Darwin's Illusion

[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.

I believe you previously explained the three different conditions that are referred to as adaptation from the writing of John Maynard Smith on evolution. How it is the genetic change or adaptation that is evolution. Those changes that have a heritable genetic basis and are not the physiological or developmental changes that are not the result of genetic change that are the adaptations of evolution.

What an individual chooses to do doesn't alter his genes so that his progeny will have those altered genes available for their genomes. I am correct in stating there is no evidence or experiment that demonstrates that wild idea.

Of course, in an artificial breeding program, there is a conscious agent making choices by subsuming the role of the natural selection of the environment by selecting those members of the breeding program that the selection criteria render the most fit.

That humans have intelligence and use that intelligence to consciously think, learn, observe and experiment isn't evidence that a supernatural intelligence exists, guiding everything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this has widely been established as a fallacy that was among the many fallacies that constipated the intelligent design efforts last movement.

I know you don't know everything and don't pretend to, but it is good to talk with someone that has knowledge of these things that isn't made up or wild speculation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Do you think that some people believe there is some supernatural experimenter providing evidence that only they can see? If they are not getting the experimental results and evidence from the expert peers that are studying these things, what is known, where are they getting it? Where are these experiments and observations available? Why are they not available to everyone? The results of science, even controversy, are made available to everyone. Strange.

 

[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.

You'll notice a series of ongoing contradictions. Claims to know nothing offered at the same time as being so expert they don't need to talk to anyone that studies these things. In fact, if you study these things and have actual expertise based on observation and experiment, you are just derisively dismissed as "peers". It seem rather prejudicial and not based on sound observation and reasoning if you ask me.

How does one know nothing and yet present as if knowing everything? Of course, if you read what they claim to know about nature, it is truly nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you think that some people believe there is some supernatural experimenter providing evidence that only they can see? If they are not getting the experimental results and evidence from the expert peers that are studying these things, what is known, where are they getting it? Where are these experiments and observations available? Why are they not available to everyone? The results of science, even controversy, are made available to everyone. Strange.

Where is this observation and experiment that isn't known? What does that even mean? How can you turn to observation and experiment that are not known? That seems to basically claim to use evidence that doesn't exist.

I can't wait to see the word games that explain all that. Clearly it must be things that I can't see, because I don't believe they are there. Yeah, right.

But even if that were true, it still doesn't explain how observations and experiments can be unknown and still available for examination.

More likely though, it will all just be ignored and no explanation will ever be offered. And then all the empty claims will be repeated

I have an explanation. I think it is absurd nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you know that Darwin's assumptions have held up? That all evidence from observation and experiment show that change in living things isn't sudden and that our species, Homo sapiens, has existed for nearly 300,000 years?

Believers that know everything can't see this apparently. All they can do is post weird fan fiction versions of reality that are not supported by evidence, logic or reason.

You've mentioned the assumptions of Darwin before. You even provided those assumptions underlying Darwin's original formulation of the theory of evolution and expanded on that with a listing of the principles behind the Modern Synthesis.

I found it surprising to see this coming only from someone that accepts the science and not from those that keep claiming those assumptions and principles are either all wrong or have been refuted.

Not once have I seen the dissenters provide more than claims those assumptions and principles are wrong or refuted. I don't really think they understand any of this with much depth or breadth and just repeat claims with the occasional deluge of quote mines.

If the best reason for rejecting a scientific experiment like the Lenski, E. coli experiment is that agar can be purchased in bulk from China, then it is pretty obvious that most of the dissent is from those that believe they are right without basis and will grasp desperately at anything to justify that belief.

I would also like to point out that not once has Lenski referred to the E. coli in his study as Esherichia omnisciencis or made any attempt to declare some new nomenclature into existence by fiat. And there is a good chance that in 50,000 plus generations speciation may actually have occurred. But that wasn't the point of the experiment and the work to determine that remains to be conducted by those with the expertise to do so. If ever. And I bet you if they do, they won't do it based on some mythological, unevidenced event or just by stubbornly repeating some new name over and over while ignoring valid objection to do so.

It is a pity that those claiming to know everything about nature have forced their eyes shut to actually learning about nature.

 

[John53]

You've mentioned the assumptions of Darwin before. You even provided those assumptions underlying Darwin's original formulation of the theory of evolution and expanded on that with a listing of the principles behind the Modern Synthesis.

I found it surprising to see this coming only from someone that accepts the science and not from those that keep claiming those assumptions and principles are either all wrong or have been refuted.

Not once have I seen the dissenters provide more than claims those assumptions and principles are wrong or refuted. I don't really think they understand any of this with much depth or breadth and just repeat claims with the occasional deluge of quote mines.

If the best reason for rejecting a scientific experiment like the Lenski, E. coli experiment is that agar can be purchased in bulk from China, then it is pretty obvious that most of the dissent is from those that believe they are right without basis and will grasp desperately at anything to justify that belief.

I would also like to point out that not once has Lenski referred to the E. coli in his study as Esherichia omnisciencis or made any attempt to declare some new nomenclature into existence by fiat. And there is a good chance that in 50,000 plus generations speciation may actually have occurred. But that wasn't the point of the experiment and the work to determine that remains to be conducted by those with the expertise to do so. If ever. And I bet you if they do, they won't do it based on some mythological, unevidenced event or just by stubbornly repeating some new name over and over while ignoring valid objection to do so.

It is a pity that those claiming to know everything about nature have forced their eyes shut to actually learning about nature.

Does omniscience make you glow in the dark?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does omniscience make you glow in the dark?

Nah! That's just my stunning personality. A glow powered neither by omniscience nor gas.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does omniscience make you glow in the dark?

I have been enjoying a great discussion here. I think they guy I've been talking to is brilliant.

 

[John53]

I have been enjoying a great discussion here. I think they guy I've been talking to is brilliant.

Come with me, I'll make you a nice warm cuppa tea then you can have a lie down.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does omniscience make you glow in the dark?

I think you may be referring to a recent article about glowing rabbits in the Journal of Unknown Observation and Evidence. It's a 125 blank pages referencing all the unknown research that is conducted annually.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Come with me, I'll make you a nice warm cuppa tea then you can have a lie down.

At least I'm not threatening to put myself on ignore. I don't think it would be as good a strategy for me as it might be for some.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Come with me, I'll make you a nice warm cuppa tea then you can have a lie down.

You may be onto something though.

 

[John53]

You may be onto something though.

It can only succeed with rapid evolution. I'm currently breeding myself to be taller and better looking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Come with me, I'll make you a nice warm cuppa tea then you can have a lie down.

I see we have company again. I'm waiting for the answers to my questions. While I wait for those answers, I'm sure I'll have time to remodel a house and restore a couple of vintage muscle cars back into service.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It can only succeed with rapid evolution. I'm currently breeding myself to be taller and better looking.

I've been experimenting with that for years. All my research on that remains unknown. Even to me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It can only succeed with rapid evolution. I'm currently breeding myself to be taller and better looking.

I believe you must mean "sudden" evolution. Please make sure that you don't redefine terms here and stick with the established, imaginative and speculative redefinitions so as not to confuse anyone.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It can only succeed with rapid evolution. I'm currently breeding myself to be taller and better looking.

I went out for a picnic today. Stuffed myself on picnic food. Enjoyed some time with nice people. Went for a drive. I'm dead tired. I was dead tired from the start, but I enjoyed myself anyway.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I went out for a picnic today. Stuffed myself on picnic food. Enjoyed some time with nice people. Went for a drive. I'm dead tired. I was dead tired from the start, but I enjoyed myself anyway.

Yeah...Sometimes they let me play with nice people. They say it's supposed to help me integrate into society better.

 

[John53]

I went out for a picnic today. Stuffed myself on picnic food. Enjoyed some time with nice people. Went for a drive. I'm dead tired. I was dead tired from the start, but I enjoyed myself anyway.

I'm supposed to go get groceries but so far I've been too fat and lazy to move. I like to get there when they open to avoid large numbers of humans but that ship has sailed so I might leave it until tomorrow. I'm not sure how I survive such a hectic exciting life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm supposed to go get groceries but so far I've been too fat and lazy to move. I like to get there when they open to avoid large numbers of humans but that ship has sailed so I might leave it until tomorrow. I'm not sure how I survive such a hectic exciting life.

That's how I like to time my shopping too. I find it is best to enjoy people in smaller, easily avoided numbers during the cooler parts of the day.