Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

I can

I forgot the qualifier " . . . and be honest."

 

[cladking]

So you're saying that behavior drives evolution? So does the scientific theory. It's all about reproduction, which is linked to behavior. Behavior that facilitates reproduction is selected for and vice versa.

Any response even applicable to other species would be highly complex but as it applies to humans is infinitely more complex. I see little reason to delve into this.

You'd need to be more specific. What experiment are you suggesting contradicts the scientific theory or is not accounted for by it?

I've listed many of these over the years. How about the fact that most epochs seem to begin with a fresh set of species. How about the fact that all observed change in species is "sudden"? Yes, I'm aware that these are not "experiments" in the scientific sense but the fact is that there are experiments that show how humans think as well as various other experiments in a wide range of studies. There are numerous experiments that shed light on the nature of consciousness despite the act we can't define it. But man (et al) has created (experimented) with making many species and found changes are sudden. We see adaptation of species in nature over short periods of time.

I am saying that all experiment and observation supports a new paradigm.

You say, "all individuals are fit." Why do you say that? What does it mean?

I'm merely saying that except for deformities, disease, misadventure, and serious mutations that affect the ability to survive every individual can thrive under the proper conditions. I'd have made a great caveman, farmer in the 10th century or robber baron in the 1800's. Each of us has specific conditions under which we would do best. Every individual is equally fit or is lunch. Obviously a polar bear that is best suited to a tropical beach is in severe trouble and unlikely to survive but very few polar bears need a warm evening breeze and a pina colada.

Looking at reality in any other way is misleading and not really correct. It also is hazardous to the health of humans who are poor or dispossessed. It is hazardous to the species.

Later...

 

[Jimmy]

I forgot the qualifier " . . . and be honest."

There are none

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are none

I do not know if I would say that there are none. There are no honest informed people that deny the basic concepts of science such as evolution.

That would be like denying gravity. There may be a few people that deny it, but almost all of them are incredibly uniformed. But for some odd reason a lot of people deny evolution which has even more evidence for it than gravity does. When a person has to reject one whole classification of science they cannot honestly claim to love science.

 

[Jimmy]

I forgot the qualifier " . . . and be honest."

There are none

I do not know if I would say that there are none. There are no honest informed people that deny the basic concepts of science such as evolution.

That would be like denying gravity. There may be a few people that deny it, but almost all of them are incredibly uniformed. But for some odd reason a lot of people deny evolution which has even more evidence for it than gravity does. When a person has to reject one whole classification of science they cannot honestly claim to love science.

I disagree

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's like saying various skin colors are evolution. (They're not.)

It's biological evolution when the changes are rooted in new genes. Skin color is a nice illustration of the difference between changes in an individual within a lifetime and changes in a populationover generations. I can make my skin darker by lying in the sun, but it's not biological evolution. But if a population grows lighter or darker over generations, that's genetically mediated and constitutes biological evolution.

They are a result not of changing forms from dinosaurs to birds or fish to mammals but staying within the range of genetics.

Although that is explained by the theory, it's not part of the definition of evolution. Biological evolution occurs within species. It is occurring in man now. I'd bet the human gene pool has a different set of allele frequencies post-pandemic than it did pre-pandemic, as certain genomes were selected against, although most of the deaths occurred in people no longer reproducing. Those don't change gene pools. It's the deaths in those who would have contributed to the next generation but had their line discontinued by death or some other cause of infertility. If there was something in the genes of those who died that made them more susceptible to severe disease, there's less of it now and will be less present in the next generation.

You see fossils of a changed animal and assume that if you had a continual run of fossils that it would show a gradual change.

Yes, just like if I see a photo album of a person with pictures on every birthday, I assume that the changes were so gradual as to be imperceptible until at least a years worth of them accumulated. And if I found the photos scattered after a hurricane, I would assume from the resemblance that this was the evolution of a single life, and could order the photos by their apparent age and get a series of forms that gradually approximate the latest form - how he or she looks today if still alive. The argument against doing this with fossils is as weak as claiming that the photos cannot be ordered and called the evolution (not biological evolution as with fossils, but evolution of an individual) of a single person from young old.

Surely you will agree that if I'm right that most change in species occurs at bottlenecks

I still don't know what you mean by that. This is the problem we never get past. Exactly what are you calling a bottleneck? A founder effect? A near extinction that severely reduces the gene pool? Adam and Eve?

I can neither agree nor disagree with you because I don't know what you are claiming happens. My understanding is that the most evolution occurs following the sudden opening of new niches due to dramatic changes in the environment such as the advent of cyanobacteria and molecular oxygen in the oceans and atmosphere, which made multicellular animal life possible, or the ozone layer, which opened up niches in the photic zones of the ocean and eventually land. Asteroids, outgassing volcanoes, a supernova, and snowball earth also led to dramatic changes in the environment and accelerated evolution.

Do you see how the language I use explains what I am thinking fairly clearly, and gives you an opportunity to agree with some and say that you disagree with some? It's not vague. I don't employ private usages.

We each reason in circles and for most practical purposes we even do this collectively.

Here's another of those comments that all I can say is that whatever you are referring to, it's not a problem for me. Reasoning has worked well for me. I used it to get through school and professionally. I used it to decide what works and what doesn't. I used it to decide where I wanted to be and how to get there. So I don't know what you mean. I can't make it fit my experience whatever meaning I attribute to the words.

I simply made different assumptions than you made and reasoned in a different circle. I believe (most of) my assumptions were correct so I ended up at a better "conclusion"; a more accurate and predictive theory (paradigm by the terms of modern science and theory by the terms of animal science).

I hope you're correct. If you are, I wouldn't know, because I don't really understand what it is you believe beyond a handful of ideas that I can't relate to experience or to one another.

How about the fact that most epochs seem to begin with a fresh set of species.

The theory accounts for punctuated equilibrium, although Darwin didn't anticipate it. What could Darwin have known mid-nineteenth century that would lead him to suspect catastrophism?

How about the fact that all observed change in species is "sudden"?

I still don't know why you keep repeating that. Does it mean that changes don't occur over longer periods of time? If it does, it's incorrect. If it only means that minimal change can be quick, so what? The change from no icicle on the eave to an icicle occurs gradually over hours to days. The change back to no icicle happens suddenly when it falls off. Does whatever you believe contradict that? If not, how do you reconcile your claim that all change is sudden with mine that one change was gradual and one sudden?

There are numerous experiments that shed light on the nature of consciousness despite the act we can't define it.

What problem were you addressing specifically? I have a good working definition of consciousness and self-consciousness as well as immediate first-person experience of it. I don't know the mechanism that generates it, although it seems to be an epiphenomenon of sufficiently complex brains.

I am saying that all experiment and observation supports a new paradigm.

OK, but you haven't made the case to me, nor articulated the paradigm as a coherent mental edifice which parts connect and reinforce one another.

I'm merely saying that except for deformities, disease, misadventure, and serious mutations that affect the ability to survive every individual can thrive under the proper conditions.

Why are you saying that? What's your greater point relevant to this discussion?

Every individual is equally fit or is lunch.

Now you've moved the goalpost. Earlier, you said that they were all fit. Also, now you're describing the natural selection of those able to avoid being lunch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are none

I disagree

Then you are wrong.

 

[Jimmy]

Then you are wrong.

Ok

 

[John53]

Hey, remember that song? Great song. Yeah, what about you?
Meantime, I have been lovingly (yes, sarcastic) banned from certain aspects of response here because it has been deemed unacceptable by a particular power for me to ask questions of certain posters here in mighty positions.
I'll listen to that song later...thanks for reminder.

As long as it's the original Moving Pictures version and not the horrible Shannon Noll cover.

 

[Audie]

Funnier still evolution never actually happened haha

Childish

 

[YoursTrue]

This is because you are assuming the conclusion; the same conclusion that Darwin assumed. You see fossils of a changed animal and assume that if you had a continual run of fossils that it would show a gradual change. You assume numerous missing links caused by gradual change driven by survival of the fittest. It is these assumptions that cause you to see what you see.

We can't look at anything without seeing our own beliefs instead.

Reality is best described as a series of events and this also applies to living things and species on steroids. Most events have almost no effect on species. Individuals are driven by events but it (usually) matters little to a species whether one individual had 1000 offspring or a million because all individuals are equally fit.

Surely you will agree that if I'm right that most change in species occurs at bottlenecks than Darwin's disbelief in bottlenecks would blind him to how species actually change.

I have to look more at what is called the "Cambrian Explosion." From what I understand, seems that suddenly new forms appeared, no connection to previous forms. I'll check it out. OK, no "evidence" to previous gradually developing forms.

 

[YoursTrue]

As long as it's the original Moving Pictures version and not the horrible Shannon Noll cover.

I only know the song -- sung by some guy -- nothing else. I heard it on an older CD I happened to come across and was knocked out by it. I think it was the person that wrote the song. I'll check it out. Great song.

 

[YoursTrue]

Childish

no, it's not. It's realistic. That is, looking at the so-called evidence. Then there is that irreducible complexity such as DNA that is inexplicable. As for "natural selection" forming different organisms. You can try but probably to no avail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Funnier still evolution never actually happened haha

So you believe that God is a liar. Why trust God if he is a liar in the Adam and Eve story?

 

[John53]

I only know the song -- sung by some guy -- nothing else. I heard it on an older CD I happened to come across and was knocked out by it. I think it was the person that wrote the song. I'll check it out. Great song.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, I'm listening to Toby Keith's song now -- "I Wanna Talk About Me." I got the title wrong. Still great song.

 

[John53]

OK, I'm listening to Toby Keith's song now -- "I Wanna Talk About Me." I got the title wrong. Still great song.

First time I've heard country and western rap fusion.

 

[YoursTrue]

First time I've heard country and western rap fusion.

ok, I'm not up on these things. But first time I heard it was on a used CD collection I got cheap from a thrift store. The song really got me. I am smiling slightly while I write this. Whoever put that collection together had really great taste, into music I would never have listened to on my own.

 

[YoursTrue]

First time I've heard country and western rap fusion.

Oh, I don't want to miss this -- it evolved. Who knows? Maybe it will eventually fly to the moon. The song that is. or maybe a cd.

 

[YoursTrue]

First time I've heard country and western rap fusion.

oh no, it can't evolve YET because cd's aren't alive. (Are they?)