Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

It seems to me that survival of the fittest refers to those who adapt to their environment and keep living while other species similar to them do not adapt, therefore the species does not survive.

No.

FIRST off, the mechanism that Darwin proposed, about adapting to the environment, is called “Natural Selection”, not “survival of the fittest”.

The “survival of the fittest” isn’t an evolutionary mechanism; it is merely description of what occur with Natural Selection, as Natural Selection explain how the ”changed“ environment can assert selective pressures to populations of species, that reproduce where they would have offspring/descendants with change/beneficial heritable traits.

Which would lead me to the 2nd point…

…SECOND.

What in the hell, do you mean by “keep living”?

Every organisms died...there are no exceptions. Were that simply poor choice of words?

…and, this following isn’t necessarily true, in all conditions…



No, it doesn’t mean species necessarily mean the species that don’t adapt, don’t survive. Those that don’t always mean that species will go extinct.

More often than not, it just mean that species diverged at certain points, with both species thriving in their given environments.

To give 2 examples.

Example 1;

During the warmer Pliocene epoch, parts of North America, Europe and Asia continents that were south of the Arctic Circle weren’t covered in ice sheets, so populations of brown bears lived much further north during the Pliocene, with no evidence of polar bears.​

​

Then Pleistocene epoch came where these large regions of the continents periods that lasted tens to hundreds of thousands of years, that alternate through cycles of warm interglacial periods and colder glacial periods where regions were covered in ice sheets.​

​

Some populations of brown bears continued to live in temperate regions, unaffected by ice sheets, so their physical traits have remained unchanged to this day These brown bears continued to hibernate during the cold winter seasons.​

​

But those of populations of brown bears living in regions that now covered in deep ice sheets for ten or hundreds of thousands of years, would experience no spring to autumn seasons during their lifetime and lifetimes of their hundreds or even thousands of generations of descendants, can no longer hibernate as they usually do. Gradually, these brown bears evolved, eventually have distinctive physical traits that of today’s polar bears. These brown bears that adapted to the glacial regions evolved into polar bears.​

​

The brown bears and their sister species, the polar bears, diverged at certain point during the Pleistocene, and continued to live in their respective environments during the Holocene epoch, with polar bears living in polar region, particularly at the Arctic Ocean.​

Example 2:

Population of one tortoise species arrived in Galapagos from South America continent at some points in times and inhabited 19 islands. In most of these islands, they adapted to the islands with only minor changes, both large and small tortoises with dome-shaped shells. And in these islands, the highland, were humid, with vegetation low enough for them to reach and to feed upon.​

​

but in couple of islands, the lowland islands were dryer and the more sparse vegetation were higher off the ground, so harder to reach. The selective pressures forced generations of tortoises to find mates with longer necks and longer legs, as well as growing shells that were saddle-shaped that allowed their legs to stretch to full height, and to let their necks crane upright.​

​

The saddle-shelled tortoises are new sister species, living only in the fewer lowland islands.​

The divergence of different species, don’t always lead to extinct of the parent species, so two or more species can co-exist at the same time in their respective environmental regions. So while your last sentence is only partially correct, “extinction” of species DO NOT ALWAYS occur for every cases and for every conditions, so you are also partially incorrect.

which lead me back to your “keep living”. Every individual organisms for some time, will die. Evolution isn about organisms dying, but about them REPRODUCING in changed environments with physical traits for survival for future generations of changed species.

stop thinking that “survival“ about “death”, but about the abilities to “REPRODUCE”.

I read the information above about the tortoises. I do not deny it. However, and it's a big however, they stayed tortoises. It will be a long time for someone to convince me that fish eventually evolved to become humans. A long time..

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists do not change their viewpoints it remains science.

So can a scientist be proven wrong? Or rather can a theory proposed by a scientist be wrong, or better yet, proven wrong?

 

[shunyadragon]

So can a scientist be proven wrong? Or rather can a theory proposed by a scientist be wrong, or better yet, proven wrong?

A theory or hypothesis can be found false, need revision or incomplete, because it failed to provide sufficient evidence to be accepted. It is common for theories and hypothesis to revised and/or rejected do to insufficient evidence.

Proof is for logical arguments and math theorems.

 

[cladking]

I can't say I never believed in it, I learned my classes and passed well on tests, not questioning evolution because I had no real reason to.

I was raised in a "biology" setting. When I first heard of "Evolution" it did have a seductive appeal to it. Everyone around me thought animals were dumb and lacked consciousness but my dog certainly appeared to disagree. Darwin certainly provides facile answers to highly complex questions where no other answers are apparent to us. But I always doubted the simplicity of survival of the fittest/ natural selection. Nature is extraordinarily efficient. Why in the world would she mess around making less fit (more easily naturally selected) individuals at all? It makes no sense.

I've always doubted the theory and as I've gained experience through interaction, experimentation, and observation I simply came to believe it is wrong. Only recently when I discovered our predecessor species (homo sapiens) apparently had a "theory of change in species" that is extremely similar to my own and used this theory to invent agriculture. The theory predicted they could make cows, and goats, and wheat and they did it. Another of my "theories" suggests that beavers and termites (et al) used the exact same theory to create agriculture! But, of course, people can't believe any of it because our language gives rise to all sorts of beliefs among which is all homo omnisciencis are freakin' geniuses and this has never been more true since human genius gave rise to Siri who has turned us all into geniuses. Of course we can't even parse sentences any longer unless the speaker agrees with all of our premises but no matter because everyone that matters is a freakin' genius.

Tests were always easy but I never answered what I thought. I answered what the teacher wanted to hear.

I was trained in the arts and so that is where my main scholastic focus was. I have nothing against looking through a telescope, finding amazing sights, working with chemicals. As I continued to learn about the theory of evolution more substantially despite my rudimentary use of descriptive terms, I realize there are missing parts of the theory and I see no link as if the missing parts are subjectively there. The implications are without evidence, and without proof. Glad to see that you see that too.

I'm mostly self taught as a generalist and metaphysician. I worked mostly in systems and processes as a sort of professional Sisyphus. I learned programming in the '60's but now I can't even use a toaster if it comes with directions.

It's OK that I had a poor teacher because I was a poor student anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So can a scientist be proven wrong? Or rather can a theory proposed by a scientist be wrong, or better yet, proven wrong?

Theories can be refuted as @shunyadragon pointed out. But it is almost unheard of. Most people cannot name one scientific theory that has been refuted without Googling. I know of one.

 

[shunyadragon]

Theories can be refuted as @shunyadragon pointed out. But it is almost unheard of. Most people cannot name one scientific theory that has been refuted without Googling. I know of one.

Today most theories that have passed the test of time are subject to revision. Though a number of recent failures and a bunch of old moldy theories have been found false by modern science . . .

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked

The most genuine merit of science is probably its readiness to admit its mistakes (usually!). The theories in science are always being reconsidered and scrutinized. Modern research often rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths. Today's post on our Science Blog will discuss ten of the most popular...

www.famousscientists.org

Interesting list included recent failures like Einstein's Static Universe, and Fleischmann–Pons’s Nuclear Cold Fusion. The list includes the oldy nmoldies.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been subject to a great deal of revision, but the basic proposal of Darwin still stands.

 

[blü 2]

The problem is that I used to believe almost everything "science" taught me. By that I mean especially evolution in school. Yes, it was rudimentary but I did well and learned my lessons, never questioning it. But then -- but then -- later I began to delve more into the question of evolution and decided it just wasn't what it claimed to be.

Why, faced with a reputable scientific theory that you didn't like, would you prefer magical explanations instead?

In the first place, magic explains nothing unless we're also told how magic works, how it's invoked and how it produces the desired results. For example, when in Genesis God says 'Let there be light', how was that translated into a program that would cause the EM spectrum (or perhaps just further parts of it) to come into being?

And in the second place, the number of authenticated examples of magic in reality remains stubbornly at nil.

Is it that, like watching a cartoon, a magical explanation saves you the effort of thinking clearly?

 

[cladking]

I guess I understand why believers in science believe as they do but it's less apparent why they act as they do.

Why are they so threatened by creationists and everyone who doesn't believe what they believe as they believe it? I rarely see creationists, scientists, or any others than believers in science become so hostile so often.

They just ignore what you say and drone on as though they are addressing your points,

 

[YoursTrue]

I was raised in a "biology" setting. When I first heard of "Evolution" it did have a seductive appeal to it. !

Yes, I can appreciate that. Evolution sounds so nice! doesn't it?

Everyone around me thought animals were dumb and lacked consciousness but my dog certainly appeared to disagree. Darwin certainly provides facile answers to highly complex questions where no other answers are apparent to us. But I always doubted the simplicity of survival of the fittest/ natural selection. Nature is extraordinarily efficient. Why in the world would she mess around making less fit (more easily naturally selected) individuals at all? It makes no sense.

I can understand what they call "survival of the fittest," but -- as I say -- many in-betweens do not make sense to me. Of course, scientists can and will say what appeals to them.

I've always doubted the theory and as I've gained experience through interaction, experimentation, and observation I simply came to believe it is wrong. Only recently when I discovered our predecessor species (homo sapiens) apparently had a "theory of change in species" that is extremely similar to my own and used this theory to invent agriculture. The theory predicted they could make cows, and goats, and wheat and they did it. Another of my "theories" suggests that beavers and termites (et al) used the exact same theory to create agriculture! But, of course, people can't believe any of it because our language gives rise to all sorts of beliefs among which is all homo omnisciencis are freakin' geniuses and this has never been more true since human genius gave rise to Siri who has turned us all into geniuses. Of course we can't even parse sentences any longer unless the speaker agrees with all of our premises but no matter because everyone that matters is a freakin' genius.

Tests were always easy but I never answered what I thought. I answered what the teacher wanted to hear.

I had my doubts, but figured the teachers were right, they must know what of they say, because they didn't say, "Well, things change, this may ot be true tomorrow, but it's true today..."

I'm mostly self taught as a generalist and metaphysician. I worked mostly in systems and processes as a sort of professional Sisyphus. I learned programming in the '60's but now I can't even use a toaster if it comes with directions.

It's OK that I had a poor teacher because I was a poor student anyway.

:=) ok.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why, faced with a reputable scientific theory that you didn't like, would you prefer magical explanations instead?

In the first place, magic explains nothing unless we're also told how magic works, how it's invoked and how it produces the desired results. For example, when in Genesis God says 'Let there be light', how was that translated into a program that would cause the EM spectrum (or perhaps just further parts of it) to come into being?

And in the second place, the number of authenticated examples of magic in reality remains stubbornly at nil.

Is it that, like watching a cartoon, a magical explanation saves you the effort of thinking clearly?

There is much evidence that not all Christians have been seduced by sectarian ideology (the words of man) to deny the Works of God as if that work means nothing. Nor, does it seem, are all Christians against learning about and studying the natural world around us. In fact, many Christians seem open to the pursuit of knowledge as expression of their belief in God. Clearly not all of them are, but eh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Today most theories that have passed the test of time are subject to revision. Though a number of recent failures and a bunch of old moldy theories have been found false by modern science . . .

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked

The most genuine merit of science is probably its readiness to admit its mistakes (usually!). The theories in science are always being reconsidered and scrutinized. Modern research often rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths. Today's post on our Science Blog will discuss ten of the most popular...

www.famousscientists.org

Interesting list included recent failures like Einstein's Static Universe, and Fleischmann–Pons’s Nuclear Cold Fusion. The list includes the oldy nmoldies.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been subject to a great deal of revision, but the basic proposal of Darwin still stands.

The problem is that most of those are not theories. The first one for example was never even presented as a theory. It was presented as a claim and it was never well accepted and rather quickly refuted.

And yes, most theories are subject to revision. I do agree with that. To become a theory in the first place it almost certainly has to be somewhat right. The one that I know of that fits the modern definition of a scientific theory was the Phlogiston Theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Today most theories that have passed the test of time are subject to revision. Though a number of recent failures and a bunch of old moldy theories have been found false by modern science . . .

10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked

The most genuine merit of science is probably its readiness to admit its mistakes (usually!). The theories in science are always being reconsidered and scrutinized. Modern research often rejects old ideas, hoaxes and myths. Today's post on our Science Blog will discuss ten of the most popular...

www.famousscientists.org

Interesting list included recent failures like Einstein's Static Universe, and Fleischmann–Pons’s Nuclear Cold Fusion. The list includes the oldy nmoldies.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been subject to a great deal of revision, but the basic proposal of Darwin still stands.

Darwin's theory is well-supported and the majority of scientists and a fair proportion of the public understand it and recognize the evidence that supports it to the point that they can reasonably accept the theory.

There are, sadly, many science deniers that don't seem to understand the theory or science or really want to. Apparently, they know everything and have no need to learn anything new. There is not much a person can do to address willful ignorance accept to post corrections and continue to provide the evidence that is ignored persistently.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The problem is that most of those are not theories. The first one for example was never even presented as a theory. It was presented as a claim and it was never well accepted and rather quickly refuted.

And yes, most theories are subject to revision. I do agree with that. To become a theory in the first place it almost certainly has to be somewhat right. The one that I know of that fits the modern definition of a scientific theory was the Phlogiston Theory.

That is the theory that always comes to mind when the question of debunked theories is raised.

 

[blü 2]

I guess I understand why believers in science believe as they do but it's less apparent why they act as they do.

Why are they so threatened by creationists and everyone who doesn't believe what they believe as they believe it? I rarely see creationists, scientists, or any others than believers in science become so hostile so often.

Perhaps it's your clever way of provoking them with silly statements and claims which you never back up with examples or clear definitions or anything else that might indicate you understood what you were actually saying. That, of course, is before we get to the question of whether what you say in any particular case is an accurate statement about reality.

I hope you find this helpful.

 

[gnostic]

The problem is that I used to believe almost everything "science" taught me. By that I mean especially evolution in school. Yes, it was rudimentary but I did well and learned my lessons, never questioning it. But then -- but then -- later I began to delve more into the question of evolution and decided it just wasn't what it claimed to be.

You have no knowledge of science and reject science. You have no basis to understand science as to whether you 'should reject or accept anything about the basic sciences of Biology, Geology, Physics and Chemistry.


. . .because of your ancient religious agenda aginst evolution. You have demonstrated no knowledge of the basics if any science including the sciences of evolution.

I thought you said 'Bye' for the thousandth time.

I just find it both wondrous and absurd, that anti-science people, like @YoursTrue & @cladking can turn "science" around and called it "belief", so they can put science to the same level of religion.

They have neither the education/qualification/training, nor the experiences to say what's true or what's not true about science, and the way to spread their nonsensical beliefs, is to sprout more nonsensical claims, especially misinformation on sciences & conspiracy theories.

And then they wonder "why", no one take them seriously, nor trust their words. It is combination of subborn ignorance (eg refusing to acknowledge when they are in error, and refusal to learn from their errors) and intellectual dishonesty.

 

[YoursTrue]

I just find it both wondrous and absurd, that anti-science people, like @YoursTrue & @cladking can turn "science" around and called it "belief", so they can put science to the same level of religion.

They have neither the education/qualification/training, nor the experiences to say what's true or what's not true about science, and the way to spread their nonsensical beliefs, is to sprout more nonsensical claims, especially misinformation on sciences & conspiracy theories.

And then they wonder "why", no one take them seriously, nor trust their words. It is combination of subborn ignorance (eg refusing to acknowledge when they are in error, and refusal to learn from their errors) and intellectual dishonesty.

I didn't say I don't understand the theory. I do. I may not use the right terminology but I get it. I no longer accept it in its entirety as true. I have decided it cannot be true. It cannot be proven, it's no longer rational in my opinion. It doesn't matter what you think of me. I have seen defenders of the theory lput down and insult those scientists who disagree with the theory. It doesn't make you right. So long and have a good one!

 

[ratiocinator]

I didn't say I don't understand the theory. I do.

The evidence from your posts is that you don't understand it at all. Not even the basics. You may think you do, but it is quite clear to people who do, that you have no idea at all. Not the first hint of the tiniest smidgen of a clue. Sorry.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Still wondering why believers in the process of evolution determine why chimpanzees and gorillas did not graduate to more advanced degrees. In comparison with humans?

You'd have to know a bit about what drove human evolution after the bifurcation of the chimp-man lines. It begins with African rain forests becoming savanna forcing our arboreal, brachiating, herbivorous to adapt to a relatively treeless environment. This forces him to be a predator like the lion and cheetah, but he has a huge advantage - the dexterity of a primate. And so, he stands up, becomes relatively hairless to facilitate persistence hunting, and develops tools. The apes still in trees in jungles elsewhere experienced no such environmental change or pressure to adapt.

You just don't notice when communication fails.

If you make an assignation on Saturday the 8th at midnight there is a good chance (~20) that your date will show up 24 hours early because most people erroneously believe midnight comes at the end of the day and some believe it's at the beginning of the day. Indeed don't make noontime appointments at 12 PM or AM because there's no such thing.

You strain to find ways for people to miscommunicate to make your point. And this doesn't make it either. Careful, intelligent people don't make this mistake. Language works here as well if one can learn its rules.

Ancient people called our language "confused" and they were exactly right.

Ancient people knew our language?

No. They have no meaning intrinsic nor by convention. All meaning of words is derived through context.

We have common experiences and give them names. The meaning of the name is known empirically and directly. The name itself is conventional and arbitrary.

Of course his argument is "compelling" and logical. but it is also wrong and doesn't agree with observation while being unsupported by experiment.

Logical arguments are not wrong if the reasoning comports with the valid laws of thought. Fallacious arguments are.

If it weren't "compelling" how could it stand for a century and a half despite being wrong?

An argument wouldn't be compelling to the scientific and educated lay community for a century-and-a-half if it were wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence from your posts is that you don't understand it at all. Not even the basics. You may think you do, but it is quite clear to people who do, that you have no idea at all. Not the first hint of the tiniest smidgen of a clue. Sorry.

That's ok.

 

[blü 2]

I have decided it cannot be true. It cannot be proven, it's no longer rational in my opinion.

But why is it, in your view, "no longer rational"?

Why does magic appeal to you more as an explanation? Do you use magic instead of medicine? Instead of the net?

Do you know how magic works? If you don't, how can it explain anything?