Darwin's Illusion

[John53]

How ironic!

I believe dogs are as close to an experiment as ancient science ever got. It was based on observation and logic instead of observation and experiment however. It did not "experiment" and wouldn't understand the concept because the people had no abstractions and science was based in the logic of language and observations could not be staged.

I don't understand what this paragraph means.

I believe "dogs" virtually prove my contention that change in species is "always" sudden and caused not by "survival of the fittest" but by behavior of individuals at bottlenecks. Bottlenecks select for behavior and no sort of "fitness".

It's faster in the case of dogs (and other domestic animals and plants) because humans manipulated natural selection to produce the characteristics they found desirable.

 

[John53]

Nobody burns in hell.

Nobody has seen hell so you can't know according to your logic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nobody burns in hell.

According to your belief system. And neither according to mine, hence the But some people do believe that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one has yet to present a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest.

This is just false. I have personally pointed you to such experiments and so have others. Multiple times.
Sticking your head in the sand and handwaving, is not an argument against it. Nor does it make it go away.

Show an experiment that shows gradual change or survival of the fittest. Let's leave e coli out of this please.

Why leave e coli out of it?
Too devastating to your case?



That experiment is exactly what you ask for.
A gradual change in species that spread throughout the population due to the advantage it gave to the organism.

More head-in-sand behavior on your part.

Darwin was wrong and this is why the evidence against the MS just keeps growing.

Your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I sometimes wonder if it's Poe's law.

That is what I sometimes wonder.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe I'm not understanding what he's asking but aren't dogs a wonderful example of humans experimenting with natural selection?

Yes, they are.

Wolves that naturally developed traits that allowed them to more closely co-exist with humans were exploited by man as a basis to artificially select for variations that made them even more to our liking.

Nebulous claims about fictional species, word games and unsupported reference to distorted and misguided views of evolution won't make those views real no matter how often the empty assertions are repeated here.

Darwin saw this and formulated the theory of evolution and natural selection on such evidence.

There are numerous studies and reviews available on the subject citing the evidence of dog evolution that are just a keyboard click away for those seriously interested in the facts. Here are a few that only took me a minute or less to find.

Unraveling the mysteries of dog evolution - BMC Biology

Toward understanding dog evolutionary and domestication history

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ment-in-the-evolution-of-the-domestic-dog.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...dog-evolution-and-human-wildlife-conflict.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...7ca3/The-Social-Dog-History-and-Evolution.pdf

https://watermark.silverchair.com/9...vndPl_ShLF1QIU8yJ5EztkslQd6hPYzngIXKM6vfsOHuQ

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is just false. I have personally pointed you to such experiments and so have others. Multiple times.
Sticking your head in the sand and handwaving, is not an argument against it. Nor does it make it go away.



Why leave e coli out of it?
Too devastating to your case?



That experiment is exactly what you ask for.
A gradual change in species that spread throughout the population due to the advantage it gave to the organism.

More head-in-sand behavior on your part.



Your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

I've posted this study demonstrating natural selection several times, but the anti-science/fan fiction science crowd doesn't seem interested in commenting on it.

Barrett, R.D.H., S. Laurent, R. Mallarino, S.P. Pfeifer, C.C.Y. Xu, M. Foll, K. Wakamatsu, J.S. Duke-Cohan, J.D. Jensen & HE. Hoekstra. 2019. Linking a mutation to survival in wild mice. Science. 363(6426): 499-504.

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

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't understand what this paragraph means.



It's faster in the case of dogs (and other domestic animals and plants) because humans manipulated natural selection to produce the characteristics they found desirable.

Agreed, it is faster under the artificial selection of people. But still not sudden, instant, utterly, extremely rapid as some claims without reason to claim.

Sure, it was quicker than star formation, but what a silly and meaningless comparison don't you think?

 

[cladking]

I don't understand what this paragraph means.

Ancient people had a different experience of reality but it was highly scientific. Rather than reasoning in circles and seeing what they believed their brains were highly logical due to the wiring and they reasoned linearly and in multiple directions. They saw the "selection of dogs" for what it really is from their perspective; the imposition of an artificial bottleneck. The very act of breeding only certain wolves was identical to all the other wolves "dying" from the perspective of the dogs. This kind of thinking was easy for ancient people because they saw reality from every angle simultaneously. We rarely even try to do such a thing. They lived in a binary reality and used a mathematical language to think and speak. Their science was highly primitive but had been in continuous use by every single human for 40,000 years. They and their science were a force of nature.

It's faster in the case of dogs (and other domestic animals and plants) because humans manipulated natural selection to produce the characteristics they found desirable.

No. It really isn't. Indeed nature is probably much faster.

You are merely assuming that nature doesn't do the exact same thing and I'm stating that it appears that nature does do the exact same thing; it selects for behavior at bottlenecks. Darwin imagined populations were stable and nature selected for fitness but these assumptions simply are not true. All individuals are fit and species change when individuals with unusual behavior survive a bottleneck.

 

[cladking]

Why leave e coli out of it?
Too devastating to your case?

I told you the flaws in the experiment when you posted it. I also listed reasons that it probably wasn't fully relevant.

Like everything else I post you simply ignored it.

And, yes, it would be "devastating" if it were flawless and it were relevant. But bear in mind that this "devastation" would not exclude the possibility that most change in species occurs at bottlenecks. It would simply mean that "survival of the fittest" is at least one mechanism for how species change. I would also remind you that I don't doubt that there is some change cause by survival of the fittest and I also believe survival of the fittest at localized bottlenecks give rise to new genes and a wider range of behavior which make change in species more likely by increasing the likelihood of some individuals surviving any specific global bottleneck.

I trust this is clear enough.

 

[ratiocinator]

I trust this is clear enough.

Yep. You continue to spout unevidenced and vague assertions. Really couldn't be less convincing.

 

[Audie]

Yep. You continue to spout unevidenced and vague assertions. Really couldn't be less convincing.

It could well be all that's really irrelevant for
someone who just wants attention.

 

[cladking]

Yep. You continue to spout unevidenced and vague assertions. Really couldn't be less convincing.

You don't even know what any of the objections were but you know I'm wrong!

You sound exactly like an Inquisitor harassing a skeptic. There is no one holier than thou than a believer in science.

Do you even know what the referent is?

 

[John53]

Agreed, it is faster under the artificial selection of people. But still not sudden, instant, utterly, extremely rapid as some claims without reason to claim.

Sure, it was quicker than star formation, but what a silly and meaningless comparison don't you think?

Yep, definitely not sudden but quick enough for records to be kept and for it to be an example of how evolution works. I've seen it in my lifetime, things like disease resistant crops. Holstein Friesian Cows these days are much bigger and give a lot more milk than the Holstein Friesians we had on our dairy when I was a kid.

I must have missed the bit about star formation, I'm kind of glad I did.

 

[John53]

Ancient people had a different experience of reality but it was highly scientific. Rather than reasoning in circles and seeing what they believed their brains were highly logical due to the wiring and they reasoned linearly and in multiple directions. They saw the "selection of dogs" for what it really is from their perspective; the imposition of an artificial bottleneck. The very act of breeding only certain wolves was identical to all the other wolves "dying" from the perspective of the dogs. This kind of thinking was easy for ancient people because they saw reality from every angle simultaneously. We rarely even try to do such a thing. They lived in a binary reality and used a mathematical language to think and speak. Their science was highly primitive but had been in continuous use by every single human for 40,000 years. They and their science were a force of nature.

Seems to me you're talking about survival skills.

No. It really isn't. Indeed nature is probably much faster.

If that were the case there would be much evidence to support it. Can you point me in the direction of where I could examine this evidence?

You are merely assuming that nature doesn't do the exact same thing and I'm stating that it appears that nature does do the exact same thing; it selects for behavior at bottlenecks. Darwin imagined populations were stable and nature selected for fitness but these assumptions simply are not true. All individuals are fit and species change when individuals with unusual behavior survive a bottleneck.

Genetic bottlenecks have happened, cheetahs are the classic example Cheetahs: On the Brink of Extinction, Again

I'm sure if it was as common as you seem to be claiming there would be a long list somewhere with similar evidence they have for cheetahs. And it's not such a good thing, cheetahs have a low rate of reproductive success.

 

[gnostic]

With the exception of adaptation and some or most mutation, change in species results from consciousness. All change is rapid but consciousness bears on all change because life IS consciousness.

It was based on observation and logic instead of observation and experiment however. It did not "experiment" and wouldn't understand the concept because the people had no abstractions and science was based in the logic of language and observations could not be staged.

I believe "dogs" virtually prove my contention that change in species is "always" sudden and caused not by "survival of the fittest" but by behavior of individuals at bottlenecks. Bottlenecks select for behavior and no sort of "fitness".

It very clear, that you are incapable of learning from your errors...probably because of wiring of your brain make you pridefully reject every effort to be corrected.

(A) “survival of the fittest fittest” isn’t evolutionary mechanism, “Natural Selection”, and what you had described about breeding of domestic dogs as your example, isn’t “Natural Selection”, such breeding called “Artificial Selection”.​

​

While they are some what similar, Artificial Selection differed from Natural Selection, in that humans have history of choosing what breeds of animals they have chosen, based on human preferences for the animal physical characteristics.​

​

But Artificial Selection isn’t speciation. Yes, you would be breeding some physical traits in dogs, but that’s changing the type of breed, not changing species.​

​

And btw, the 1st chapters in Darwin’s On Origin Of Species, involved Darwin explaining how Artificial Selection work...so, what make you think you “discovered” Artificial Selection, when you wrote​

​

“I believe "dogs" virtually prove my contention that change in species is "always" sudden”​

You are wrong, you didn’t “prove” change in species with your dog example, because Artificial Selection is not about changing species, but “changing breeds”.​

​

​

(B) @Dan From Smithville have already explain to you about your errors in regarding to “bottleneck”, repeatedly.​

​

You keep making the same stupid errors about “bottleneck”, refusing to understand what Dan corrected you on the subject of bottleneck.​

​

And beside that, Artificial Selection of dogs or breeding of any other domestic animals, don’t involved in “bottleneck”. (Plus, you are not changing the species of the dogs, it has nothing to do with “change of species”.)​

​

“Genetic Bottleneck” or “Population Bottleneck” is REDUCING the genetic variations, NOT INCREASING genetic variation, because of the population have decreased, will cause decrease in the gene pool for variations.​

​

You simply refuse to understand, because your pride makes you refuse to be corrected, because your pride makes you to refuse to see the errors you have made.

 

[cladking]

If that were the case there would be much evidence to support it. Can you point me in the direction of where I could examine this evidence?

The silver fox domestication experiment - Evolution: Education and Outreach

For the last 59 years a team of Russian geneticists led by Lyudmila Trut have been running one of the most important biology experiments of the 20th, and now 21st, century. The experiment was the brainchild of Trut’s mentor, Dmitri Belyaev, who, in 1959, began an experiment to study the process...

evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com

ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN SPECIES is sudden and always results from bottlenecks. The fossil record does not show otherwise.

I'm sure if it was as common as you seem to be claiming there would be a long list somewhere with similar evidence they have for cheetahs.

I'm not suggesting change in species is common. Even though Darwin assumed populations are stable the fact is bottlenecks are very uncommon or species would be changing much more often. Almost every single time we see a change in species there is a bottleneck or a mutation that caused it.

 

[cladking]

“Genetic Bottleneck” or “Population Bottleneck” is REDUCING the genetic variations, NOT INCREASING genetic variation, because of the population have decreased, will cause decrease in the gene pool for variations.

I have never said otherwise but you refuse to parse the meaning I clearly state. You are confused by my saying local bottlenecks introduce new genes. The local population has less genetic diversity but the bottleneck gives rise to some new unusual genes that by definition get mixed back in with the general population resulting in more of these unusual genes.

Global bottlenecks give rise to a new species but I never said they increased genetic diversity. The new species has a less diverse genetic pool which is part of what makes it a new species.

Between your word games, hand waving, straw armies, and gainsaying it's no wonder you never have time to address what is actually said.

Speciation is sudden. So too, is adaptation but I don't consider this "speciation" per se even if interbreeding isn't possible. There is no such thing as survival of the fittest and this is just part of Darwin's Illusion. Nature can't select the more fit to survive because all individuals are fit. The last kid picked for the baseball team might be a crackerjack soccer player.

There is no evidence for gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. This comes from reading the fossil record like they are tea leaves. Mystics gave us "Evolution" and it started with Darwin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It very clear, that you are incapable of learning from your errors...probably because of wiring of your brain make you pridefully reject every effort to be corrected.

(A) “survival of the fittest fittest” isn’t evolutionary mechanism, “Natural Selection”, and what you had described about breeding of domestic dogs as your example, isn’t “Natural Selection”, such breeding called “Artificial Selection”.​

​

While they are some what similar, Artificial Selection differed from Natural Selection, in that humans have history of choosing what breeds of animals they have chosen, based on human preferences for the animal physical characteristics.​

​

But Artificial Selection isn’t speciation. Yes, you would be breeding some physical traits in dogs, but that’s changing the type of breed, not changing species.​

​

And btw, the 1st chapters in Darwin’s On Origin Of Species, involved Darwin explaining how Artificial Selection work...so, what make you think you “discovered” Artificial Selection, when you wrote​

​

“I believe "dogs" virtually prove my contention that change in species is "always" sudden”​

You are wrong, you didn’t “prove” change in species with your dog example, because Artificial Selection is not about changing species, but “changing breeds”.​

​

​

(B) @Dan From Smithville have already explain to you about your errors in regarding to “bottleneck”, repeatedly.​

​

You keep making the same stupid errors about “bottleneck”, refusing to understand what Dan corrected you on the subject of bottleneck.​

​

And beside that, Artificial Selection of dogs or breeding of any other domestic animals, don’t involved in “bottleneck”. (Plus, you are not changing the species of the dogs, it has nothing to do with “change of species”.)​

​

“Genetic Bottleneck” or “Population Bottleneck” is REDUCING the genetic variations, NOT INCREASING genetic variation, because of the population have decreased, will cause decrease in the gene pool for variations.​

​

You simply refuse to understand, because your pride makes you refuse to be corrected, because your pride makes you to refuse to see the errors you have made.

I think when a person starts believing everything they imagine is fact without bothering to verify and validate, learning comes to a complete halt.

Why bother when you believe you know more than people that actually study the subjects that they claim they are experts on through some sort of mystical, imaginary osmosis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep, definitely not sudden but quick enough for records to be kept and for it to be an example of how evolution works. I've seen it in my lifetime, things like disease resistant crops. Holstein Friesian Cows these days are much bigger and give a lot more milk than the Holstein Friesians we had on our dairy when I was a kid.

I must have missed the bit about star formation, I'm kind of glad I did.

No. It isn't sudden. Even artificial selection and breeding isn't sudden, but it is very rapid by comparison to natural selection.

That star formation nonsense was a desperation play to find anything that would fit a claim that change in living things is sudden. Of course, we all know it isn't, but there are misguided people that can't seem to understand such widely recognized facts.

What I find ironic is someone denying natural selection and then turning around and discussing how nature selects. It illustrates how little some understand this subject and it highlights the many inconsistencies that litter such anti-science posts.

Perhaps you are aware, but since erroneous claims about it keep popping up I think it worth mentioning that a bottleneck is a population level event that reduces numbers and genetic diversity and does not describe speciation. Artificial selection does not create an artificial bottleneck. By breeding two dogs together, the population of dogs is not reduced and the genetic variation of the population of dogs is also not reduced. Yes, the resultant offspring are a combination of only two dogs from the population, but the population of dogs and the overall variation is not reduced in number. And any new variation is retained in the population and it would be no different if the breeding were natural.

At the very least, a person should explain why they think this is important and if they are going to name it, they should give it a new name that describes the event and not sequester and existing term that has a widely recognized and used definition.

And the variation in question would only be a minute fraction of the variation within the population and if it is novel, it adds to the genetic variety of the population.

Speciation does not occur at bottleneck events. There is no evidence to support this.