Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

Your used language exposed your intellectual dishonesty.
And after repeating myself several times and correcting the same mistakes as many times,... there comes a point where it's just not worth bothering anymore.

I see no reason to continue playing games of pigeon chess.

The flea says:
"Some and witness my power and my might!
I've conquered the lions fury with one mighty bite!"

Poor kitty lose to a crank.

Of course, the she didn't even know she'd
been bitten.

 

[cladking]

Your used language exposed your intellectual dishonesty.

Just more words. Just an endless stream of semantical arguments.

You've never even really countered my first and weakest argument that all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden.

Until you address any argument or present relevant argument I might not respond further.

You can be certain if I don't respond it's because your "evidence" isn't valid to your or my claims about how species change or it is just more semantical nonsense.

 

[Audie]

Just more words. Just an endless stream of semantical arguments.

You've never even really countered my first and weakest argument that all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden.

Until you address any argument or present relevant argument I might not respond further.

You can be certain if I don't respond it's because your "evidence" isn't valid to your or my claims about how species change or it is just more semantical nonsense.

It's not just weak it's utterly false

 

[cladking]

It's not just weak it's utterly false

It is weak.

But it is stronger than almost any argument anyone has for gradualism or survival of the fittest. It is much stronger than reading the fossil record.

So what about life do you believe doesn't change gradually. Of course IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO ANSWER WITHOUT ASSUMING THE CONCLUSION.

As an "argument" that gradualism exists someone will say "species change gradually" even though it's not an argument at all.

 

[cladking]

As an "argument" that gradualism exists someone will say "species change gradually" even though it's not an argument at all.

This is what always happens when arguing with the faithful. If you believe in Darwin or Science you aren't doing the former justice or the latter correctly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is a paper praising Darwin's contributions to science.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.0701072104

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Another paper about Darwin's contribution to science.

Harder, Lawrence D., and Steven D. Johnson. "Darwin's beautiful contrivances: evolutionary and functional evidence for floral adaptation." New Phytologist 183, no. 3 (2009): 530-545.

https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02914.x

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's one on Darwin's contribution to plant biology.

Soltis, Pamela S., Ryan A. Folk, and Douglas E. Soltis. "Darwin review: angiosperm phylogeny and evolutionary radiations." Proceedings of the Royal Society B 286, no. 1899 (2019): 20190099.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2019.0099

We have progressed 150 years since Darwin, but he made significant contributions to science. Not just in establishing the theory of natural selection, but in other areas of science as well.

I could go on and on posting papers relating to his contributions and even more on what has been learned about evolution since. There are literally 100's of thousands of papers that support natural selection, gradualism, common ancestry and evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's a paper explaining what a genetic bottleneck is. For those that don't know what a genetic bottleneck is and manufacture their own erroneous definitions, this may be eye-opening. But more than likely it will be dismissed by those that think they know everything and have come up with their own pseudoscience and set of conspiracy theories in place of learning.

Nei, Masatoshi, Takeo Maruyama, and Ranajit Chakraborty. "THE BOTTLENECK EFFECT AND GENETIC VARIABILITY IN POPULATIONS." Evolution 29, no. 1 (1975): 1-10.

I don't have a link, but here is the abstract.

"When a population goes through a small bottleneck, the genetic variability of the population is expected to decline rapidly but, as soon as population size becomes large, it starts to increase owing to new mutations. This problem is studied mathematically, and the results obtained indicate that the amount of reduction in average heterozygosity per locus depends not only on the 'size of bottleneck' but also on the rate of population growth. If population size increases rapidly after going through a bottleneck, the reduction in average heterozygosity is rather small even if bottleneck size is extremely small. On the other hand, the loss in the average number of alleles per locus is profoundly affected by bottleneck size but not so much by the rate of population growth. This difference occurs mainly because random genetic drift eliminates many low frequency alleles. However, the average number of alleles per locus increases faster than the average heterozygosity when population size is restored. Application of the theory developed to the Bogota population of Drosophila pseudoobscura supports Prakash's postulate that this population has grown very rapidly, starting from a few migrants from a Central or North American population."

Bottlenecks are the result of a population decrease with an attendant reduction in genetic diversity.

Some I have already noted confuse selection with bottlenecks. They are not the same thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is another reference explaining genetic bottlenecks.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...tion-of-Integrated-Plant-Viruses.pdf#page=129

Chapter 7 covers the topic and defines what a genetic bottleneck is.

This is the abstract where I highlight the portion that explains what a genetic bottleneck is.

"Changes in population size may have important effects on genetic variation and on the survival potential of viral species. Genetic bottlenecks are evolutionary events that reduce genetic variation of a population in a stochastic manner and result in founding populations that can lead to genetic drift. In nature, genetic bottlenecks may occur at different points during the life cycles of plant RNA viruses. For example, transmission events, both horizontal and vertical, and systemic infections represent events in the virus life cycles that may impose a bottleneck. Recently, genetic bottlenecks have been shown experimentally in plant virus populations during systemic movement within the plant and horizontal transmission from plant to plant by aphid vectors. The most important implication of genetic bottlenecks is the reduction in population size and intensification of genetic drift, which can reshape the RNA virus population and may lead to the emergence of new virus strains. Another effect of genetic bottlenecks is to reduce the size of the effective populations below the threshold needed to ensure the transmission of the fittest variants. Consequently, the viral population may become progressively dominated by less fit mutants, a process known as Muller’s ratchet, and will succumb by a mutational meltdown."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not just weak it's utterly false

I can just about guess what are responding to without even seeing it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I got over 270,000 hits when searching for "genetic bottlenecks". With all that information available, I can't imagine how someone could get it so wrong. But "getting it wrong" seems to be the paradigm that is followed by those that deny science without apparent knowledge of science or evidence for their wild and empty claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The completely erroneous notion that all change in all living things is sudden isn't even worth following up on. It is a completely ridiculous claim that makes no sense in light of what is known. How that it can be fielded as a conclusion is astounding.

I am astonished to see it made as a claim.

It is refuted by anyone that has raised chickens or boiled an egg.

 

[rational experiences]

Men's behaviour civilisation based only.

Man's living conditions in the nature garden balances says....

Earths garden biology lives and is directly rooted into grounds mass. Biology nothing like the grounds mass in which it survived.

All types of everything exist as seen and notated by men.

Practice of science.

To theory stories for civilisation statuses behaviours. Not for survival.

Natural balances on earth is legal survival the position religious based teaching took versus man's chosen science.

Chosen by men in status the civilisation only. Human behaviours.

Man looks as a type role play a God thought behaviour as dominion superiority. Human and man.

Describes all things his mind is notified are less in forms than himself.

Yet they had not evolved out of his living biology as the God type theisms.

The man.

Whose human consciousness displayed as historic is destroyer behaviours. By choices of human behaviour only.

Until he realises the actual human science teaching. Man as he continues to relate information as if he created the presence personally of all things by studies themes.

By three separate thinking purposes he his and him. God terms. As if God is a man.

 

[Valjean]

Just more words. Just an endless stream of semantical arguments.

You've never even really countered my first and weakest argument that all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden.

Until you address any argument or present relevant argument I might not respond further.

You can be certain if I don't respond it's because your "evidence" isn't valid to your or my claims about how species change or it is just more semantical nonsense.

But your argument is patently false.

 

[cladking]

"When a population goes through a small bottleneck, the genetic variability of the population is expected to decline rapidly but, as soon as population size becomes large, it starts to increase owing to new mutations. This problem is studied mathematically, and the results obtained indicate that the amount of reduction in average heterozygosity per locus depends not only on the 'size of bottleneck' but also on the rate of population growth. If population size increases rapidly after going through a bottleneck, the reduction in average heterozygosity is rather small even if bottleneck size is extremely small. On the other hand, the loss in the average number of alleles per locus is profoundly affected by bottleneck size but not so much by the rate of population growth. This difference occurs mainly because random genetic drift eliminates many low frequency alleles. However, the average number of alleles per locus increases faster than the average heterozygosity when population size is restored. Application of the theory developed to the Bogota population of Drosophila pseudoobscura supports Prakash's postulate that this population has grown very rapidly, starting from a few migrants from a Central or North American population."

This is what happens when you look at the microscopic through a telescope.

If you ignore the differences in the consciousness, the genetics, and behavior of individuals that survive a bottleneck the cause of the change in species is invisible. If you simply assume the survivors were more fit, stronger, smarter, and naturally selected then you are describing change in species which is an abstraction and doesn't exist in reality.

Studying science and listening to peers is a good thing. Worshipping science and praying to Peers is a bad thing.

There is still no experiment that proves change in species is effective through surviva;l of the fittest or that it occurs gradually.

All OBSERVED change in life is sudden. Most observed change in "species" in the fossil record is also sudden but as I've mentioned many times reading the fossil record is like reading tea leaves.

 

[cladking]

But your argument is patently false.

And you can't point to a change in life that isn't sudden. You merely believe that change in species is gradual. Despite every argument and your lack of experimental evidence you persist in believing Darwin.

Despite the fact that "species" is an abstraction and no "species" in the "fossil record" is seen to change gradually you still believe.

 

[cladking]

Despite every argument and your lack of experimental evidence you persist in believing Darwin.

Despite the fact that even the science of biology is moving away from Darwin you still support Darwin

 

[Audie]

I can just about guess what are responding to without even seeing it.

There people who are too lazy or crazy or
stupid for the hard work of actually studying
and learning.
Guess we know who some of them are.

They want to just skip all of that, claiming
inspiration, a magic book, or perhaps a towering intellect that launches them out
past everyone else into profound knowledge.

Perhaps all the Sci fi stories of the lone
mad scientist, from Fausts or the Invisible
Man through the Elvis as a young rebel
Chemist movie did something. They got this
nonsensical model in their heads and think
they are like that?

Who knows. I seldom but shouldnt ever
respond to their posts.
It's a bit too much like bear- baiting.

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you tell me where Darwin said "life could appear spontaneously"?

Would that matter?