You proposing an anthropomorphic explanation. Nature does not 'try' to do anything.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
cladking
Well-Known Member
No. Not at all.
I am observing that all life seeks to survive and prosper.
Every single individual (excluding homo omnisciencis) seeks to succeed. There is no such thing as "nature", "natural law", or the "laws of nature". These are abstractions and result from poor definitions.
"Life" seeks to live; all life tries to succeed. It's part of consciousness itself which all life possesses.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Darwin merely assumed that the nature of a biological niche shaped species through those most suited being more successful. There are numerous problems with this assumption that I've pointed out many times but in a nutshell niches don't define species, species define niches.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Niches arise from cooperation among every species and every individual which occupies them. Cats "play" with mice because they know life isn't about competition but cooperation.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
This is just a troubled statement in so many wasy...
And those that are better at surviving and prospering are more likely to successfully breed (AKA survival of the fittest).
gnostic
The Lost One
I was referring to the murder of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin.
Holodomor - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And the man made great potato famine that wiped out Ireland.
You constantly amazed me with your incompetence and with your ignorance on the subject of Evolution.
The “to survive and prosper” are the groups that have adapted better in change environments (eg to ”survive“ in such niches), when they are capable of successfully reproducing (thus the “successes“ and “prosper”).
Evolution is about changes and the ability to successfully reproduce…Evolution were never about killing in wars.
Russians killing Ukrainians are about politics and territorial gains, having nothing to do with evolutionary biology. You are continuing to mix human politics and humans killing humans in wars or in genocide, or just murders, with Evolution.
The problems are, with your ignorance and with your confusion over killing in wars and genocide with natural “extinction event”.
The extinction event isn't just about humans, but about the populations of other animals too, along with plants, fungi, and with microbe populations of bacteria and of archaea, in certain environmental conditions that have changed. The conditions could be widespread drought or ice sheets (hence ice age) in certain regions. The survival are about the abilities to adapt in such conditions, and more importantly to be able to reproduce that sustain generations of populations for each groups, as opposed to them not being able to adapt and reproduce successfully under such conditions. In those extinction events, human politics play no parts for other animals’ survival, nor those of plants or of bacteria.
For over a billion years (starting about 3.5 billion years ago), the prebiotic atmosphere (free of molecular oxygen or O2 in the atmosphere) populations of bacteria families and populations of archaea survive and thrive, by converting nitrogen and methane with water into energy sources. The bacteria and archaea were all anaerobic organisms.
But then about 2.8 billion years ago, a new genus of bacteria, the Cyanobacteria have photosynthesis ability, to convert carbon dioxide and water into energy source and molecular oxygen (O2).
By 2.5 billion years ago, there were excess of oxygen in the atmosphere and in the ocean, where led to the Great Oxidation Event (GOE). Many of the families of bacteria that cannot handle increase in oxygen levels in the atmosphere and oceans, went extinct…and those extinctions have nothing to with politics. Oxidation have also changed the Earth crusts too, where metals would oxidise (eg rust in irons), in which some bacteria and archaea could adapt to, so these too went extinct.
Some families of anaerobic organisms (bacteria & archaea) didn’t die, and some of these evolved into aerobic organisms, which depend on oxygen for growth.
But excess of oxygen and reduction of methane in the atmosphere, caused the Earth to cool, which led to the first global glacial period, the first Ice Age, known as the Huronian glaciation (lasting for 300 million years, from 2.5 to 2.2 billion years). The extreme cold caused another extinction event. Again, this extinction event has nothing to do with human politics and wars.
What happened in Stalin in the Ukraine, and the more recent Russian-Ukrainian war have more to do with politics, have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution.
And as to your comment about cats playing with mice, is just absurd. This too have nothing to do with Evolution.
Must you continue with this charade, where you pretend to be expert in biology? You are only demonstrating how little you know, and how dishonest you are.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Yes. If there is an individual that is faster, smarter, etc, etc it has a slightly higher chance of surviving but as I keep pointing out; all individuals are fit and the differences are not what drives change in species. If niches lasted for millions of years maybe survival of the fittest really would cause a species to change but niches just don't last. They change and they evolve. The change makes adaptation a moving target and the evolution makes it even harder to hit.
Are people reading these posts?
Yes. You claim survival of the fittest is wrong then go on to describe survival of the fittest.
cladking
Well-Known Member
No!!!!!!!
Every individual is different. They are equally fit and all other individuals within a species each think exactly alike. Just because one rabbit is faster than another doesn't mean it will survive. If it did every rabbit would run about 3000 MPH. This is not the way nature works. Sometimes even in a race speed can be detrimental but the point is survival is very rarely about speed. If survival were about speed IT STILL WOULDN'T MATTER because species don't evolve: They change.
Survival of the fittest is simply ingrained in peoples minds but it's not real. Just like ramps are ingrained and the fact that God is supernatural and can't exist is ingrained. We see all of reality through the kaleidoscope generated by what we believe to be true.
It is merely logical that all else being equal the "fittest" will survive but nothing else is ever equal. You can't even define "fitness" as it ap[plies to specifics. People merely assume nature will define it for them and then select based upon her definitions. Reality simply doesn't work this way and it is magical thinking. If it were possible to replay the events in nature you believe shapes Evolution you'd see that factors other than "fitness" determine outcomes and even where things like "speed" or "agility" matter there still means by which consciousness could have affected the outcome.
Part of this belief in fixed outcomes is based on fitness springs from the ridiculous 19th century understanding of the cosmos as being mechanical. There is no clockwork reality. If you could reset reality like you reset a clock then it would play out completely differently each time. There is no evolution and there is no survival of the fittest driving it. Chance drives reality and the only thing in the cosmos that really interferes with chance is life because all life is conscious and consciousness is the means individuals use to survive. Without consciousness everything in reality is dead and it still wouldn't be a mechanical universe.
This is the nature of life and reality. You can't understand one without the other because they are aspects of each other. Reality is logic manifest and life is logic incarnate. Life has free will and this defines every single individual life as well as all change in species. Darwin wanted something simple so he pounded a few disparate facts based on perspective into a pile of debris. His theory has nothing to do with any reality except like all logical arguments there are parallels to science and to reality.
cladking
Well-Known Member
In almost every way the Bible (religions) have the nature of change in species right and "science" (not real science) has it wrong.
When a seed is scattered in the stones it has no chance and fitness is irrelevant. It is this that causes so much human suffering because even though we each are fit mostly we are scattered in the stones.
Societies aren't built around what is best for the most individuals but rather what is easiest to comprehend by everyone. Today they are being built for the few because we are deluded into believing power and wealth connote fitness.
Put as many exclamation marks as you like, it doesn't help your cause.
Survival of the fittest means those best adapted to breed successfully not the fastest. However speed is important to many animals, the rabbit that can escape to its burrow and escape the predator is more likely to successfully breed. Other animals have different strategies where speed is not so important.
True in some cases, others rely on following evidence, you should give following the evidence a go.
I can make very little sense of the rest so will refrain from comment.
cladking
Well-Known Member
As I said it is ingrained in the brain.
This is the nature of all assumptions; the assumer can't even imagine a world where his belief doesn't define reality. Even when I say there is no such thing as fitness you hear me saying fitness determines survival. There are no words I can use that you don't see gradual change caused by fitness and see any other meaning.
How can you weigh or discuss consciousness determining reality if you just see fitness everywhere you look?
I think you have your replies mixed up.
I haven't seen any opposition to science including the theory of evolution presented on this thread that would indicate to me the presence of any coherent knowledge of the sciences behind that opposition, and in particular, very poor knowledge of geology and biology and even history. It was for that fact that I finally lost interest in even reading the posts claiming this or that nonsense that is never defended and can't be in any way I'm aware of. The same questions over and over and the same semantic acrobatics repeated with no end in sight isn't worth further consideration in my opinion.
Not only is natural selection the mechanism that is driving evolution, it isn't an assumption or speculation, it is experimentally demonstrated science. I've posted prominent references that provide the experiments and the evidence for natural selection a number times and each time there is no response. Not even a response recognizing links to the references were presented. Nothing.
I assume that when those posting denial of science or presenting convoluted and unsupported alternate science are presented with the very evidence that sinks those positions, the best that they can do is silence.
I lost hope that a better qualified field of responses might arise among what has been presented against science so far. But I honestly have not seen any indication of improvement over fish are still fish, all change in living things is sudden, bottlenecks are speciation events or what Denis Noble says.
But nearly 450 pages and no sign of it stopping. Who woulda guessed it?
Until the meaning of "survival of the fittest" is learnt rather than thinking it means fastest further discussion is a waste of time.
Birds have developed all kinds of strange strategies to attract a mate.... song, plumes, mimicry, flight displays. None of which appear to give any benefit other than attracting a mate making them the most likely to breed successfully. I'm not sure what benefit a Lyre Birds mimicry has or Satin Bowerbirds habit of collecting blue items has other than impressing the females. It may even detract from their ability feed and remain physically fit.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Bottlenecks are not a "speciation event" because bottlenecks do not cause speciation. Consciousness can cause sudden change in species at bottlenecks.
All observed change is sudden.
It's not impossible that there is change we don't see that is gradual. But with no known mechanism for gradual change (other than fitness if it exists) it is not likely. The problem with assuming gradual change is that niches are short lived so gradual change will rarely have much effect on species in such a short time.
Last edited:
There are a lot of biological and theoretical concepts and information that needs to be learnt. From reading some of the claims and posts of those rejecting the theory of evolution, by comparison, I had a greater knowledge and understanding of these things when I was in high school.
Sexual selection does seem to be very strong in various groups of birds. Those traits may help perpetuate the species, but I'm sure there is a high cost associated with some of them.
