Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

Bacteria are conscious?

I say species don't even exist and then you ask if one is conscious!!!!

A living bacterium is conscious.

The simplicity of this consciousness is why "experiments" purporting to show they "Evolve" are irrelevant. All species will adapt to new conditions, ie only individuals will survive bottlenecks that are suited to the new conditions.

There are no species; no "kinds"? You seriously don't see that organisms are arranged into identifiable groups; groups they, themselves identify with?

They must be able to communicate to reproduce. Frogs can't impersonate birds. They don't "identify" because this is another abstraction, they communicate.

Only homo omnisciencis and only since the tower of babel has any individual ever "identified". In all things we are the odd man out.

But these small variations accumulate with each generation, year after year. In time, the prototype can become entirely unrecognizable.
Micro changes do not suddenly stop to prevent new species from developing.

So you keep saying. So Darwin said. So what!

Show proof of this. Show an experiment that shows this. Address the logical arguments and evidence against it.

Believers need to do better than to continually restate their beliefs and lecturing. If we are so ignorant as you say then surely you should be able to figure out what we don't know and address THAT.

Instead we get an ongoing sermon.

Sex mixes, it doesn't add. A child has the same number of genes as its parents; the same amount of 'information'.

A child does not have the same genes as its parents or it would have twice as many genes as either parent.

Genes recombine and invent a brand new individual which is unique and has a unique consciousness. It will also have mutations and genes like its forebearers. But that it is different in no way makes it more or less fit. It is simply different. If there were such a thing as "species" it would be a different species than its parents because no two identical things exist in reality therefore it follows there can be no two identical species. IOW, species would change with every birth, death, learning, and believing.

We want to put the whole as paramount but the reality is its the parts that transcend. Only individuals can think and act. Committees can do neither and when they do try the thinking is unpredictable and the action is not really what any individual intended. Science is an individual pursuit, not one that Peers or committees can do. Only individuals can invent hypothesis or experiment to prove them. Only individuals can make decisions. Only individuals are worthy of rights or responsibility.

But we've drifted off the topic here because we are the odd man out and what we do has nothing more to do with how species change than survival of the fittest.

 

[leroy]

Yeah, in the sense that my 5 year old daughter says "look daddy! BIG FISH!" when she sees a whale.

That is because fish is a coloquial word that a ,5yo uses ..... Not a clade nor any other taxonomic with an objective definition

No tetrapod descendants will ever be considered a fish.

Wow . I honestly did have you the benefit of the doubt and assume you made a typo........ But it seems to me that you really are ignorant on how taxonomy and cladistics work.


Just for your knowledge
An organism can evolve from a paraphilic group to an other and then evolve back to become a member of the first paraphilic group.......this has happened many times in the past.....

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What criteria do evolutionists use to determine which organisms are considered "the fittest" compared to those deemed unfit?

The ones that reproduce in the greatest frequency. At the biomolecular level (gene pool), the fittest are the ones with the most frequent alleles.

The future of any theory that lacks concrete definitions to describe observable phenomena and build viable theories is uncertain

The theory of evolution is correct beyond reasonable doubt, meaning that to prefer an alternate narrative to account for the relevant data is irrational, or unfounded by reason. For the theory to be upended tomorrow would require the existence of a deceptive intelligent designer, one who fitted the earth with assorted false clues in the geological column and the genomes of living things but which falsifying deception was discovered.

Believing that likely today is irrational. Believing that that deceptive intelligent designer would be supernatural if one existed is another degree of irrational belief.

This leads me to believe that evolutionary theory is not scientific, as it cannot make predictions based on its principles or explain past events using scientific foundations.

But it does.

Did you know that you can get answers your own questions without troubling RF members? The Internet and search engines like Google made personal and public libraries as repositories of fact and information obsolete (does anybody still own a paper encyclopedia?), but to use it effectively, you had to know how to choose search parameters, look through the hit list, then curate the relevant parts and generate a coherent whole.

Today, you just ask AI, which does all of that for you.

I did that, but I'll leave the facts out of the answer and include only the conclusion derived from them:

Q: "What confirmed predictions has the theory of evolution produced?"

A (edited); "In conclusion, the theory of evolution has produced numerous confirmed predictions that reinforce its standing as a foundational concept in biology.

I leave it to you to discover what they are if your interest is sincere. If not, then you don't actually want or need an answer.

Does this imply that contemporary humans who choose not to reproduce are considered unfit according to evolutionary theory?

You could say that, but now you're getting into artificial selection (self-deselection).

Biological similarities often back many assumptions found in evolutionary theory. While a similarity doesn't always clarify a connection, within evolutionary theory, this idea appears to be the sole foundation for linking various species.

Ask AI about consilience in the evidence for evolutionary theory.

Incidentally, identifying similarities and generating testable inductions by noting commonalities is much of what science is. See "periodc table" below.

What evidence are those that you speak of, where from one species we go to a different species?

Ask AI.

Why do I keep giving this answer? You're another one who thinks that his education is the responsibility of RF members. That's not my job, and in my experience, the typical creationist is ineducable.

What such people typically do is make insufficiently supported claims and disregard their refutations. They fire questions at the gallery and like you do and don't seriously critique the responses, by which I mean either affirm them or if you think they're factually incorrect, make your falsifying argument (rebut them).

So what's the incentive to write more to such a person than, "Ask AI"? They can deal with or, as is more typically the case, fail to deal with that answer instead.

I enjoy addressing some creationist errors myself if the response is short and doesn't require research, but not because I think that my words will have any impact on a faith-based believer.

I'm hoping to influence like-minded people by offering an alternative approach to this kind of endless question asking that reminds me of the questions people unhappy about being arrested in police videos of traffic stops, shoplifting, etc.. ask: "What am I being arrested for?" "Obstruction and resisting arrest." "What am I being arrested for?" [same answer] "What am I being arrested for?" [ad infinitum]

I'd love to have a word with those police. You answer once, maybe twice, and then refuse to answer again, saying that "You're too drunk to remember my answers so I'm done " or "You keep talking over me when I try to answer so I'm done trying."

So it goes with creationists as well, and it goes on indefinitely if one allows it to.

Microevolution does not serve as evidence for species evolution

Yes, it does. The theory requires small changes between generations - the kind that random genetic variation can generate and be selected for.

In fact, the ID people were looking for changes too large for so-called microevolution to accomplish, which they called irreducible complexity.

Do you want evidence that man crossed the Bering Strait (macro-ambulation)? Begin by watching a human being taking a step (micro-ambulation).

When evolutionists compare humans to animals

Humans are animals. Animalia is one of the kingdoms of life. All known life fits into one of them.

These are the kinds of mistakes that undermine your thesis. If you don't understand that man is an animal, nothing else that you believe about biology and evolution can be taken seriously.

Exactly.

That was a response to "I think you've forgotten that generally life requires both a male and female progenitor" from another poster.

You've both made another basic error. Ask AI if you're correct.

the absurdity of believing that a cow and a whale are related merely because they have some shared biological traits.

That's an interesting comment considering the next one:

A vivid illustration is the chemical elements and their structures. Their arrangement on the periodic table is remarkable; it clearly shows that although they differ greatly, they possess similar traits because the One who designed these elements was a very organized Intelligent Being.

You were doing fine until you injected gratuitous supernaturalism.

And you didn't seem to notice that those elements are arranged according to their differences and commonalities (do you know why it's called a periodic table?)

I asked AI for you:

"The periodic table of elements is called "periodic" because it reflects the periodic nature of elemental properties as they are arranged in a systematic way. This arrangement reveals recurring trends and patterns in the characteristics of the elements, which are primarily based on their atomic number and electron configuration."

And why is this "taxonomy" possible? Because these elements all have a common ancestor. They're all derived from the same ingredients arranged differentially.

Let's go back to your comment and modify it: "the absurdity of believing that hydrogen and helium are related merely because they have some shared subatomic traits"

 

[cladking]

We want to put the whole as paramount but the reality is its the parts that transcend.

Humans want to believe this for many reasons most of them bad. It is a means of control for one. Many want us to believe that superstition is a powerful force for the good if it makes us pull together to serve the powerful. Even pyramids can spring up in desert given enough religion and superstition. We each want some of the glory that appended to those whose shoulders we have climbed. We each want to believe we are a part of the machine that operates the economy and genius that lies behind it. But mostly we each want to believe that together we are omniscient rather than like naked blind men trying to describe an elephant.

Each of us is paramount but we don't always act that way and then we allow beliefs in religions or survival of the fittest to excuse our transgressions against our fellow man or the the natural order and logic. We can all understand the Golden Rule and then we rush out and oppress the less fit. Opportunists raise billions of dollars for these poor people but somehow none of it ever seems to get to them and the practices and processes that devalue them and their efforts continue (since they're less fit anyway).

Only individuals are worthy of preservation and promotion. Not species and not the fittest. Some species must even be controlled for man's benefit. We need mosquitos for instance but we don't need 1000 per cubic meter of air. We must either kill them, or better, prevent them from ever hatching. But then somehow people got the idea that only the fittest mosquito can feast on you and then go reproduce. NO! Every mosquito is about equally likely to avail herself of a meal and then lay thousands of eggs that are about equally likely to hatch. Some mosquitos might lay their eggs in places that will hatch the mosquitos now and some later. But mosquitos can't predict the weather and have no idea what the butterflies in China are doing. They only know the nature of the areas they lay their eggs and say a little prayer for the next generation. I have their prayer right here. If we can think like mosquitos it will be easier to control them. They need stagnant water. They fall for it every time because they aren't as knowledgeable as we are. They might be about as smart though.

 

[cladking]

Discussion that mixes apparent and Platonic realism isn't going to go anywhere.

Words!!!

They'll be the death us all some day.

 

[Pogo]

But no new genes result. Sex mixes, it doesn't add. A child has the same number of genes as its parents; the same amount of 'information'.

Discussion that mixes apparent and Platonic realism isn't going to go anywhere.
Pick one.

Thank you for explaining where he is getting his ideas and alternative language.
However I am of the opinion that as Flopsy, Mopsy and Cottontail exist and are collectively known as rabbits just as the set of organisms that can potentially procreate are called the human species and are palpateable a species does exist and is not an abstraction in biology.
If @cladking could actually explain why he thinks his hiding in this Platonic rabbit-hole, he might begin to become intelligible.
(is intelligibility a form?)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is because fish is a coloquial word that a ,5yo uses ..... Not a clade nor any other taxonomic with an objective definition

No, it's because a 5-year old doesn't understand the difference between a fish and a mammal.

Wow . I honestly did have you the benefit of the doubt and assume you made a typo........ But it seems to me that you really are ignorant on how taxonomy and cladistics work.

Give me an example of a tetrapod descendant that is considered a fish.
Dolphins and whales? Are those fish in your opinion?

Just for your knowledge
An organism can evolve from a paraphilic group to an other and then evolve back to become a member of the first paraphilic group.......this has happened many times in the past.....

Give me an example of a tetrapod descendant that is considered a fish.

 

[gnostic]

A living bacterium is conscious.

You are making claim.

it isn’t factual, unless you can demonstrate the bacteria are conscious, with evidence.

Claim is just words, and in your case, speculative assumption; claim isn’t evidence, no matter how many times make these unsubstantiated and unscientific claims.

The simplicity of this consciousness is why "experiments" purporting to show they "Evolve" are irrelevant. All species will adapt to new conditions, ie only individuals will survive bottlenecks that are suited to the new conditions.

What a load of craps, and misinformation.

People like @Dan From Smithville , @shunyadragon , and others repeatedly correct you about your incorrect definition & usages of the term, “bottleneck”, but you keep repeating the mistake, once again.

Just how many times must you repeat this stupid mistake, before it dawned on you that you don’t really know what you’re talking about?! That you don’t understand what a bottleneck is?

it just staggering that wilful ignorance is so widespread in your posts or in threads you have started. You are utterly incapable of acknowledging you have made errors, and incapable of learning from your mistakes.

 

[Pogo]

Family is a big part of evolution. Evolution is not just about the individual. For example, there is no more ferocious animal state in nature, than a mother animal protecting her young; her family. The protective mother will put her own life at risk, to make sure her family and offspring move forward, and be part of evolution.

The nuclear family, although diminished by Liberal Philosophy, offers the offspring the best chance, not only for survival, but for a full human experience; two parents, extended family, structure, resources, that set them up for success; future selective advantages.

Less Poverty, Less Prison, More College: What Two Parents Mean For Black and White Children

In modern culture, the State can and does act as a prosthesis, to create an illusion all are similar. However, that illusion is not natural or base on natural selection. Nature does not have a welfare state, but requires more self sufficiency. The family group has a team effect;; the team is more than the sum of its parts herds, lion prides, etc.

Evolution is about natural instinct, and not fake instinct with prosthesis support to create an illusion. The extra resources for the prosthesis, is a direct function for how inefficient it is, and why it would never be naturally selected; wastes resources. All the money involved, in this social inefficiency, is the end goal; game of middle man induction and rip off.

What would happen to nature if humans, via a hypothetical animal welfare state, played favorites? Would natural selection still apply? The answer is yes, but instead of optimized natural selection, selection would have to accept the lessor of evils.

Meanwhile back in reality.

What’s With All the Gay Penguins?

sites.tufts.edu

Yes two is better able to provide than one, but three would be better and soon we have a clan maybe where the elders raise the children and all others provide.

 

[gnostic]

Humans want to believe this for many reasons most of them bad.

You are projecting.

You believe in 40,000 year-old metaphysical language, you believe that all people 40,000 years ago are all scientists and master of metaphysics, and understand science better than modern scientists.

You believe in these fairytales and you also believe in conspiracy theory that Egyptologists control the Peer Review to every science.

And most of all, you believe that you have made mistakes in your life.

You believe in everything so badly that you must plague all these threads with your personal beliefs.

 

[cladking]

it isn’t factual, unless you can demonstrate the bacteria are conscious, with evidence.

Most people won't even recognize that a dolphin is conscious and self aware. What can can I possibly present to show that a bacterium is?

How can I prove a bacterium is conscious as long as YOU don't have a definition for consciousness? The problem is yours, not mine.

Why don't you prove they aren't conscious while you're waiting for me to show that they are?


How do you think a bacterium can survive at all without consciousness. Of course you've already admitted you can't define "fitness" which you believe is bestowed in varying amounts to species at birth.

How can you not see your arguments are circular and begin and end with your 19th century assumptions? These assumptions have been shown to be wrong by experiment which is the only kind of science that exists.

You keep playing word games. So define "consciousness" and don't talk around it. Any definition of "consciousness" that excludes bacteria will exclude every species but homo omnisciencis. It will exclude life and individuals and leave nothing but abstractions. "Abstraction" is what believers think individuals are once they accept survival of the fittest. Life is individual, life is consciousness. We are more like sleepwalkers and the odd man out.

 

[Pogo]

Just for your knowledge
An organism can evolve from a paraphilic group to an other and then evolve back to become a member of the first paraphilic group.......this has happened many times in the past.....

This most definitely requires documentation, We want to see just how much you know about paraphilia.

Paraphilia is a term used to describe a persistent and intense sexual interest in atypical objects, situations, people, or behaviors. It's also known as a sexual deviation.

Paraphilia is different from a normal sexual interest, but the definition of what's normal or atypical is controversial. Some paraphilias, like sadism, masochism, fetishism, or pedophilia, are considered socially unacceptable.

A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that causes significant distress or impairment to the individual or poses a risk to others. People with a paraphilic disorder may have difficulty developing personal and sexual relationships.

Some experts believe that childhood trauma, such as sexual abuse, may cause paraphilia. Others suggest that objects or situations can become sexually arousing if they are repeatedly associated with a pleasurable sexual activity.

https://media.tenor.com/xqqt8hs2pAcAAAAj/roflmao-laughing-my-***-off.gif

 

[cladking]

You believe in these fairytales and you also believe in conspiracy theory that Egyptologists control the Peer Review to every science.

No. There is no conspiracy. Egyptologists made an honest mistake and the other sciences honestly failed to catch it.

And most of all, you believe that you have made mistakes in your life.

Ya think!!!!!

I'll leave perfection to others.

You believe in everything so badly that you must plague all these threads with your personal beliefs.

No! I keep presenting logic and facts with a healthy dose of the experiments on which they are based and you do word games and personal attacks.

Why do you never address my facts, logic, or argument? Where is your definition for "consciousness" so the conversation can continue. I can provide a definition and evidence every bacteria in existence is conscious and you can evade my argument and try to derail the subject.

 

[cladking]

People like @Dan From Smithville , @shunyadragon , and others repeatedly correct you about your incorrect definition & usages of the term, “bottleneck”, but you keep repeating the mistake, once again.

...And now I'm going to include the word bottleneck retroactively to the list of words that will get you on my ignore list.

Life is too short for word games.

 

[gnostic]

Most people won't even recognize that a dolphin is conscious and self aware. What can can I possibly present to show that a bacterium is?

How can I prove a bacterium is conscious as long as YOU don't have a definition for consciousness? The problem is yours, not mine.

You are being evasive, trying to change the subject, plus you don’t want to back your claims, because you know not how to acquire evidence to support your claim.

i have no problem with dolphins being conscious and self aware because they have their senses and the brains to process what they sensed (eg see, hear, touch, etc), so they are aware of other marine life in their environment, where there are food or danger.

But you weren’t talking about dolphins, you claimed that bacteria are conscious. You are changing the subject, by trying to misdirect me to dolphins, so you don’t have to prove anything you said about bacteria.

so, ignorance isn’t your only problem, you are being intellectually dishonest too.

 

[gnostic]

...And now I'm going to include the word bottleneck retroactively to the list of words that will get you on my ignore list.

Life is too short for word games.

Wow!

because I disagree with you you first on, your definition & usage of “metaphysics”, now I disagree with your definition & usage on “bottleneck”, that I have earned my in your ignore list.

Not my fault that you are so insistent on being wrong in those 2 terms.

That’s fine by me.

You irritate me with your make-believe conspiracy theories. I don’t give a rat’s *** about Egyptology or pyramid ramps or your nonexistent 40,000 year-old science, your misunderstanding of human languages, your misinformation on basic biology.

 

[cladking]

This post is addressed to everyone not on my ignore list;

c
: a dramatic reduction in the size of a population (as of a species) that results in a decrease in genetic variation

This is what the dictionary calls it. Of course there are numerous other definitions that also apply to the word but this is the one I mean and have defined countless times n many different words.

Yes, when a population is severely reduced to relatively few oddball genes a speciation event occurs.

This is exactly how speciation actually occurs 9in nature and has nothing to do with survival of the fittest.

Oddly enough many of these oddball genes arose in... ...drumroll... ...local bottlenecks. This is where only a part of the population, often isolated, undergoes a bottleneck that selects for oddball genes which are later bred into the general population.

My theory is not hard to understand once you give up the warm fuzzies of believing in survival of the fittest and accept every individual is different, equally fit, and conscious. It is consciousness that bestows the ability to thrive. Consciousness is the point of life and the means every individual utilizes to maintain comfort and life.

Survival of the fittest is an evil passed down to us by Darwin. Darwin wasn't evil but the adoption of his beliefs based on egotism, superiority, and birthright are. He lifted the world out of superstition but we turned his assumption laden tripe into gospel. Termites have no Darwin but they still practice agriculture!!!! This is prima facie proof that we have everything completely and utterly wrong. Our agriculture is more complex not because we are so smart but because we have a more complex langfuage.

These concepts are simple and obvious and show that reality is far more complex than our reductionistic science can explain. Our agriculture was invented by a different kind of science based not on Chuck Darwin but rather on observation and logic. This science still exists on cave walls and chiseled into tombs and lies under the NE corner of the Great Pyramid.

I'm sorry this flies in the face of your beliefs but I had to adapt so maybe you can as well.

 

[shunyadragon]

Most people won't even recognize that a dolphin is conscious and self aware.

Scientist do accept the facts that dolphins are conscious and self aware

What can can I possibly present to show that a bacterium is?

Well there is not much to show, because bacteria lack the central nervous system that is required for consciousness,

How can I prove a bacterium is conscious as long as YOU don't have a definition for consciousness? The problem is yours, not mine.

There is an accepted scientific definition for consciousness, It has been cited before and you choose to ignore it.

Why don't you prove they aren't conscious while you're waiting for me to show that they are?

Simply they do not fit the scientific definition for consciousness,

How do you think a bacterium can survive at all without consciousness. Of course you've already admitted you can't define "fitness" which you believe is bestowed in varying amounts to species at birth.

Bacterium survive by the result of natural selection.

Fitness in the sciences of evolution is dimply the ability to survive and evolve characteristics required for adaptation to environmental change.

How can you not see your arguments are circular and begin and end with your 19th century assumptions? These assumptions have been shown to be wrong by experiment which is the only kind of science that exists.

Your arguments are circular based on circular arguments to justify what you believe without evidence.

You keep playing word games.

No word games here

So define "consciousness" and don't talk around it. Any definition of "consciousness" that excludes bacteria will exclude every species but homo omnisciencis. It will exclude life and individuals and leave nothing but abstractions. "Abstraction" is what believers think individuals are once they accept survival of the fittest. Life is individual, life is consciousness. We are more like sleepwalkers and the odd man out.

Definitions of Consciousness have been referenced in the past. You are simply living with self imposed denial

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are making claim.

it isn’t factual, unless you can demonstrate the bacteria are conscious, with evidence.

Claim is just words, and in your case, speculative assumption; claim isn’t evidence, no matter how many times make these unsubstantiated and unscientific claims.



What a load of craps, and misinformation.

People like @Dan From Smithville , @shunyadragon , and others repeatedly correct you about your incorrect definition & usages of the term, “bottleneck”, but you keep repeating the mistake, once again.

Just how many times must you repeat this stupid mistake, before it dawned on you that you don’t really know what you’re talking about?! That you don’t understand what a bottleneck is?

it just staggering that wilful ignorance is so widespread in your posts or in threads you have started. You are utterly incapable of acknowledging you have made errors, and incapable of learning from your mistakes.

I find there is no point in responding to those like @cladking that give the impression that they know everything and use word games and empty assertions to spread what I see as a pseudoscientific belief system based on irrational personal views they will not even try to defend. @cladking has sufficiently demonstrated to me that he has 0 interest in anything I have to say and I conclude he has 0 interest in learning what is known. I believe that lack of interest in learning extends to all that do not accept what I see and what others see as a baseless, pseudoscientific belief system. I see it as science fan faction.

That being the case, the best way I have found to address this is to ignore it. If facts and rational conclusions are of no interest, then I see no point in engaging. I have extended this "gift" to a tiny list of people whose apparent lack of interest in learning or what others have to say has become a defining criteria.

I'm happier now.

 

[leroy]

No, it's because a 5-year old doesn't understand the difference between a fish and a mammal.

Again fish is a coloquial term , a fish is whatever we decide is a fish ..... There is no objective reason for why we call tuna eels and sharks fish and whales and dolphins none fish

Give me an example of a tetrapod descendant that is considered a fish.
Dolphins and whales? Are those fish in your opinion?

I can give you an example of a member of a paraphilic group evolving in to a an other group and then back to the original .


But no in the specific case of tetrapods there are none that have evolved in to fish (yet)