Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

Here is some evidence of evolution. I know a lot of it will be of the kind where one animal doesn't change into another, but that isn't expected.

I hate to be contentious, and so I can say I'm asking the next question to understand -- but I surely do hope you're not referring to the different species of birds, or beaks of birds. Because yes, birds remain birds, etc.

All the breeds of animals that humans have for food and companionship. The different breeds of dogs, cats, rabbits, pigs, cattle, goats, sheep, etc. All developed by artificial selection to fix traits that make them useful or interesting to us.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, but I figure you mean cultivating breeds.

The same for plants. Corn, cotton, soybean, wheat, rice, fruit and vegetables all bred for traits that are pleasing to use using artificial selection techniques that mimic natural selection.

I am not an expert of these things, but understand that fruits and vegetables can be genetically doctored up.

The evolution of resistant populations of bacteria, insects, weeds, nematodes, and a few other pests to our efforts to control them chemically.

The similar genomes found in the Great Apes, that includes us.

The fossils for different lines of organism that show change over time.

I'm just giving a general listing, but these phenomena do represent evidence for the theory of evolution.

Yes, and I appreciate that, but I hate to go back to my usual saying -- which is: goats remain goats, even the differing types of goars, bacteria remain bacteria. I am far from convinced that 'Lucy' evolved into homo sapien. I understand scientists think her skull resembled human skull somewhat, and yes, since I have come to believe in the Bible's description of creation ("in the beginning...") by God, I will say that I understand somewhat the logic of those believing in evolution, I also can see the questions regarding that. More, maybe later.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is a particularly good paper illustrating natural selection on mouse color in an extensive field experiment.

I've posted it many times before, but I guess some just pretend it isn't there.

https://hoekstra.oeb.harvard.edu/files/hoekstra/files/barrett2019sci.pdf

 

[YoursTrue]

Lucy would be just one step along the path and not a map showing the entire journey.

The idea is set out that she (?) is a step on the way...

I'm not a mathematician or a physicist, but have a very general understanding of relativity. Relatively speaking.

I tried reading about it -- I think in order for me to even begin to understand it I'd have to have a parent willing to sit down with me and explain in detail with drawings, etc., and then maybe even then I'd be scratching my head. Because we are talking about time here in reference to matter. I'm kind of glad I didn't know Einstein. anyway. but that's my personal consideration.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I hate to be contentious, and so I can say I'm asking the next question to understand -- but I surely do hope you're not referring to the different species of birds, or beaks of birds. Because yes, birds remain birds, etc.

That doesn't mean that evolution is not illustrated in the changes that take place in the short term and doesn't mean that longer term changes don't occur.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, but I figure you mean cultivating breeds.

Cultivating, breeding, artificially selecting which get to breed with which.

I am not an expert of these things, but understand that fruits and vegetables can be genetically doctored up.

Not sure what you mean by doctored up.

Yes, and I appreciate that, but I hate to go back to my usual saying -- which is: goats remain goats, even the differing types of goars, bacteria remain bacteria. I am far from convinced that 'Lucy' evolved into homo sapien. I understand scientists think her skull resembled human skull somewhat, and yes, since I have come to believe in the Bible's description of creation ("in the beginning...") by God, I will say that I understand somewhat the logic of those believing in evolution, I also can see the questions regarding that. More, maybe later.

You keep saying that as if it means something regarding the theory, but it doesn't mean anything regarding the theory. It like repeating cars remain cars when trying to decide for fuel efficiency or power. It just doesn't mean anything. The theory of evolution does not predict that birds will turn into another type of animal or even a plant. If something like that happened, the theory couldn't explain it.

Science is a means to discover and to produce explanations for what is discovered using the evidence available. What someone believes could be true, but the evidence for what is believed on faith is unavailable for sharing, explaining, describing using science. You cannot declare evidence that you don't have as supporting a view that you like when you don't have that evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a particularly good paper illustrating natural selection on mouse color in an extensive field experiment.

I've posted it many times before, but I guess some just pretend it isn't there.

https://hoekstra.oeb.harvard.edu/files/hoekstra/files/barrett2019sci.pdf

Looking over this article, I see the following statement: "Knowing the strength of selection in nature is essential to predict rates of adaptive change." Not sure about predicting rates, but I imagine that if in a type of rat that was in an inhospitable environment, perhaps only the strong would survive, thus producing a particularly strong type of rat, perhaps even different in size and shape from when it came. By shape I mean maybe the body was rounder, longer, who knows, from whence it came genetically. But again -- it remained a rat.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The idea is set out that she (?) is a step on the way...

I tried reading about it -- I think in order for me to even begin to understand it I'd have to have a parent willing to sit down with me and explain in detail with drawings, etc., and then maybe even then I'd be scratching my head. Because we are talking about time here in reference to matter. I'm kind of glad I didn't know Einstein. anyway. but that's my personal consideration.

If you are really interested, I think you should find some popular explanations available on the internet. For both.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Looking over this article, I see the following statement: "Knowing the strength of selection in nature is essential to predict rates of adaptive change." Not sure about predicting rates, but I imagine that if in a type of rat that was in an inhospitable environment, perhaps only the strong would survive, thus producing a particularly strong type of rat, perhaps even different in size and shape from when it came. By shape I mean maybe the body was rounder, longer, who knows, from whence it came genetically. But again -- it remained a rat.

Natural selection isn't referring to physical strength. That is why the use of the phrase "survival of the fittest" isn't very descriptive and it is misleading to those that don't really understand. it is outdated and wasn't very good to begin with in my opinion.

However, if there was a mutation that lead to increased muscle mass and there was selection in support of that increase, then eventually the population might swing to the more muscular adaptation. It is not being said that those without the adaptation would die suddenly or not reproduce. The selection would favor the traits that allow increased survival and reproduction by those with the traits. Many don't seem to get that. And they think that it means that one member of a population beats up on or physically dominates other members of the population. It doesn't mean that.

Again, it doesn't make any difference to point out that they remain rats.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some of us have come to conclusions. I was just reading about the general theory of relativity and I must confess I don't understand 99.9% of it because (1) of the language (the terminology), and (2) the remarkable descriptions of it, and (3) how scientists know or posit things as if they know. So, on that level, I give up. I appreciated a statement by one science writer (Davies) describing his journey that when he was learning, he couldn't understand something that was taught and so put it in the "don't understand" pocket. That is how it is with me and the theory of relativity. Relating to gravity. As far as evolution, again -- I see no evidentiary proof (yes, I'm using the word proof here in reasonable context) of a 'Lucy' growing (evolving) to become a homo sapien.

And that is the problem. Lucy was an individual. She did not evolve/ Individuals cannot evolve. Populations evolve. Their genetic makeup does changee.


And another important thing to remember.. Species names are a human invention. So Australopithecus did not evolve into new species.. There was no single generation where they were Australopithecus and then they were Homo habilis, We just put a label on them for specific time periods.

You might want to put evolution into an idea that you cannot understand but it is still a fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here's a paper that refutes directed mutations and explains what is really going on. One for creationists to ignore or deny of course.

https://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/7/7/a018176.full.pdf

 

[Audie]

Natural selection isn't referring to physical strength. That is why the use of the phrase "survival of the fittest" isn't very descriptive and it is misleading to those that don't really understand. it is outdated and wasn't very good to begin with in my opinion.

However, if there was a mutation that lead to increased muscle mass and there was selection in support of that increase, then eventually the population might swing to the more muscular adaptation. It is not being said that those without the adaptation would die suddenly or not reproduce. The selection would favor the traits that allow increased survival and reproduction by those with the traits. Many don't seem to get that. And they think that it means that one member of a population beats up on or physically dominates other members of the population. It doesn't mean that.

Again, it doesn't make any difference to point out that they remain rats.

If in, say. Australia all mammals (including people) were eliminated, and then rats (say
from the slums of Shanghai) were introduced-

If one were to check back in one million, 10,
20 etc ...
Would there still be rats?
Would descendents of the original group
all be rats?

 

[cladking]

I once saw a female cardinal, we'll call her Claudia, land near the top of a hosta stem laden with seeds. She was desperately trying to eat these seeds as her mate, Pete, stood guard. The stem couldn't support her weight even before she was done with her meal and was waving violently as Claudia occasionally flapped her wings to remain on her precarious perch. Near the ground this stem rubbed against another stem from the same plant. Pete saw this and swooped down to where these stems intersected and grasped the two in his strong claws to prevent movement and stabilize his mate's perch. No doubt in Claudia's eyes he really hit one out of the park but can this be reward enough for something that isn't even conscious? Before all those who claim "nature done it it was mere instinct" I would ask exactly how nature did it. Did some gene predict that someday Pete could save Claudia and they'd have a whole ball park full of little Rose colored and off-Red Cardinales?

No!!! Obviously not. By fixating on "species" which is an abstraction believers in evolution are missing the whole game. The big picture involves only Claudias and Petes. It involves the specific ways in which each Claudia and Pete survive, thrive, and reproduce. Cardinals don't reproduce, Claudia and Pete reproduce. There is no other way to do it and believers in "species" and reductionism can not see it except indirectly. Neither cardinals nor Cardinales need to avoid predation or think. Nature is not some thoughtless and omnipotent entity that can can direct its species to live long and proper.

If you do it right and don't believe in supernatural powers you can sit in one place and see change in species one animal at a time because this is the very nature of all living things. We eat, we respire, we process information, and we act in ways that maximize our chances to thrive and prosper. "Species" don't do any of these things because "species" is an abstraction and abstractions aren't even real. They are little mental tricks we (homo omnisciencis) use to process information, remember things, induce, and set up experiments that might have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

Reality is logic manifest. Math is logic quantified. Life as consciousness is the logical processing of information.

"Evolution" is just Darwin's illusion.

 

[cladking]

Another, perhaps more accurate, name for our species is "homo circulus ratiocinatio"; circularly reasoning man. We've been around since the "tower of babel".

Just like everyone I ended up at every single one of my assumptions but I had completely different assumptions than everyone else so I ended up at a completely different place.

When I was ten I had a dream that I had sat still in my tree house so long that all the animals forgot I was there. Soon enough a couple of red wing blackbirds landed on a nearby fence and started talking. It was a brief conversation before they realized my presence and took wing. Essentially they were debating whether or not to tell humans that animals are just intelligent as we are. The consensus opinion seemed to be humans were not ready for it. I can understand the reasoning since it would severely damage our little feelings.


A few years later I realized my whole life would play out according to my beliefs just like everyone else's.

 

[cladking]

Reality is logic manifest. Math is logic quantified. Life as consciousness is the logical processing of information.

Neither a cardinal nor a species is any more alive than a baseball game or a movie. Claudia and Pete are alive.

 

[YoursTrue]

He's not wrong. The text of the Bible describing the Earth indicates that it was viewed as flat. The descriptions fit a flat Earth worldview.

The Bible was written by a people that didn't get out much. It wasn't written by globe trotting jet setters that hopped from continent to continent getting a good idea of how big the planet is.

I never heard of "flat earthers" until I got involved in these conversations with people years ago. I was astounded at the (lack of) reasoning behind it. But -- oh well, that's the way it goes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Another, perhaps more accurate, name for our species is "homo circulus ratiocinatio"; circularly reasoning man. We've been around since the "tower of babel".

Just like everyone I ended up at every single one of my assumptions but I had completely different assumptions than everyone else so I ended up at a completely different place.

When I was ten I had a dream that I had sat still in my tree house so long that all the animals forgot I was there. Soon enough a couple of red wing blackbirds landed on a nearby fence and started talking. It was a brief conversation before they realized my presence and took wing. Essentially they were debating whether or not to tell humans that animals are just intelligent as we are. The consensus opinion seemed to be humans were not ready for it. I can understand the reasoning since it would severely damage our little feelings.


A few years later I realized my whole life would play out according to my beliefs just like everyone else's.

I never had any beliefs in particular thinking it was all a hoax, including my birth religion and other religions. I visited and participated in various religious types, professionally and singularly. Finally I decided to study the Bible with people I trusted and liked insofar as belief system goes. Anyway, have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Lucy would be just one step along the path and not a map showing the entire journey.

I'm not a mathematician or a physicist, but have a very general understanding of relativity. Relatively speaking.

I still don't believe Lucy was on the way to being (ok, evolving into eventually) a homo sapien. I realize it doesn't matter what I believe. But although Lucy's skull may resemble a human skull (maybe?), I am not going to say "yes, this means evolution." Because -- (1) yes, there is no proof, and (2) there is no actual evidence of this skull grew (evolved) to become a larger brain holder and homoi sapien. One might say there is, but I don't think so. Based on -- evidence. So I think this whole argument will be settled in the future. At least I hope so.

 

[YoursTrue]

Here's a review of sympatric speciation with reference to evidence.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benjamin-Fitzpatrick/publication/224860018_Sympatric_Speciation_Models_and_Empirical_Evidence/links/02bfe511377e30ad4c000000/Sympatric-Speciation-Models-and-Empirical-Evidence.pdf?_sg[0]=started_experiment_milestone&origin=journalDetail

Maybe I'm wrong, but don't cichlids remain like fish or a variety of cichlids? I never even heard the expression until I checked the link. So it seems that there is rather a debate of sorts among scientists that don't all agree with the theories of what and how it happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

Another, perhaps more accurate, name for our species is "homo circulus ratiocinatio"; circularly reasoning man. We've been around since the "tower of babel".

Just like everyone I ended up at every single one of my assumptions but I had completely different assumptions than everyone else so I ended up at a completely different place.

When I was ten I had a dream that I had sat still in my tree house so long that all the animals forgot I was there. Soon enough a couple of red wing blackbirds landed on a nearby fence and started talking. It was a brief conversation before they realized my presence and took wing. Essentially they were debating whether or not to tell humans that animals are just intelligent as we are. The consensus opinion seemed to be humans were not ready for it. I can understand the reasoning since it would severely damage our little feelings.


A few years later I realized my whole life would play out according to my beliefs just like everyone else's.

It may but then there is the Grand Decider over ourselves.

 

[YoursTrue]

And that is the problem. Lucy was an individual. She did not evolve/ Individuals cannot evolve. Populations evolve. Their genetic makeup does changee.

I know that. I would hope you would have understood what I was saying but ... be that as it may, at this point I say, whatever...

You might want to put evolution into an idea that you cannot understand but it is still a fact.

Says you and others. Best to you -- and have a nice day or evening within the 24 hour period, etc. Maybe afternoon where you're at, who knows? But have a good one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never heard of "flat earthers" until I got involved in these conversations with people years ago. I was astounded at the (lack of) reasoning behind it. But -- oh well, that's the way it goes.

Flat Earthers are very often very literal reading Christians. They are only one small step away from being YEC's. And YEC's are only one small step away from being OEC's. They all have to deny reality to a certain degree.