Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

And this is your strawman, speciation is not necessarily the result of a reduction to a very small number of breeding individuals, though that while not speciation is the definition of a bottleneck.
Artificicial or selective breeding actually by itself does not produce new species, only variants that can generally breed true amongst themselves but are still capable of interbreeding with the rest of the species.

You are insisting on using an invalid understanding of the theory and your use of the various words related to evolution is personal and not related to the general understanding.

If you actually have a point, you should be able to explain it without using non-standard definitions of words.

According to what I've read in the past, every word is claimed to have an infinite number of definitions, therefore every words very likely means the same as every other word. So, "Darwin is wrong" also tells us that "Darwin is right". It could also tell us pretty much anything--rinse and repeat, for instance--but it is up to the reader to read the mind of the writer and determine what the intended meaning is. Otherwise, the reader is at fault for any confusion created by the writer.

 

[Dimi95]

The worst thing that i have read anywhere is that we are a product.

There is nothing worse then that.

 

[cladking]

Explain how the statements are different or are you redefining oddball to be the majority of a population?

"I said a million times when oddballs are the only survivors of a bottleneck speciation occurs."

If the survivors are a random cross section of the population then there will be no change in species. In every way they are fundamentally different there will be fundamental differences in the new species. Other than accumulations of mutations (which might be influenced by consciousness as well), this is how most speciation occurs; suddenly. Most changes in life are sudden.

 

[cladking]

Well since I have some dinner to attend to, I will just remind you that Spencer's colloquial definition of survival of the fittest as nature red in tooth and claw does not describe biological fitness except in the minds of the ignorant.

I am using "survival", "of", "the", and "fittest" in the most common definitions. I also use "survival of the fittest" exactly how Darwin used it. Modern day biologists have gussied up the words but they still mean the exact same thing.

I don't play word games. You are right now.

 

[Dimi95]

"I said a million times when oddballs are the only survivors of a bottleneck speciation occurs."

If the survivors are a random cross section of the population then there will be no change in species. In every way they are fundamentally different there will be fundamental differences in the new species. Other than accumulations of mutations (which might be influenced by consciousness as well), this is how most speciation occurs; suddenly. Most changes in life are sudden.

No , Gradual.

I want to be like you and take this the easy way.

No evidence , just empty claims.

 

[cladking]

No , Gradual.

I want to be like you and take this the easy way.

No evidence , just empty claims.

One man's "empty claims" is another's it mustta been ramps.

Things that are apparent or obvious are not necessarily true and arise from perspective rather than logic and common sense. If you don't seek the logic and evidence in another's claims you can't see when it is apparent. People just revert back to doctrine at the end of every sentence. No matter doctrine arose from assumptions and circular reasoning.

 

[Dimi95]

One man's "empty claims" is another's it mustta been ramps.

Things that are apparent or obvious are not necessarily true and arise from perspective rather than logic and common sense. If you don't seek the logic and evidence in another's claims you can't see when it is apparent. People just revert back to doctrine at the end of every sentence. No matter doctrine arose from assumptions and circular reasoning.

No cladking , things that are true are based on evidence and facts.

We get that by logic and common sense.

You resist to take part in that.

 

[Pogo]

Oh yes, how could I have forgotten the consciousness of the beavers raising fish to feed themselves. I'm sure it was all explained on some Egyptian rocks if only we had the ability to speak the ancient language and why raising a load across an inclined plane is not an example of a true ramp.

 

[Pogo]

According to what I've read in the past, every word is claimed to have an infinite number of definitions, therefore every words very likely means the same as every other word. So, "Darwin is wrong" also tells us that "Darwin is right". It could also tell us pretty much anything--rinse and repeat, for instance--but it is up to the reader to read the mind of the writer and determine what the intended meaning is. Otherwise, the reader is at fault for any confusion created by the writer.

Alternate translation due to my senior memory but I think equivalent.

Milk, milk, milk.

 

[Pogo]

"I said a million times when oddballs are the only survivors of a bottleneck speciation occurs."

If the survivors are a random cross section of the population then there will be no change in species. In every way they are fundamentally different there will be fundamental differences in the new species. Other than accumulations of mutations (which might be influenced by consciousness as well), this is how most speciation occurs; suddenly. Most changes in life are sudden.

So amongst other things we are back to a question of the definition of sudden.
Can you give us an example of speciation that results in fundamental differences?
Why is accumulation of mutations in a subset of a population an unusual cause for speciation?
I'll leave the conscious changes in genetics for a later question.

 

[Pogo]

I am using "survival", "of", "the", and "fittest" in the most common definitions. I also use "survival of the fittest" exactly how Darwin used it. Modern day biologists have gussied up the words but they still mean the exact same thing.

I don't play word games. You are right now.

Darwin did not use the term and the common definition is wrong when discussing evolution but the mistake is typical of stinky footed bumpkins.

 

[Pogo]

No , Gradual.

I want to be like you and take this the easy way.

No evidence , just empty claims.

Gradual on the scale of nanoseconds, sudden on the scale of stellar evolution, one must learn to understand the fluidity and imprecision of the modern language which was clear in the ancient language before those evolving fools built a tower.

 

[Pogo]

No cladking , things that are true are based on evidence and facts.

We get that by logic and common sense.

You resist to take part in that.

Logic and Common Sense, Two more words with alternate meanings though I argue that common sense is a worthless description of the value of any conclusion in that it is so often wrong.

 

[cladking]

No cladking , things that are true are based on evidence and facts.

We get that by logic and common sense.

You resist to take part in that.

I really don't know how you could be more wrong. You just ignore every single point I make and continue on like you have all the answers.

There's really not such a thing as "true" and if there were it would be based on experiment not facts and evidence and most assuredly not by logic.

I give you logic, physical evidence and words carved in stone and you give me empty rhetoric about the infallibility of science based in logic.

Try to responding to any point in this post or the hundreds of others already being ignored in this thread. I bet you can't do oit.

 

[cladking]

Darwin did not use the term

Yes. He did.

I didn't say he coined it. He supported it and used it.

 

[Dimi95]

I really don't know how you could be more wrong. You just ignore every single point I make and continue on like you have all the answers.

That's the point.
You can't even figure out the other side.

I am not afraid to be corrected , if i am wronf i would like to be corrected.

You ignored many of my answers, and now you complain when you are answered by your own standards.

I really liked you , but you f**** up everyrhing when you said we are a product.

I mean , you were the one to suggest humbleness from the begining.

There's really not such a thing as "true" and if there were it would be based on experiment not facts and evidence and most assuredly not by logic.

Evidence and facts leads to theory.
Theory leads to study.
Study leads to experiment.

That's how it is done in Science.

I give you logic, physical evidence and words carved in stone and you give me empty rhetoric about the infallibility of science based in logic.

Brother , i am serious now.

What you are discussing about the pyramids is probably wrong.
Not just you , but anyone that writes there in that discussion.

It may be that we will find city under the pyramids and more evidence how they were build from the ground.

From what we have now , Pogo said it as best as it gets.
I think he said it , he may correct me if i am wrong.
Only we can take wild guesses.

I don't know how the pyramids were build.

Neither of the theories is logical to me, and i have consulted someone who worked on the Rosseta Stone to tell his opinion.

He says that nobody should make wild guesses to be relevant because there is not enough evidence at first so that a proper scientific theory can be made.
I will see him next time i go in my homeland and i will ask him for more details.
That's what i have for now.
I am not an expert on that , neither i claim such thing.

But i trust him more then you , not because i know him , but because of the work he has done.

That is why most of those who study it , they say we don't know.

Because that's the most reasonable answer at the moment.

We don't know.

People are working years and years on the field trying to solve it.

I accept that 'we don't know' , untill there is more convincing evidence.

Try to responding to any point in this post or the hundreds of others already being ignored in this thread. I bet you can't do oit.

Well i do.
I try my best.

I give my best to find common sense with you , but you refuse to cooperate.

 

[Pogo]

There's really not such a thing as "true" and if there were it would be based on experiment not facts and evidence and most assuredly not by logic.

I think you owe us some explanation of just what this string of words means in your best attempt to communicate in our stinky footed post babbel language.

We truly are trying to understand your position and knowledge.

 

[Pogo]

Yes. He did.

I didn't say he coined it. He supported it and used it.

AI Overview
Learn more

While often attributed to Darwin, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was actually coined by Herbert Spencer, and Darwin later adopted it in his later works; the closest quote to this from Darwin would be something like "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.".

rather a different statement.

 

[cladking]

I really liked you , but you f**** up everyrhing when you said we are a product.

I never said such a thing.

I don't even know what it means

 

[Dimi95]

I never said such a thing.

I don't even know what it means

You said that we are a product of consciousness.

We are no products.

We are living creatures.