• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

ecco

Veteran Member
Continue using the word "prove"; Continue showing your ignorance of science.
It isn't ignorance to reject supposition. ...
No. But you're showing your ignorance of science by implying that science sets out to "prove". It doesn't. You've been told that repeatedly. Yet you continue to assert ToE is wrong because it hasn't been proved. You are also showing the high level of your indoctrination.

The "everyone else believes it except you ignorant idiots" catchphrase doesn't work on me.
It's not about "everyone" believing. It's about overwhelming scientific evidence.

It is sold to gullible people who want God to go away.
Once again you are showing your ignorance and indoctrination. Do you really believe that all scientists who support ToE are atheists? Most, like the general public, believe in god. They just don't share your views. Why don't you do some independent research instead of just listening to your elders.

More tomorrow.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
No. But you're showing your ignorance of science by implying that science sets out to "prove". It doesn't. You've been told that repeatedly. Yet you continue to assert ToE is wrong because it hasn't been proved. You are also showing the high level of your indoctrination.

Sometimes I don't believe what I am reading in these responses....
confused0086.gif


The ToE is not proven and not provable.....yet it must be right? Science can't prove a thing they claim...and you think I'm indoctrinated?
confused0036.gif
sheesh.

It's not about "everyone" believing. It's about overwhelming scientific evidence.

What is 'overwhelming' is the volume, not the content.

The "evidence" is skewed toward evolution by the very biased interpretation given to it by those who have an agenda to uphold. Its only 'overwhelming' to those who swallow the suggestions and treat them as facts. The actual evidence, which is not proof (as you all keep telling me) says something very different to me. Interpretation is everything.

Once again you are showing your ignorance and indoctrination.

Is this a favorite expression with you lot?
rolleye0014.gif
Anyone who disagrees with you has to be 'ignorant' and 'indoctrinated'....but that could never happen to you guys, eh?

If science can't prove what they say.....they have a fat hide claiming the high ground here.

If evolution was a fact, and science could prove that what they assume is true...there could be no debate....do you understand this? You don't have science fact....so logically, all you have is science fiction.
rolleye0012.gif


You can believe it all if you wish.....it doesn't make it true.

Do you really believe that all scientists who support ToE are atheists? Most, like the general public, believe in god. They just don't share your views. Why don't you do some independent research instead of just listening to your elders.

LOL...why do you suppose they don't share their views? Fear of ridicule? Fear of losing credibility? Scared to stand up and demonstrate the courage of their convictions? What a joke! They don't have any convictions...their belief in God is in the closet. They must be so proud of themselves....

Why don't you do a little research of your own and show me some material on macro-evolution that has no suggestion...no supposition...and no guesswork attached. Please.....show us where 'faith' and 'belief' play no part in your acceptance of the ToE. I will be waiting for your response.
happy0062.gif
Bring it on.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Sometimes I don't believe what I am reading in these responses....
confused0086.gif


The ToE is not proven and not provable.....yet it must be right? Science can't prove a thing they claim...and you think I'm indoctrinated?
confused0036.gif
sheesh.
Perhaps the reason you "don't believe what you're reading" in this particular instance is because what was actually written doesn't even in the least bit resemble what you're apparently reading. Nobody said it "must be right".

What is 'overwhelming' is the volume, not the content.

The "evidence" is skewed toward evolution by the very biased interpretation given to it by those who have an agenda to uphold. Its only 'overwhelming' to those who swallow the suggestions and treat them as facts. The actual evidence, which is not proof (as you all keep telling me) says something very different to me. Interpretation is everything.
Once again evoking a conspiracy in lieu of argument. A conspiracy you can't demonstrate, with logic behind it you can't elucidate, enacting by scientists for reasons that are completely nonexistent.

If evolution was a fact, and science could prove that what they assume is true...there could be no debate....do you understand this? You don't have science fact....so logically, all you have is science fiction.
There is no debate in science regarding the validity of evolutionary theory - evolution is the standard model used in modern biology. There is no more debate about evolution than there is debate that the earth is flat.

You can believe it all if you wish.....it doesn't make it true.
No, the facts do.

LOL...why do you suppose they don't share their views? Fear of ridicule? Fear of losing credibility? Scared to stand up and demonstrate the courage of their convictions? What a joke! They don't have any convictions...their belief in God is in the closet. They must be so proud of themselves....
More evoking conspiracy. You do realize that evolution was the ridiculed theory first, right?

And also, God has nothing to do with any of this. Clearly, the only reason you object to evolution is because it conflicts with your personal beliefs about creation. You don't have an argument. You've been desperately groping in the dark for one for months and STILL don't have the slightest shred of an argument beyond "science uses terminology that indicate uncertainty" and "I don't believe it". That's your argument. That's the entire summation of every post you have ever made on the subject.

Why don't you do a little research of your own and show me some material on macro-evolution that has no suggestion...no supposition...and no guesswork attached. Please.....show us where 'faith' and 'belief' play no part in your acceptance of the ToE. I will be waiting for your response.
happy0062.gif
Bring it on.
I have provided you to multiple documented instances of observed macro-evolution. You've constantly ignored them entirely.

Why keep asking us for evidence if all you're going to do is ignore it?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sometimes I don't believe what I am reading in these responses....
confused0086.gif


The ToE is not proven and not provable.....yet it must be right? Science can't prove a thing they claim...and you think I'm indoctrinated?
confused0036.gif
sheeeh.

Let me take a shot at this, though Deeje pretends to have me on ignore at times.

Yes, you are terribly indoctrinated and you just proved it. Nothing in the world of science is proven in the sense that you keep trying to use the word. Not even gravity. But if you accept gravity then by the same logic you should accept the theory of evolution. You are being inconsistent if you are not. And do you know why you are so inconsistent? Because you are extremely indoctrinated.

What is 'overwhelming' is the volume, not the content.

No, the content is overwhelming too. Perhaps you should try to let yourself learn why.

The "evidence" is skewed toward evolution by the very biased interpretation given to it by those who have an agenda to uphold. Its only 'overwhelming' to those who swallow the suggestions and treat them as facts. The actual evidence, which is not proof (as you all keep telling me) says something very different to me. Interpretation is everything.

This is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. You just made bore false witness against your neighbor since you cannot support this claim. There is no agenda. Creationists have an agenda, and they are not ashamed of it. It is also why we can safely claim that creationists do not do science. They have to swear not to use the scientific method at almost all creationist work places.

Is this a favorite expression with you lot?
rolleye0014.gif
Anyone who disagrees with you has to be 'ignorant' and 'indoctrinated'....but that could never happen to you guys, eh?

No, you and others constantly demonstrate that you are. It is highly hypocritical of you to complain about your sins being exposed when you go so far out of your way to let people know how ignorant and indoctrinated you are. Can you at least try to correct one of your many errors?

If science can't prove what they say.....they have a fat hide claiming the high ground here.

If evolution was a fact, and science could prove that what they assume is true...there could be no debate....do you understand this? You don't have science fact....so logically, all you have is science fiction.
rolleye0012.gif


You can believe it all if you wish.....it doesn't make it true.

There is no debate. Please note that you do not even try. Your side lost over one hundred years ago. All there is now are corrections. By the way, do you think that you could go through one post without breaking the Ninth Commandment multiple times? If you can't support your claims, and you never can, you should never make claims where you attack other people.


LOL...why do you suppose they don't share their views? Fear of ridicule? Fear of losing credibility? Scared to stand up and demonstrate the courage of their convictions? What a joke! They don't have any convictions...their belief in God is in the closet. They must be so proud of themselves....

Why don't you do a little research of your own and show me some material on macro-evolution that has no suggestion...no supposition...and no guesswork attached. Please.....show us where 'faith' and 'belief' play no part in your acceptance of the ToE. I will be waiting for your response.
happy0062.gif
Bring it on.


No, you see most scientists are both honest and not idiots. They can see the obvious. Once again you break the Ninth Commandment by making claims about others that you cannot support. And you don't understand how science is done. There is no "supposition" there is no "guesswork". Scientists need to be honest, unlike creationists, and admit that there is a small possibility that they could be wrong. This has been explained to you many times. When you are on the side that lies and then tries to use the honesty of others against them that is far worse than being merely hypocritical.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Perhaps the reason you "don't believe what you're reading" in this particular instance is because what was actually written doesn't even in the least bit resemble what you're apparently reading. Nobody said it "must be right".

Yes they do, since they teach it to school children and college students. Does anyone tell them it can be wrong? The kids aren't getting that memo.
indifferent0025.gif


Once again evoking a conspiracy in lieu of argument. A conspiracy you can't demonstrate, with logic behind it you can't elucidate, enacting by scientists for reasons that are completely nonexistent.

Let me ask you....if I present my beliefs and I have no proof to back them up except the suggestions I make about evidence and appeals to logic and common sense, are you likely to believe me? Well as far as I can see, evolution is on the same level.....no proof and an abundance of suggestions about what "might have" or "could have" happened based on nothing but assumption.

You forget that I have reasons for my conspiracy theory....killing God in the minds of men is not merely a human idea. It requires a certain kind of 'blindness' apparently. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

There is no debate in science regarding the validity of evolutionary theory - evolution is the standard model used in modern biology.

If that's the best science can do as a standard model, then I'm afraid you accept more on faith than I do.

No, the facts do.

There are no facts. If you can't prove what you say is true then you can't call them facts. You can substantiate a fact...no one can substantiate macro-evolution.

You do realize that evolution was the ridiculed theory first, right?

It still is by us.
happy0203.gif
I find it amazing that science needs so little to assume so much. Great marketing I have to say.

And also, God has nothing to do with any of this. Clearly, the only reason you object to evolution is because it conflicts with your personal beliefs about creation.

Well, actually I ditched evolution before I found God. It was the gaping holes in the theory that clinched it for me. I had run away from YEC because it was ridiculous.....but the alternative was equally ridiculous.....so I found something that explained everything in a reasonable way and it actually gave my life purpose in the big scheme of things. What does evolution give anyone? :shrug:

You have no reason to exist and you have no future beyond this life.....how meaningless.
indifferent0028.gif

I know this life is not all there is.....we are programmed for so much more.

You don't have an argument. You've been desperately groping in the dark for one for months and STILL don't have the slightest shred of an argument beyond "science uses terminology that indicate uncertainty" and "I don't believe it". That's your argument. That's the entire summation of every post you have ever made on the subject.

Well some people must be reading my threads because this one has topped 10,000 views and my last one just topped 100,000 and its been locked since last year. So I must have an argument worth considering or these threads would get no traffic. There's been lots of threads on the subject but very few have been read so many times. What do you make of it?

I have provided you to multiple documented instances of observed macro-evolution. You've constantly ignored them entirely.

Rubbish. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. All the real evidence is for adaptation. You can call it "evolution" but its not even in the same ball park as all living things evolving from a single celled organism that magically sprang into life one day.....that hardly compares with the small changes within one single family of creatures seen in a lab.

Why keep asking us for evidence if all you're going to do is ignore it?

Can you show us real evidence that amoebas eventually evolved into dinosaurs?

Bring it on.....I love to quote links. No jargon though...just plain English. When its stripped down to its underwear its like the Emperor's new clothes.

Give it your best shot.
fighting0031.gif
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Yes they do, since they teach it to school children and college students. Does anyone tell them it can be wrong? The kids aren't getting that memo.
All science is taught as tentative except science which is directly observed. All science is taught the same way.

Let me ask you....if I present my beliefs and I have no proof to back them up except the suggestions I make about evidence and appeals to logic and common sense, are you likely to believe me?
That depends entirely on the strength of the evidence and logic you presented in relation to the claim.

Well as far as I can see, evolution is on the same level.....no proof and an abundance of suggestions about what "might have" or "could have" happened based on nothing but assumption.
If you still don't understand why "proof" is a meaningless standard in science after having it explained to you this many times, I can't help you.

You forget that I have reasons for my conspiracy theory....killing God in the minds of men is not merely a human idea. It requires a certain kind of 'blindness' apparently. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)
Except evolution doesn't "kill God", never has and never will. It has nothing to say on the existence of God, and your insinuation here just demonstrates that your argument is purely drawn from a perception that evolution is an attack on your faith. You are the one whose agenda is clearly the driving factor here.

If that's the best science can do as a standard model, then I'm afraid you accept more on faith than I do.
As has been established, you haven't even the vaguest clue what evolutionary theory actually says, so you are not qualified to tell anyone that.

There are no facts. If you can't prove what you say is true then you can't call them facts. You can substantiate a fact...no one can substantiate macro-evolution.
I've linked you to several times it has been directly observed.

Well, actually I ditched evolution before I found God.
Frankly, I don't believe you.

It was the gaping holes in the theory that clinched it for me. I had run away from YEC because it was ridiculous.....but the alternative was equally ridiculous.....so I found something that explained everything in a reasonable way and it actually gave my life purpose in the big scheme of things. What does evolution give anyone?
An understanding of biological diversity, the mechanisms of it, annual vaccinations against mutant strains of viruses, improved agriculture and farming methods and a greater understanding of how to preserve biological ecosystems among many other things.

But, hey, who care about those things? You have superstitions to preserve!

You have no reason to exist and you have no future beyond this life.....how meaningless.
I know this life is not all there is.....we are programmed for so much more.
Thus you expose your bias. I have plenty of meaning in my life - probably far more than you do - and I can have that meaning without lying to myself and others about a theory I know nothing about.

Well some people must be reading my threads because this one has topped 10,000 views and my last one just topped 100,000 and its been locked since last year. So I must have an argument worth considering or these threads would get no traffic. There's been lots of threads on the subject but very few have been read so many times. What do you make of it?
Persistence and valid argument are not the same thing.

Rubbish. There is no evidence for macro-evolution. All the real evidence is for adaptation. You can call it "evolution" but its not even in the same ball park as all living things evolving from a single celled organism that magically sprang into life one day.....that hardly compares with the small changes within one single family of creatures seen in a lab.
Macro-evolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level, also known as speciation. Speciation has been observed multiple times. You lost this line of debate months ago.

Can you show us real evidence that amoebas eventually evolved into dinosaurs?
Bring it on.....I love to quote links. No jargon though...just plain English. When its stripped down to its underwear its like the Emperor's new clothes.

Give it your best shot.
What are you expecting, exactly?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
There is no objectivity in science...it is an illusion.

But you don't seem to see the blinders put on those who are talked into believing in macro-evolution at a very early age, when it cannot be proven

It is science's 'belief system'.

There is no "objectively-derived evidence" for evolution

LOL....and your neighbors represent our whole brotherhood I suppose?

Oh dear....what I see here is a hope that your indoctrination will win out over mine.
happy0195.gif
The above are literally entirely false, but I'm used to them coming from you. Now, whether they are intentional or based on your ignorance of the subject, I cannot tell.

This is why it's impossible to have a serious discussion with you because you simply believe in and also fabricate falsehoods while strutting around with your holier-than-Thou personna.

Do your JW leaders teach you that it's right & proper to lie and distort as we have seen with your comments above? It appears so. It's no wonder they don't want you to try other churches or even go to funerals or weddings in other churches, or even read any publications from other denominations. They are truly a cult that tries its best to keep its followers ignorant. This is what they do, and I know this from not only my neighbors but also by some who have left that denomination.

Frankly, I don't think God would approve of your lying and strutting, including your attacks on Catholicism that are patently false. Even though some of us have shown you that they were false, yet you came back and reposted those same pathetic lies. And, yes, they are "lies"-- not different interpretations. Just one example were your repeated lies that Catholics worship the sun when it was shown you that this would violate Canon Law. But that still didn't stop you.

So, your approach here actually does far more harm to your JW's than it does good, largely because your approach makes them look bigoted and dishonest-- sorry to say.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
So it must be accurate because it is modern?
confused0007.gif

Cladistics is more accurate than Linnaean taxonomy which is why it is used by modern biologists. If you are talking about biology as it is today instead of decades ago then you need to be using cladistics.


What is a clade?

A clade is a group of species that are united by shared derived characteristics.

"Hypothesized relationships are typically based on shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies) that can be traced to the most recent common ancestor and are not present in more distant groups and ancestors."
Cladistics - Wikipedia

Clades are the hypothesis and they are tested by the distribution of shared derived features.

"It has its own set of assumptions, procedures and limitations" but its "now accepted as the best method available." :shrug:

Just as you need assumptions, procedures, and limitations to construct any hypothesis. This is basic science. If evolution and common ancestry is true then there should be an objective phylogenetic signal when you organize life in a branching structure based on shared derived features. The assumptions are used to construct the trees, and the test for that tree are algorithms that objectively test for phylogenetic signal.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00196.x


All I can say is.....you've got to be kidding!
happy0168.gif


Of course we all know that humans are related to jellyfish.

If all you have is ridicule, then I will take that as your tacit admission that the evidence supports evolution.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
So...

...If the ToE isn't taught as proven then it must be right?

If anyone teaches that science absolutely proves hypotheses then they are teaching science wrong. If anyone teaches that ToE is not a well supported scientific theory, then they are teaching science wrong.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="Thermos aquaticus, post: 5579962, member: 38951"If anyone teaches that ToE is not a well supported scientific theory, then they are teaching science wrong.[/QUOTE]

And I still disagree that it's possible to understand change in species without understanding the role of the individual, consciousness, and behavior.

I don't believe the evidence is being interpreted correctly because these PRIMARY considerations to LIFE ITSELF are also PRIMARY to change in species.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
And I still disagree that it's possible to understand change in species without understanding the role of the individual, consciousness, and behavior.

No one is ignoring behavior. In fact, Darwin wrote an entire chapter in "Origin of Species" on instinct.

The Origin of Species: Chapter 7

As Darwin discusses, you would need to differentiate inherited behavior from learned behavior.

"If Mozart, instead of playing the pianoforte at three years old with wonderfully little practice, had played a tune with no practice at all, be might truly be said to have done so instinctively. But it would be the most serious error to suppose that the greater number of instincts have been acquired by habit in one generation, and then transmitted by inheritance to succeeding generations. It can be clearly shown that the most wonderful instincts with which we are acquainted, namely, those of the hive-bee and of many ants, could not possibly have been thus acquired."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Behavior has been a part of the theory of evolution from the very start.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Christianity should be enlightening, not darkening. It should seek the Truth-- not put blinders on its people. Fortunately, many churches do encourage people to study and try to be objective-- the JW's simply aren't one of them. This is why they dish out their propaganda and don't want its congregants to even check out other churches or even go to a funeral service at another church. It's their "my way or the highway" approach that is just so utterly pathetic, especially because religion is based on faith and belief, not objectively-derived evidence. It wants its congregants to act like lemmings, not adult humans capable of exploring and thinking for themselves. Many are nice people, no doubt, as two sets of them have been my neighbors for many years now, and one set still remains.
That's a very important observation that everyone should keep in mind when they interact with @Deeje .....she explained to me that she cannot ever change her mind or even compromise a little bit on the creation/evolution issue, because if she were to do that her JW friends and family would treat her "like a piece of garbage" and her life would lose all meaning.

The funny thing is, in a way I understand that. I obviously don't agree with that sort of mindset and belief system, but I do understand it. Her JW faith, and her JW friends and family provide her emotional support and comfort, a sense of belonging, and a sense of meaning and purpose to her life. But because the JW's have drawn a line in the sand regarding evolution, declared it to be absolutely off-limits, and basically threaten any member who compromises on it with expulsion and social/emotional ruin, it's simply a subject for which reasonable discussion with her isn't possible.

What I don't understand are all the people who line up to try and explain and/or debate science with her, and in doing so appeal to scientific sources. Given the above, we all should recognize those efforts as doomed to fail from the start. Like I keep saying (because I think it's a very apt analogy), trying to explain science to a JW is like offering a ham sandwich to an Orthodox Jew. In both cases, the intended audience is fundamentally ideologically opposed to what you're offering. Yet people spend hours and hours and hours trying to explain basic science concepts (e.g., what "theory" means) to her.

Why? Like I said earlier, I feel like I'm watching the same people line up day after day to play a rigged carnival game, even though they know it's rigged. I just don't get it.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
It's for the readers who are able to change their mind based on evidence. The fact that Deeje is so dogmatic kind of makes our point for us.
I've heard the "appeal to lurkers" before, and in general I think it's valid. But when it comes to going around the same circles with the same person over and over and over and over, I don't. The "discussions" take place over such a long period of time and are so unbelievably repetitive that I think any value they may offer to lurkers is gone. Personally I think there's one primary factor at play here when it comes to the folks lining up to try and get an Orthodox Jew to take a bite of the ham sandwich.......

duty_calls.png


Some people just can't stand to see someone like Deeje talk smack about science, and that compels them to respond. And Deeje knows this and exploits it. Look at her posts and pay attention to how much taunting they contain. It's basically her saying "You got nuthin.....science has nuthin....it's all crap" and one person after another being unable to ignore her goading.

I'll admit, it's hard to do. It's hard to see someone as fundamentally ignorant as her talk so much trash about science, and not respond.

But keep in mind, for those of us on the science side the best thing that could happen would be if these "debates" just faded away into irrelevancy.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
I've heard the "appeal to lurkers" before, and in general I think it's valid. But when it comes to going around the same circles with the same person over and over and over and over, I don't.

One justification is that new readers will only look at recent threads and the last page or so of a long thread.

Personally I think there's one primary factor at play here when it comes to the folks lining up to try and get an Orthodox Jew to take a bite of the ham sandwich.......

duty_calls.png

I have used that cartoon many times in the very same context. I would strongly agree that this is part of it as well. The Monty Python "Argument Sketch" is also a good one.

But keep in mind, for those of us on the science side the best thing that could happen would be if these "debates" just stopped.

There are good arguments both for and against that idea. If bad arguments are not replied to it gives the false impression that they are good arguments. At the same time, there can be a bit of fatigue when it is the same person and the same bad arguments.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
One justification is that new readers will only look at recent threads and the last page or so of a long thread.



I have used that cartoon many times in the very same context. I would strongly agree that this is part of it as well. The Monty Python "Argument Sketch" is also a good one.



There are good arguments both for and against that idea. If bad arguments are not replied to it gives the false impression that they are good arguments. At the same time, there can be a bit of fatigue when it is the same person and the same bad arguments.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince people to stop arguing science with people like Deeje. If that's what they want to do, then by all means.

I'm just expressing my dismay at the willingness of some folks to go around and around the same circles with the same person, ad infinitum. It's weird to watch. To borrow from your reference to the Argument Sketch, it's the fundamental question from that sketch.....who are we laughing at, John Cleese with his "automatic gainsaying" or Michael Palin who's so stubborn and desperate for a good argument that he keeps paying?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
No one is ignoring behavior. In fact, Darwin wrote an entire chapter in "Origin of Species" on instinct.

Instinct has nothing to do with behavior.

"Instinct" is what causes a bird to fly when it is startled or to take cover when it sees a hawk. Instinct guides only that which isn't part of consciousness. "Instinct" is to allow action before the consciousness is aware of the situation. "Instinct" can guide simple "behavior" but not complex behavior.

It didn't show the squirrel how to train me to take it food when it knocks on the window. It didn't train the cardinal to stabilize a hosta stem for its mate as it ate the seeds. It didn't teach bugs how to play in traffic and it didn't show elephants how to do self portraits.

Humans have tamed the world so we don't need no stinkin' instincts. Instead we act on our beliefs. We filter our consciousness through what we "think".

Animals simply do not act on instinct most of the time. If they did then life and death would be nearly random rather than selecting those with wrong behavior. It would be like modern warfare where there's nothing the individual can do to improve his odds or a road full of self driving cars where no individual human or animal on the road can improve their odds of survival. This isn't the way life works. Smarter, faster, more experienced animals survive and they survive because they are more likely to have proper behavior. This behavior is the result of genes that express themselves in individuals not in groups. This is such simple concept that "rabbits" have no genes at all because only individuals have genes and each set is INDIVIDUAL.

In the real world "faster' and "smarter" tend to factor out because all animals are healthy or on the menu and there's no such thing as "intelligence". This leaves only experience, consciousness, and willful behavior as the determinants of whether an animal, any animal (except humans) lives or dies. Even experience and consciousness factor out a little bit leaving behavior and the genes that cause that behavior as the basis of change in species.

We can't see this because we have a confused language and have lost touch with metaphysics.
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Instinct has nothing to do with behavior.

"Instinct" is what causes a bird to fly when it is startled or to take cover when it sees a hawk. Instinct guides only that which isn't part of consciousness. "Instinct" is to allow action before the consciousness is aware of the situation. "Instinct" can guide simple "behavior" but not complex behavior.

The real question is in what way does DNA guide what you call complex behavior since it is DNA that is inherited. You could certainly argue that the ability to learn behaviors and beliefs is based in DNA, but the individual learned behaviors and beliefs are not based on DNA. You need some way of couching your ideas within the concepts of selection in order for them to impact a population within a species.


In the real world "faster' and "smarter" tend to factor out because all animals are healthy or on the menu and there's no such thing as "intelligence".

Within evolution it is not about the survival of an individual. It is about the survival of a lineage. In other words, it isn't how long you live but how many grandchildren you have. If that behavior isn't heritable then it doesn't matter.
 
Top