Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

Hypothetically, let us say that the population of standard poodles numbers 5 million in the world. I own 10 of those that I keep for a breeding program. Artificially selecting them for some novel trait I think will be useful or pleasing to other people does not meet the definition of genetic bottleneck and is not a speciation event. The offspring that are derived from my poodle breeding are still poodles, still dogs, even if they have a novel trait. They can still breed with other dogs. The entire population of poodles still exists and has not crashed to my 10 with only their diversity available.

It simply depends. If they are random individuals or selected for some trivial or random characteristic then, no, barring mutation there will be no speciation. But if they are selected from a large number of individuals for a very uncharacteristic or rare trait then I'm suggesting that there can be a speciation event and most speciation events are caused by exactly this process; nature selects for very atypical behavior which has consciousness at its root.

Yes, this is a rare event in nature but it might not be quite so rare as it seems because life has existed for a very long time. Survivors of bottlenecks and their off spring have little genetic diversity but over time more genes come into the genome making it more robust. No doubt many times the new species will be eradicated by disease never leaving a single fossil much less one that is found and studied.

Consciousness is pattern recognition and we are conscious even if not in the way all other life is conscious. We look at fossils and see patterns that exist as well as those which do not.

 

[gnostic]

You dismiss every fact I cite and will not respond to anything in this post except to gainsay it or handwave it.

I have never dismiss, gainsay or handwave any “fact”, because YOU HAVE NEVER PRESENTED ANY FACT in regarding to your 40,000-year-old ancient science, ancient or metaphysical language, Nephilim vs Homo omniscienesis, Tower of Babel, etc.

All you have presented are CLAIMS and FICTIONS...and only CLAIMS that you believe in, but no one else do.

Fact required physical evidence, and you haven’t presented any of them to support your fictitious claims.

And whenever anyone ask to present evidence to support any one of these claims, you would do one of the following:

• Make up claims that you have already presented “hundreds” or “thousands” of evidence, or you have “all of the evidence”. These are just claims, not evidence.
• And when ever anyone ask to present one of these hundreds or thousands of evidence, you’d ignore them.
• You have claimed to be logical, but what really see fallacy of circular reasoning and you relying on confirmation bias to justify faulty claims.

Plus, you have the tendencies to change meanings of words that people normally wouldn’t use in sciences.

Take for instances, “species” or “speciation”. You actually believe not only “sudden” evolution or “sudden change”, but not that that humans can change in matter of few generations, but a single individual of single can evolve, and change species.

Not even bacteria would change species from individual of single generation, let alone human.

What you describe as "evolution" or "change in species" 1-generation individual could only happen in unrealistic science fiction or in a comic book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, soil can be tumultuously moved, and layers do not prove the age of a fossil. That does not mean, however, that the fossil is not very old.

Sorry, but how do you "tumultuously move" soil and not leave evidence of the event? The layers that we can see in deposits tell us that it was not moved, especially "tumultuously".

When you move sediments in such a fashion they are not layered. They become mixed and unsorted. We can see flood deposits we know what they look like. They tend to be poorly sorted, especially those of a catastrophic flood. You keep posting nonsense. You might as well attribute the different breeds of pigs that we can see by their varied ability to fly.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but how do you "tumultuously move" soil and not leave evidence of the event? The layers that we can see in deposits tell us that it was not moved, especially "tumultuously".

When you move sediments in such a fashion they are not layered. They become mixed and unsorted. We can see flood deposits we know what they look like. They tend to be poorly sorted, especially those of a catastrophic flood. You keep posting nonsense. You might as well attribute the different breeds of pigs that we can see by their varied ability to fly.

You know how sad this is? It is sad that you cannot acknowledge that soil shifts, and the soil beneath a fossil has been there longer than the fossil, I would say. Most likely. And never know where that soil came from. Or where the soil came from that's on top of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know how sad this is? It is sad that you cannot acknowledge that soil shifts, and the soil beneath a fossil has been there longer than the fossil, I would say. Most likely. And never know where that soil came from. Or where the soil came from that's on top of it.

We are not talking about soil. We are talking about sediments. But how does "soil" shift? You need a cause. Also you can cause sediments to "shift". But the sort of shifting that you require would leave evidence behind. In almost all cases of sedimentary rock there is no such evidence. No evidence means no shifting. There are rare cases where it has shifted and it always leaves evidence behind.

So tell me what sort of "shifting" that you are talking about. I can probably explain why it does not apply to the sedimentary rocks that we have dated.

 

[gnostic]

You wrote that soil moves.

Again, soil can be tumultuously moved, and layers do not prove the age of a fossil. That does not mean, however, that the fossil is not very old.

You know how sad this is? It is sad that you cannot acknowledge that soil shifts, and the soil beneath a fossil has been there longer than the fossil, I would say. Most likely. And never know where that soil came from. Or where the soil came from that's on top of it.

You haven't answer my question:

Can you be more specific in what way(s) soil move?

Or give an example as to what you meant by this.

I do understand that soil can at time "shift", but you cannot show any example where such "shift" or "move" have directly affected the remains of animals or plants that were buried.

All you have done, is just making "what if" assumption...that are only just .

The "what if" is only a hypothetical scenario, not based on any actual event. The problem is you are confusing your assumptions with events that actually never happen.

Unless you present actual examples that that did have impacts on the fossils, your claims that you express "how sad" in people disagree with your assumptions, are just baseless opinion.

And I don't think you have any understanding of fossilisation.

 

[YoursTrue]

You wrote that soil moves.





You haven't answer my question:



I do understand that soil can at time "shift", but you cannot show any example where such "shift" or "move" have directly affected the remains of animals or plants that were buried.

All you have done, is just making "what if" assumption...that are only just .

The "what if" is only a hypothetical scenario, not based on any actual event. The problem is you are confusing your assumptions with events that actually never happen.

Unless you present actual examples that that did have impacts on the fossils, your claims that you express "how sad" in people disagree with your assumptions, are just baseless opinion.

And I don't think you have any understanding of fossilisation.

You really have not answered my question. And frankly, your explanation about soil shifting doesn't make sense as you talk about why or why not. Have a good evening.

 

[Astrophile]

You know how sad this is? It is sad that you cannot acknowledge that soil shifts, and the soil beneath a fossil has been there longer than the fossil, I would say. Most likely. And never know where that soil came from. Or where the soil came from that's on top of it.

One of these pictures shows folded sedimentary rocks in Dorset (England); the other shows a soil profile. Do you know which is which? The sedimentary rocks belong to the upper part of the Tithonian stage of the Upper Jurassic; according to published versions of the geological time-scale, they are between 145.5 and 150.8 million years old.

If you were to find a fossil ammonite in the exact centres of these pictures, what evidence could you present that the rocks or soil had been tumultuously moved and that they were deposited a long time before the fossil found its way to those points?

 

[exchemist]

You know how sad this is? It is sad that you cannot acknowledge that soil shifts, and the soil beneath a fossil has been there longer than the fossil, I would say. Most likely. And never know where that soil came from. Or where the soil came from that's on top of it.

I don't think you even believe this twaddle you are writing. I think it's just your way of extricating yourself from the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really have not answered my question. And frankly, your explanation about soil shifting doesn't make sense as you talk about why or why not. Have a good evening.

You do not understand. If you want to claim that "soil moves" the burden of proof is upon you. Prove it. Prove that "soil" can move in a way that would disrupt dating without leaving evidence of that disruption.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hypothetically, let us say that the population of standard poodles numbers 5 million in the world. I own 10 of those that I keep for a breeding program. Artificially selecting them for some novel trait I think will be useful or pleasing to other people does not meet the definition of genetic bottleneck and is not a speciation event. The offspring that are derived from my poodle breeding are still poodles, still dogs, even if they have a novel trait. They can still breed with other dogs. The entire population of poodles still exists and has not crashed to my 10 with only their diversity available.

Arbitrarily trying to rebrand defined terms to mean something else isn't sound communication or science. Especially when you redefine them to name conditions that are not known to exist through observation, experiment or any evidence from those activities.

So, you are a dog breeder and you get a litter of pups with a mutation for a new coat color never before seen in your breed of dog. Any breed of dog. You think you are going to be rich. People will pay big money for a purple poodle. What do you do? Do you just select random dogs for some random trait? That is hardly going to be useful. Why would you do something silly like that? That doesn't make any sense at all. You're interested in producing purple poodles, breeding for some random trait in random dogs isn't going to get you anywhere. You won't get more purple poodles.

Did you create a new species? No. It's still a dog. Did you expect to? Of course not? Why would anyone expect that a novel trait is going to mean a new species? Good grief! The entire genepool of a species can have incredible variety and within the same species. No one with any knowledge of speciation, genetics, breeding, etc. would expect a single trait is going to mean an new species.

For the purpose of breeding purple poodles, all the poodles that have the gene of interest and are purple are going to be more fit and get more of a chance to reproduce than non-purple poodles. This artificial situation mirrors the natural condition where the environment selects or protects more fit phenotypes over less fit ones. In a sense, the breeder is acting in the role of the environment.

Does this mean that the entire genepool for dogs has suddenly crashed? No! Of course not. Does it mean you will stop breeding regular poodles? No. You can still do that. Just not as many in the long run if purple poodles really take off.

You might be able to breed purple into other breeds of dog someday starting with your purple poodles.

Pleasing purple poodles. Oodles and oodles of purple poodles.

 

[John53]

Pleasing purple poodles. Oodles and oodles of purple poodles.

Purple poodles that enter your house at random and land upside down?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Purple poodles that enter your house at random and land upside down?

You gotta watch them purple poodles. Them purple poodles can be particularly pernicious and punctilious, perpetuating plenty of problems.

 

[John53]

You gotta watch them purple poodles. Them purple poodles can be particularly pernicious and punctilious, perpetuating plenty of problems.

You forgot the obvious. Pugnacious.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You forgot the obvious. Pugnacious.

Purely a pretermission on my part.

 

[cladking]

No. Bottlenecks which lead to speciation must be under conscious control. A dog can't decide its color or the length of its ears. But it can control what it eats and the foods it seeks so if only dogs which eat tree bark survive a bottleneck then they will probably breed a new species. Of course this presumes that there exists an underlying genetic reason for their predilection and that some event selects for the behavior.

Genetics and behavior are intimately linked in every species including homo omnisciencis but in other species the connection is much more intimate and there is less effect of learning because they don't learn such an array of subjects as humans. Their learning also is more directly connected with reality and their experiences as determined by their genes. Humans become their beliefs because we see only our beliefs but other species become what they know. It is this knowledge that keeps individuals alive, not fitness.

I believe this is the cause of "evolution". When nature selects for color this is adaptation. Both tend to occur very suddenly; over the course of a few generations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, you are a dog breeder and you get a litter of pups with a mutation for a new coat color never before seen in your breed of dog. Any breed of dog. You think you are going to be rich. People will pay big money for a purple poodle. What do you do? Do you just select random dogs for some random trait? That is hardly going to be useful. Why would you do something silly like that? That doesn't make any sense at all. You're interested in producing purple poodles, breeding for some random trait in random dogs isn't going to get you anywhere. You won't get more purple poodles.

Did you create a new species? No. It's still a dog. Did you expect to? Of course not? Why would anyone expect that a novel trait is going to mean a new species? Good grief! The entire genepool of a species can have incredible variety and within the same species. No one with any knowledge of speciation, genetics, breeding, etc. would expect a single trait is going to mean an new species.

For the purpose of breeding purple poodles, all the poodles that have the gene of interest and are purple are going to be more fit and get more of a chance to reproduce than non-purple poodles. This artificial situation mirrors the natural condition where the environment selects or protects more fit phenotypes over less fit ones. In a sense, the breeder is acting in the role of the environment.

Does this mean that the entire genepool for dogs has suddenly crashed? No! Of course not. Does it mean you will stop breeding regular poodles? No. You can still do that. Just not as many in the long run if purple poodles really take off.

You might be able to breed purple into other breeds of dog someday starting with your purple poodles.

Pleasing purple poodles. Oodles and oodles of purple poodles.

Have you seen the nonsense that some people have convinced themselves is a truth that they and only they know? They have got to get this truth revealed to us blind sheep.

How could my poodles decide to eat something like a tree? Do they have teeth for eating trees? How many mutations would it take to get them to have the muscles, bone structure, cranial size, jaw size and teeth to eat trees? It boggles the mind the sort of nonsense created to dismiss, gainsay and handwave understanding and knowledge gained using science.

If a bottleneck can reduce the genetic variation of a population and certain traits become prominent, they already existed as part of the variation and reducing the numbers of a population and the genepool of that population made them more prominent. It doesn't create them from nothing. No evidence of any conscious choice by the members of the poodles to suddenly be purple either. Or express any other trait. The process of artificial selection mirrors the process of natural selection acting on the genepool that is available and not some fantastic genepool that includes traits that there is no earthly reason for their existence in a population.

If you had a thousand balloons and 990 were red and 10 were green, if you reduced the number of those balloons catastrophically and randomly, the number of balloons that are green might become a larger portion of the population, but they were already in the balloon population. The wild speculation and nonsense that I keep seeing repeated without reason and evidence is nothing more than the juice filling those balloons. It is a belief based on bad ideas, ignorance and Dunning/Kruger on rocket fuel.

A bottleneck describes the event where the numbers and genetic variation of a population are rapidly reduced. The species that results is the same species that it was prior to the event. How could it be otherwise? The remaining members of the population post-bottleneck were part of the species pre-bottleneck. If they mate and reproduce, they will still be that species.

Good grief. The nonsense some people believe is scientific fact.

How can an animal decide to eat a food source it is physiologically incapable of processing or utilizing? How do poodles suddenly start eating trees?

It is ridiculous.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So, you are a dog breeder and you get a litter of pups with a mutation for a new coat color never before seen in your breed of dog. Any breed of dog. You think you are going to be rich. People will pay big money for a purple poodle. What do you do? Do you just select random dogs for some random trait? That is hardly going to be useful. Why would you do something silly like that? That doesn't make any sense at all. You're interested in producing purple poodles, breeding for some random trait in random dogs isn't going to get you anywhere. You won't get more purple poodles.

Did you create a new species? No. It's still a dog. Did you expect to? Of course not? Why would anyone expect that a novel trait is going to mean a new species? Good grief! The entire genepool of a species can have incredible variety and within the same species. No one with any knowledge of speciation, genetics, breeding, etc. would expect a single trait is going to mean an new species.

For the purpose of breeding purple poodles, all the poodles that have the gene of interest and are purple are going to be more fit and get more of a chance to reproduce than non-purple poodles. This artificial situation mirrors the natural condition where the environment selects or protects more fit phenotypes over less fit ones. In a sense, the breeder is acting in the role of the environment.

Does this mean that the entire genepool for dogs has suddenly crashed? No! Of course not. Does it mean you will stop breeding regular poodles? No. You can still do that. Just not as many in the long run if purple poodles really take off.

You might be able to breed purple into other breeds of dog someday starting with your purple poodles.

Pleasing purple poodles. Oodles and oodles of purple poodles.

I think you are correct. People that choose to use what they imagine to be facts instead of opening their minds, observing and learning seem to come to the conclusion that they know everything. And without having to expend any energy or effort to learn like everyone else.

It seems pretty easy to start believing something, never learning or checking those beliefs against what is known and deciding that those imaginative and wild speculations just suddenly become how it is. In fact, it seems this imagined speculation is elevated to the "truth" and everything else is then dismissed without reason learning or review. Mechanism are created in an attempt to render rebuttal moot by declaring that detractors can't see the emperor's beautiful clothes, so there must be something wrong with them and not with the revealed "truth" of fantastical speculation. Word games become a staple of response, since there is no evidence or experiment to support the fantastical speculation.

It is really sad when you consider how amazing nature is and how fulfilling learning about what is actually happening with it can be.

 

[cladking]

...Or perhaps there's a rampaging dog disease that kills every single dog except a few that eat a lot of cinnamon.

It seems pretty easy to start believing something, never learning or checking these beliefs against what is known and deciding that those imaginative and wild speculations just suddenly become how it is. I

And this might be our biggest difference. I don't check anything against what is known. I check it against observation and experiment. I consult experts and peers only when I don't have the time to research it myself. Even before I go to the doctor I'm looking for a cure.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you are correct. People that choose to use what they imagine to be facts instead of opening their minds, observing and learning seem to come to the conclusion that they know everything. And without having to expend any energy or effort to learn like everyone else.

It seems pretty easy to start believing something, never learning or checking those beliefs against what is known and deciding that those imaginative and wild speculations just suddenly become how it is. In fact, it seems this imagined speculation is elevated to the "truth" and everything else is then dismissed without reason learning or review. Mechanism are created in an attempt to render rebuttal moot by declaring that detractors can't see the emperor's beautiful clothes, so there must be something wrong with them and not with the revealed "truth" of fantastical speculation. Word games become a staple of response, since there is no evidence or experiment to support the fantastical speculation.

It is really sad when you consider how amazing nature is and how fulfilling learning about what is actually happening with it can be.

Indeed.

Look at the attempts to rationalize the wild speculation and declare it checked against observation and experiment. As if. What observations? What experiments? How are those, if they exist, not part of what is known? If observation and experiment exist to support them, why are those never presented? Those are important questions that will never get answered by the speculators. They can't answer those questions. They have to ignore them. If they attempt to learn how to answer them, they would soon see their speculation fall apart in their own minds.

The dichotomy of genetic change that is adaptation and the same genetic change that is evolution is never explained. How can they be both not the same and the same?

I don't think you are ever going to get a reasonable answer that isn't built on a mound of unobserved, imagined belief that has no backing of experiment.