Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[leroy]

It's not. It's cladistics. Cladistics is not semantics. It's comparative anatomy and comparative genomics.



We "decided" nothing. We concluded from evidence



It's not controversial. It's just wrong.

Again we decided to use the word "dinosaur" to describe the clade that includes trex birds etc...

We could have chosen any other word



Why is this so hard to understand?

Cladistics is not semantics. It's comparative anatomy and comparative genomics

True but strawman I never said the opposite

 

[leroy]

Did you even watch the video?

No. I read the summery of the video..


Care to answer my question?

Why would they predic to find tikalik in in 375 million year old layers if we know that tetrapods evolved long before that ?

 

[leroy]

Gills are gills.


Gills are specific structures. Wings are a more general term.
Since you think using correct terms are so important, you might want to do what you preach.

Gills are specific structures

Says who? But ok call it gill-like organs instead of gill.


Appart from your semantic game, do you disagree with the point that I made ?

 

[Pogo]

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.

First problem, yes a bottleneck is a reduction in number of individuals in a species and due to this smaller number the genetic diversity is reduced, but it is not a collection of odd ball genes, rather the same genes as the rest of the species with fewer variations. The word you need to learn is alleles which are variations on individual genes. When a species emerges from a bottleneck, such as several species of tigers, Przewalski’s horses, Bald Eagles etc. they are not another species, rather the same species with limited genetic diversity. In fact we can tell how far back a bottleneck occurred by looking at the amount of diversity in the genomes.

The rest is just an unevidenced rant.

 

[Pogo]

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



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)

Look, we really are not interested in how your fetishes have changed over time.
Look up paraphilic and paraphyletic so that you could at least begin to look like you know what you are talking about.

This is the second time at least you have said you can give an example, assuming it is not a paraphilia, let's see it/them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

My conclusion, and you seem to have figured this out too, is the intended word was "paraphyletic". To me this illustrates the sort of ignorance, trivial information gathering ability and superficial interest that I see as another defining set of characters for the group I call "belief-based deniers".

They don't know and understand enough to achieve even the most flimsy argument based on a superficial review of a Google search.

A reasonable basic knowledge and interest is required to make a Google search or any search meaningful.

A paraphyletic group contains organism with a shared common ancestry, but it does not contain all the descendants of that ancestry. There is no evidence that species evolve in and out of these groups. This conclusion most likely arises from a misunderstanding of taxonomy and the evidence used to determine whether a species is a member of the group or not. Ignorance seems to be leading to the false conclusion that an artifact of taxonomy is a fact of phylogeny.

Until the latter part of the 20th Century, taxonomists were largely limited to morphology, ecology, breeding studies and species concepts as the basis of the taxonomies proposed. In the case of most invertebrates, the species concept is the morphospecies concept based on morphological features.

Since the advent of advanced computation, genetics and molecular biology applied in taxonomy, taxonomists now have greater information available to make the connections and determine the monophyly of species and species groups. In many cases these "new" techniques have supported the existing higher taxa. It is at the species, generic or tribal level where there has been the most sorting taking place.

These techniques allow a much deeper look at the genetic backgrounds and relationships of the species being examined. Such things as convergent evolution and morphological divergence can be recognized, more readily defined on evidence and better used to learn the ancestry of species with better placement within existing groups or recognition of new, independent groups.

In any case, it is recognizable as evidence of how little literalist creationist science deniers understand the material they seek to upend.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First problem, yes a bottleneck is a reduction in number of individuals in a species and due to this smaller number the genetic diversity is reduced, but it is not a collection of odd ball genes, rather the same genes as the rest of the species with fewer variations. The word you need to learn is alleles which are variations on individual genes. When a species emerges from a bottleneck, such as several species of tigers, Przewalski’s horses, Bald Eagles etc. they are not another species, rather the same species with limited genetic diversity. In fact we can tell how far back a bottleneck occurred by looking at the amount of diversity in the genomes.

The rest is just an unevidenced rant.

The species concept here as I've seen it applied is to individual variation used to argue that individuals in a population are different species and parents within that population can give birth to offspring that are a different species. This redefines the term species in a way that it has never been used before and lacks any reason or evidence to define it so. The term species was not developed and is not used in science in any way that would make such an interpretation meaningful or useful in learning anything. I find current application is a personal belief based on ignorance and misunderstanding to get the world to fit a personal view rather than following the evidence to a more logical and more natural conclusion.

Rather than examine the evidence and come to understand the basics, semantic games like redefining a established terms while ignoring others comes to be the only tool left to the denier. This reveals to me a near complete lack of knowledge of the known mechanisms of speciation or more than a trivial awareness of taxonomy. This isn't science, since the evidence is not leading the way and no effort is made to demonstrate anything claimed. Rather, we are introduced to the daughter from a marriage of personal desire, ignorance and stubborn denial. A sort of mental bottleneck where most of the useful information was never part of the mental population to begin with. Not a redefinition of the term but a metaphorical usage.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Look, we really are not interested in how your fetishes have changed over time.
Look up paraphilic and paraphyletic so that you could at least begin to look like you know what you are talking about.

This is the second time at least you have said you can give an example, assuming it is not a paraphilia, let's see it/them.

I can't see how a person would expect others to take them seriously, when they do not even bother to learn the vocabulary of the subject they claim is wrong.

 

[Pogo]

My conclusion, and you seem to have figured this out too, is the intended word was "paraphyletic". To me this illustrates the sort of ignorance, trivial information gathering ability and superficial interest that I see as another defining set of characters for the group I call "belief-based deniers".

They don't know and understand enough to achieve even the most flimsy argument based on a superficial review of a Google search.

A reasonable basic knowledge and interest is required to make a Google search or any search meaningful.

A paraphyletic group contains organism with a shared common ancestry, but it does not contain all the descendants of that ancestry. There is no evidence that species evolve in and out of these groups. This conclusion most likely arises from a misunderstanding of taxonomy and the evidence used to determine whether a species is a member of the group or not. Ignorance seems to be leading to the false conclusion that an artifact of taxonomy is a fact of phylogeny.

Until the latter part of the 20th Century, taxonomists were largely limited to morphology, ecology, breeding studies and species concepts as the basis of the taxonomies proposed. In the case of most invertebrates, the species concept is the morphospecies concept based on morphological features.

Since the advent of advanced computation, genetics and molecular biology applied in taxonomy, taxonomists now have greater information available to make the connections and determine the monophyly of species and species groups. In many cases these "new" techniques have supported the existing higher taxa. It is at the species, generic or tribal level where there has been the most sorting taking place.

These techniques allow a much deeper look at the genetic backgrounds and relationships of the species being examined. Such things as convergent evolution and morphological divergence can be recognized, more readily defined on evidence and better used to learn the ancestry of species with better placement within existing groups or recognition of new, independent groups.

In any case, it is recognizable as evidence of how little literalist creationist science deniers understand the material they seek to upend.

Not only is there a lack of knowledge, there is a resistance to acquisition of knowledge. I am always very happy when conversing with someone who knows more than I do that I can test my understanding and add the detail or change in what they present logically. I've posted paraphilia (parafilia in Spanish) paraphyletic several times now and @leroy has not admitted to the mistake while arguing "semantics" over misunderstanding the specificity of some words.

There are several versions of these deniers, the tiny little doubt crew who argue that there is not evidence for a conclusion while their alternative is nothing more than poof it was so. Those who over estimate their knowledge and logical capabilities and are sure that they are right and thus unable to learn. Then there are the mystics whose logic is entirely internal to their heads and generally not understandable by anyone though often with religious or philosophical pseudo-underpinnings.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not only is there a lack of knowledge, there is a resistance to acquisition of knowledge. I am always very happy when conversing with someone who knows more than I do that I can test my understanding and add the detail or change in what they present logically. I've posted paraphilia (parafilia in Spanish) paraphyletic several times now and @leroy has not admitted to the mistake while arguing "semantics" over misunderstanding the specificity of some words.

I agree, not only ignorant of the topics and the basis of those topics, but a resistance to knowledge and understanding. Gaining even a toehold of the basics appears disdained. I expect there is some concern that somehow coming to this knowledge and understanding will contaminate them and cause personal conflict with "their truth".

I found the confusion over that word to be rather amusing even if not unexpected given the history of denialists.

I like testing my ideas too. It is a useful tool in learning, refining a position or discarding it entirely. I know things, but I don't have all the answers. I many not even have the best answers and continue to learn.

There are several versions of these deniers, the tiny little doubt crew who argue that there is not evidence for a conclusion while their alternative is nothing more than poof it was so. Those who over estimate their knowledge and logical capabilities and are sure that they are right and thus unable to learn. Then there are the mystics whose logic is entirely internal to their heads and generally not understandable by anyone though often with religious or philosophical pseudo-underpinnings.

I like and accept your basic classification and think that fallacious logic, ignorance and an agenda based on a personal opinion and belief seems to be the common threads linking them all. I think a taxonomy of denialism is useful tool in understanding how these positions develop. Even though I have come to consider ignoring as the best response, I still see the utility of it for understanding. It has much broader application outside the scope of these discussions. For instance, group thinking on politics, crime, gun ownership, information, conspiracy theories and more.

I see the overall prevailing undercurrent of Dunning Kruger evident throughout, but for some belief in the vastness of their own personal knowledge, however obviously flawed, is the character that I consider supports making that a primary grouping where it is the defining trait.

I'm fascinated by those that have come to the belief in their own omniscience while, at the same time, continually denying they are omniscient. I don't think Dunning Kruger applies to a belief in the absolute and unparalleled understanding of information that appears to be mostly or entirely made up, but that belief does seem to fit that pattern otherwise. Pseudo-Dunning Kruger? While I'm unsure of the group that the evidence would naturally place those holding this particular view, it seems to still fit the description.

 

[cladking]

Simply they do not fit the scientific definition for consciousness,

And you ignored my response to your assertion that "consciousness" was defined scientifically! Let me refresh your memory since you played word games instead. I said that the definition you provided applied to any living thing when it was awake and not in a coma. A word that has no referent or that can't differentiate between two things is not a word at all. Just as "God" has no scientific meaning, neither does "consciousness". As it applies to Evolution "individual" has no meaning and neither does "survival of the fittest". If you can neither define nor measure "fitness" it has no meaning in the laboratory and without experimental support there can be no "theory".

 

[cladking]

First problem, yes a bottleneck is a reduction in number of individuals in a species and due to this smaller number the genetic diversity is reduced, but it is not a collection of odd ball genes, rather the same genes as the rest of the species with fewer variations.

How do you know this?

I've presented plenty of logic and evidence to suggest this is not at all the case. How can you just dismiss the obvious like it doesn't exist? Then you insert your beliefs backed with nothing to counter it.

You are simply assuming that survivors are exactly the same as the rest of the species despite the FACT that the rest of the species died and there's no such thing as "species" anyway. You are ignoring the simple fact that in any event that destroys most of a species it likely NOT to be random. Every fox isn't going to suddenly be unable to catch a rabbit leading to a bottleneck and if it were this simple as you believe then there would be something odd about the foxes that survived like maybe God gave them a "Cloak of Invisibility".

Your beliefs do not fit observation or logic.

 

[Pogo]

I agree, not only ignorant of the topics and the basis of those topics, but a resistance to knowledge and understanding. Gaining even a toehold of the basics appears disdained. I expect there is some concern that somehow coming to this knowledge and understanding will contaminate them and cause personal conflict with "their truth".

I found the confusion over that word to be rather amusing even if not unexpected given the history of denialists.

I like testing my ideas too. It is a useful tool in learning, refining a position or discarding it entirely. I know things, but I don't have all the answers. I many not even have the best answers and continue to learn.

I like and accept your basic classification and think that fallacious logic, ignorance and an agenda based on a personal opinion and belief seems to be the common threads linking them all. I think a taxonomy of denialism is useful tool in understanding how these positions develop. Even though I have come to consider ignoring as the best response, I still see the utility of it for understanding. It has much broader application outside the scope of these discussions. For instance, group thinking on politics, crime, gun ownership, information, conspiracy theories and more.

I see the overall prevailing undercurrent of Dunning Kruger evident throughout, but for some belief in the vastness of their own personal knowledge, however obviously flawed, is the character that I consider supports making that a primary grouping where it is the defining trait.

I'm fascinated by those that have come to the belief in their own omniscience while, at the same time, continually denying they are omniscient. I don't think Dunning Kruger applies to a belief in the absolute and unparalleled understanding of information that appears to be mostly or entirely made up, but that belief does seem to fit that pattern otherwise. Pseudo-Dunning Kruger? While I'm unsure of the group that the evidence would naturally place those holding this particular view, it seems to still fit the description.

And then there is us, believers in Dunning Kreuger, I know the cohort, Cornell is the local university and I have done time there. Apparently in spite of the apparent obviousness of the result it may just be an artifact of the study design.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect Isn’t What You Think It Is

The Dunning-Kruger Effect Isn't What You Think It Is

The least skilled people know how much they don't know, but everyone thinks they are better than average

www.scientificamerican.com

A taxonomy of denialism. LOL, brilliant.

 

[Pogo]

And you ignored my response to your assertion that "consciousness" was defined scientifically! Let me refresh your memory since you played word games instead. I said that the definition you provided applied to any living thing when it was awake and not in a coma. A word that has no referent or that can't differentiate between two things is not a word at all. Just as "God" has no scientific meaning, neither does "consciousness". As it applies to Evolution "individual" has no meaning and neither does "survival of the fittest". If you can neither define nor measure "fitness" it has no meaning in the laboratory and without experimental support there can be no "theory".

Yes you have said these things, but you have yet to provide a logical structure or evidence for any alternative to the common understanding.
Is it your argument that consciousness has no referent and thus no meaning, that seems quite logical in terms of your use of the word while the general sense of others is that it refers to an emergent property of a complex nervous system.
God is borderline since many think it has a referent, but nobody seems to agree on what it might be.

And as to fitness, I will link again to a method for quantitative evaluation that exists independent of your philosophy.
Evolutionary fitness. simple

Fitness (biology) - Wikipedia a little more detail.

 

[Pogo]

How do you know this?

Because it is the definition of a bottleneck as you provided your self. The definition is correct, from that point on you go off the rails.

I've presented plenty of logic and evidence to suggest this is not at all the case. How can you just dismiss the obvious like it doesn't exist? Then you insert your beliefs backed with nothing to counter it.

No, you have presented a lot of assertions some of which are patently absurd such as odd-ball genes which grossly misinterprets the well established and demonstrated concept of alleles.

You are simply assuming that survivors are exactly the same as the rest of the species despite the FACT that the rest of the species died and there's no such thing as "species" anyway. You are ignoring the simple fact that in any event that destroys most of a species it likely NOT to be random. Every fox isn't going to suddenly be unable to catch a rabbit leading to a bottleneck and if it were this simple as you believe then there would be something odd about the foxes that survived like maybe God gave them a "Cloak of Invisibility".

Again, you totally misinterpret the concept. the cause of a bottleneck can be any number of things from a disease that affects most of the population but not all such as avian influenza which is killing most of many species of birds to human hunting of tigers which greatly reduced their numbers.
The only point is that the bottlenecked remainder has a genetic variability that is significantly less than the prior total.
As a result they are more homogeneous. but they have not changed and are still the same species since this smaller population is now the totality of the species.

Your beliefs do not fit observation or logic.

This is for you to demonstrate with supporting evidence and not just assertion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And then there is us, believers in Dunning Kreuger, I know the cohort, Cornell is the local university and I have done time there. Apparently in spite of the apparent obviousness of the result it may just be an artifact of the study design.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect Isn’t What You Think It Is

The Dunning-Kruger Effect Isn't What You Think It Is

The least skilled people know how much they don't know, but everyone thinks they are better than average

www.scientificamerican.com

And yet we still encounter people that conclude they are knowledgeable on the subjects of biology to the point that some of them use this perceived position to make themselves their own authority to reject valid conclusions.

A taxonomy of denialism. LOL, brilliant.

 

[Pogo]

And yet we still encounter people that conclude they are knowledgeable on the subjects of biology to the point that some of them use this perceived position to make themselves their own authority to reject valid conclusions.

I am reminded of the conclusion if I remember correctly, that the most knowledgeable were the least confident in their personal knowledge.
Phd's are the most fun to talk to because if you present something, they often talk through their logic as they consider and answer you.

 

[cladking]

And then there is us, believers in Dunning Kreuger, I know the cohort, Cornell is the local university and I have done time there. Apparently in spite of the apparent obviousness of the result it may just be an artifact of the study design.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect Isn’t What You Think It Is

The Dunning-Kruger Effect Isn't What You Think It Is

The least skilled people know how much they don't know, but everyone thinks they are better than average

www.scientificamerican.com

A taxonomy of denialism. LOL, brilliant.

"Research shows that 93% of Americans think they are better drivers than average, 90% of teachers think they are more skilled than their peers, and this overestimation is pervasive across many skills – including logic tests. But it is mathematically impossible for most people to be better than average at a certain task."

That's hilarious or at least it would be if I had a sense of humor. 90% of the people really are better drivers than average according to their own assessment because they think stupid things like tailgating allows the roads to hold more traffic despite the fact that tailgating is the chief cause of stop and go traffic that causes every trip to be longer and results in more cars on the road. Leave a safe distance and traffic can flow and maximize efficiency. Don't drive in Illinois and you'll be better off.

Dunning Krueger believed in nonsensical things like there is some universal standard for good driving and survival of the fittest.

Homo omnisciencis is his own worst enemy and Dunning and Krueger assumed the conclusion. They assumed they were intelligent and everyone who disagreed with them were not. They believed in abstractions like "good driver" is definable in terms any human being could recognize. They assumed they were the crown of creation.

They were victims of dunning krueger like every member of homo rationatio circularis.


Everybody always makes sense and are trying to do what's right without ever realizing there's no such thing as "intelligence".

 

[cladking]

Is it your argument that consciousness has no referent and thus no meaning,

How many times have I defined it yet nobody can see it. Consciousness is life and the endowment by which every individual has a chance at success. It is pattern recognition. I've listed many attributes more times than I can count.

Calling it being awake is simple nonsense. Consciousness doesn't disappear in sleep it is transformed in several ways and temporarily reduced some of the time. Even in a coma consciousness doesn't end but merely flatlines until recovery or death.

All life is individual and all individuals are conscious. It is consciousness that drives all life EXCEPT HOMO OMNISCIENCIS and allows individuals to succeed. There is no survival of the fittest because all individuals are equally fit. Humans operate on BELIEF, NOT consciousness.

 

[cladking]

Because it is the definition of a bottleneck as you provided your self. The definition is correct, from that point on you go off the rails.

More nonsense and more word games.

This is the ONLY definition of "bottleneck" I've ever used here.

People are playing word games and arguing definitions rather than substance while they themselves butcher the English language. I copy and pasted the definition and you didn't respond to the point while merely repeating you are wrong. Now I'll go back and see you used my "error" to launch into another lecture.