough?) Oh, EVENTUALLY forms a new species -- not right away. <small smile here>

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you provide a so called "verification" of random gradual mutation?

yeah--random gradual mutation till it catches on and forms a new species, evidently for the betterment of the "population.". (Is that good enough?) Oh, EVENTUALLY forms a new species -- not right away. <small smile here>

Yes, there are some of each in a hive. That sounds like proper usage. I don't where you got a different idea of what some means. You're using the word to mean an equal amount rather than an unspecified amount. Look at these dictionary entries:

View attachment 94189

In any event, if you didn't know before, you know now that you have an anomalous understanding of that usage. That doesn't mean you need to change, but if you want to be understood and you want to understand others who use the word more typically, it will help to keep that in mind.

OK. My experience has been very different. All I find there is entertainment value or less. I understand that these sources, Aesop's fables, and Shakespeare tragedies all feature some common human situations, but that kind of thing was only meaningful as a child (the boy who cried wolf, the three pigs), and no more so than aphorisms like "Look before you leap"

OK, this one is nice. I came to a similar conclusion about nature through a different path not involving any mythology, although I like and use the expression Mother Nature.

Science was my path to spirituality. Here's an excerpt from a kindred spirit from a transcript of a video entitled "Science Saved My Soul":

"When I looked at the galaxy that night, I knew the faintest twinkle of starlight was a real connection between my comprehending eye along a narrow beam of light to the surface of another sun. The photons my eyes detect (the light I see, the energy with which my nerves interact) came from that star. I thought I could never touch it, yet something from it crosses the void and touches me. I might never have known. My eyes saw only a tiny point of light, but my mind saw so much more."

[snip]

"The body of a newborn baby is as old as the cosmos. The form is new and unique, but the materials are 13.7 billion years old, processed by nuclear fusion in stars, fashioned by electromagnetism."

This to me is the spiritual experience - a sense of connection to nature and life combined with a sense of awe, a sense of mystery, and a sense of gratitude. But the path to understanding and experiencing that doesn't involve myths like the one you provided. For me, it was education and life experience.

Myths never did that for me, and biblical myths are utterly useless to me as I alluded earlier here. I really don't understand why people say that there is deep meaning there.

You did fine. Thanks.

Insofar as Aesop's Fables go, yes, they made us read some of them in school, but I thought they were ridiculous. Another word comes to mind as stupid. Dumb. I read them thinking do people really enjoy this stuff? Big deal...