Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Pogo]

As I explained and you wholly ignore Dunning and Krueger had D/K. Why not address the points? Why not tell me what you think causes traffic jams on every perfectly good road in Illinois. In Illinois even cops tailgate and allow to be tailgated. They only write ticket for speeding and not slamming on your brakes. It's OK to hit a baby in a stroller so long as you slam on your brakes first. So they tailgate and slam on their brakes a lot. Unsurprisingly this results in lots of accidents and traffic jams. And 90% of the drivers in IL really are better than average.

And every stop sign in IL is a contest to see who can stop longest. They'll actually wait for stop signs to turn green.

They are great drivers, just ask them.

This is just a bunch of unevidenced assertions which leaves me nothing to respond to, Claiming D-K had D-K means what? What is your evidence or logic for me to respond to?

As for drivers, are all drivers in IL the same or are there regional variations? what is your actual evidence or is it just anecdote.

 

[cladking]

There are those here who are just plain wrong or just in denial of reality, you seem to present a special case where communication is hindered by a lack of a common language/understanding. To that extent I suggest this introductory reading to help you understand some of the terms and concepts involved in inheritance and speciation.

Allele - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh, I see. Thankyou.

The wiki article was a little over my head so I googled a more simple definition.

I was well aware that we get genes from both parents, and yes, I guess I used the word "gene" here non-scientifically.

 

[Pogo]

As I said; disease and hunting do not usually select for unusual behavior. They can but typically probably. Disease will select individuals who did or did not survive some local bottleneck or it might be wholly irrelevant. When individuals are ignored we can't even see the causes of "evolution" because most change results from behavior which is largely genetic.

This is beginning to get to the understanding that evolution is based on the collective response of multiple individuals with individual traits based on their genomes.

 

[Pogo]

What people are missing by not looking at or defining consciousness is that behavior is derived largely from genes. Each individual sees only what it understands. It proceeds on what it knows not what it believes. This allows it to adapt its behavior to match the conditions. Meanwhile stressors that wipe out large percentages of the population allow the propagation of only genes consistent with living meaning the "species" quickly adapts as well. One wouldn't expect speciation as the result of WNS, only a new population much more resistant to the condition.

Now if the only bats that survived were those which didn't hibernate upside down then we would see a new species suddenly arise within a single human lifetime.

Nature plays tricks on all her creatures and must be having a blast with humans and complex symbolic language.

If consciousness is the response engendered by an individuals genome, then we just have an extra word somewhere.

 

[cladking]

As for drivers, are all drivers in IL the same or are there regional variations? what is your actual evidence or is it just anecdote.

I was run off the road by IL drivers five times during two week vacation in FL!!!!

I don't have any recent figures and don't remember the metrics but the only place in country with more pedestrian fatalities per mile is CA. I don't take any statistics very seriously. The evidence is anecdotal. I would not try to confirm it through observation due to the frustration and danger.

There ae regional variations. Downstate drivers are in a little bigger hurry to get to the stop signs and sit there. Chicago drivers aren't any hurry at all but don't want anyone else to get there in front of them. Chicago drivers are actually not that bad at merging. The whole state are better at merging than anywhere in PA.

 

[Pogo]

I JUST POSTED IT FOR YOU SPECIFICALLY!!!!!

It's on this very page!!!!!

#2046.

Sorry, I missed it, that said, no, a gene is a segment of DNA that provides the instructions to build a specific protein. That is really all it is, how it affects other things is a whole different story.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As we have been trying to explain, words have meanings and communication is only possible when we can mutually agree on them.
You have demonstrated a large disconnect between what is commonly understood by many words and how they are used in scientific circles.
Some of this was made more understandable though less confusing by understanding that you are speaking from a point of some sort of Platonism and not using the vocabulary that we use when discussing science which is the topic of this thread.

This is not a game, it is a question of agreeing on the rules of definitions and their areas of applicability.

There do not appear to be any Tagalog speakers here nor any who speak your particular dialect of english, I'm afraid you will need to speak ours if you wish to be understood.

This is why I grew tired of trying to battle Wizards of Oz. They continually tell me not to look behind the curtain and don't want to look behind it themselves. Just pretend they are great and powerful and damn all those that challenge that belief.

 

[gnostic]

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.

That's not definition to "consciousness".

Consciousness that self-awareness that mainly exhibited in most animals, that have nervous systems, particularly sensory nervous system, and with either Central Nervous System (brain & spinal cord) that exist among vertebrate animals, nerve nets among most invertebrates.

The only multicellular invertebrates that i know of, that have no nerve systems of any kinds, are sponges (phylum Porifera) and they don't exhibit consciousness.

Aside from animals, other lifeforms like those belong to plants, fungi, and micro-organisms, like protista, archaea & bacteria, all have no nerves, and exhibit no consciousness.

BTW, you wrote this:

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

Can you even name a single biologist who made this claim? Or are you making another one of your strawman claims?

 

[YoursTrue]

Survival and reproductive success

Once again, back to Tiktaalik...how would you or scientists show that Tiktaalik was an evolutionary step towards land dwellers?

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Apparently not on ignore, just another assault with an egocentric monologue.

snip snip

 

[shunyadragon]

Once again, back to Tiktaalik...how would you or scientists show that Tiktaalik was an evolutionary step towards land dwellers?

Once again back to your self imposed ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal mythology.

Yur posts are not worthy of any other response.

 

[shunyadragon]

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".

Not worth responding to.

 

[Valjean]

Once again, back to Tiktaalik...how would you or scientists show that Tiktaalik was an evolutionary step towards land dwellers?

You know the answer. Fossils are like a movie film; a sequence of pictures along a timeline, each a little bit different. The sequence can tell a story.
Tiktaalik is one frame in a film. There are missing frames, to be sure, but Tik's anatomy, and that of others along the film, is consistent with the evolutionary progression expected and predicted by biologists.

 

[Tiberius]

View attachment 99515

That looks pretty bony to me.

Perhaps you meant toothed jaws?

Uh, yeah, let's go with "toothed jaws."

I should actually check before I post things, huh?

*chuckles nervously and shows himself out*

 

[YoursTrue]

You know the answer. Fossils are like a movie film; a sequence of pictures along a timeline, each a little bit different. The sequence can tell a story.
Tiktaalik is one frame in a film. There are missing frames, to be sure, but Tik's anatomy, and that of others along the film, is consistent with the evolutionary progression expected and predicted by biologists.

I have read the answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again back to your self imposed ignorance of science based on an ancient tribal mythology.

No sir.

 

[firedragon]

For those who support evolution, the shared traits among various species suggest a common ancestry. However, believers interpret these resemblances as evidence of a single Creator behind everything that exists.

Not because evolution is proven to be absolute truth or absolutely false. It's because evolution does not touch the birth of life from no life. It cannot by default. Even the darwinian tree of life begins with life. Life has to be contingent on a necessary being thinking rationally. Or, you have to practice naturalism and go in to "I don't know" to evade the question of PSR.

 

[leroy]

. 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.

Really is that it? A spelling mistake ? You making all this mess because I the outcompete function of my cellphone choose the incorrect word and I didn't noticed ?

The fact that you are making a deal out of a spelling mistake is evidence that you don't really disagree with (or can refute) my actual points




Lammal

 

[leroy]

Colloquially yes, in the five year old looking at pictures sense, yes. If that is your point then fine I admit and agree. BUT, that has nothing to do with understanding evolution, only the strawman version of it.

I hereby grant you a MAGA style Pyrrhic victory.

Spoiler: Pyrrhic victory

A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that is not worth winning because the victor suffers such a devastating cost that it is tantamount to defeat. The term can be used in military and nonmilitary contexts.

.

BUT, that has nothing to do with understanding evolution, only the strawman version of it.

As boring and disappointing as this might sound this conversation is not at has never been about understanding evolution.


The only issue is that @TagliatelliMonster used a coloquial word (fish) in a context where he had to use a real clade to illustrate his point .

 

[leroy]

Jurassic Park mov did change the definition of dinosaur, Leroy.

you clearly don’t know the history.


The whole dinosaur-bird connection actually began to the time contemporary to Charles Darwin.

While Richard Owen (1804 - 1892) was the one who coined the word "dinosaur" in 1842 that means "terrible lizards", he wasn't the first to scientifically investigate dinosaur fossils; that was Gideon Mantell (1790 - 1852), whose wife (Mary Ann Mantell, a geologist) discovered the fossil (1822) that was later identified as the ichthyosaur. Referring to dinosaurs to “lizard” (as Owen did) isn’t accurate, because not all reptiles were lizards.

It was Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 - 1895), who first recognised that the birds have evolved from the smaller dinosaurs that we today, referred to as "avian dinosaurs", as opposed to another groups of "non-avian dinosaurs". He wrote extensively on the origin of birds, particularly examining the Archaeopteryx. Today, biologists and paleontologists don't think birds were direct descendants of Archaeopteryx, as they found avian dinosaurs to be the most likely candidates for the origin of the birds.

Anyway, lizards and snakes, both belonging to order Squamata, were to descendants of the reptile group - the superorder Lepidosauria.

Dinosaurs belonged to the group completely separate from the Lepidosauria, the clade of Reptilia - the Archosauria.

Archosauria also include crocodiles.

Since, the 1970s, paleontologists & biologists have confirmed Huxley’s findings in regards to the dinosaur-bird connection, about a couple of decades prior to the 1st Jurassic Park film (1993).

So, the JP movies didn’t do anything new.

I don't disagree and honestly I don't see why did you quote me as if you where correcting something that I said


All I said was that originally Dinosaur was the word that we used to describe all those ancient reptiles like trex triceratops petrodactils etc originally dinosaurs where not intended to represent a clade


Then someone changed the definition and now we use that word to describe the taxonomical clade that includes trex birds triceratops etc.....and excludes former dinosaurs like petrodactils