Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

????

Address what I said!

 

[cladking]

I have no clue since your point is downright bizar.

You keep saying we agree and then that my point is bizarre!

Many species we call "agriculture" appeared suddenly 10,000 years BD (before darwin). Is this invisible?

Are you being serious here?

I don't even know how to respond to this.

You have ~55 mutations in your DNA. That's ~55 things in your DNA that you didn't get from mommy or daddy. Are you a different species?
You will pass those on to your children. They will add their own mutations. So now, your children have ~110 things in their DNA which weren't present in your parents.
And so it goes on and accumulates.
That's the gradual bit: the accumulation of small changes.

No! Little mutations like this are just nature playing games like a cat with a mouse. It's makes "species" more diverse and robust. Things that change species are major differences whether caused by behavior at bottlenecks or by mutation. There is no Evolution except in peoples' minds.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No! Little mutations like this are just nature playing games like a cat with a mouse. It's makes "species" more diverse and robust. Things that change species are major differences whether caused by behavior at bottlenecks or by mutation. There is no Evolution except in peoples' minds.

You literally just described evolution and how it happens... then said it doesn't happen.

 

[McBell]

You literally just described evolution and how it happens... then said it doesn't happen.

It is as though their only intention is to be disagreeable and argue... about anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NO!!!!

Yes.

Every single individual is different. There are no two individuals alike. What is good for one kills another.

Uhu. Because.... -drumroll-... not all are equally fit.

Different things are good and bad for every single individual.

Uhu.... aka, differences in fitness.

There is no "species" with more or less fit individuals. There are only individuals.

Individuals belong to a species.

The assumption that individuals which survive are more fit simply changes the definition of "individual" and puts the cart before the horse.

That makes zero sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are no two identical things in reality and you want to claim something so ephemeral and abstract as "Latin" is identical across generations???

Maybe you should respond to what I actually say instead of what you imagine me to say.
That would be great.

EVERY SINGLE HUMAN EVER BORN is a product of his time and place. And this includes the language he speaks. Just like all life we are distinct.

That's nice.
So, did a latin speaking mother ever raise a spanish speaking child?

Real change, massive change, comes to "species" suddenly.

So what are you saying, that a lating speaking mother at some point raised a spanish speaking child?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Address what I said!

I'ld like to, but the problem is that it's hard to respond to nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Many species we call "agriculture" appeared suddenly 10,000 years BD (before darwin). Is this invisible?

Can you rephrase that so that it makes sense?
I'm not aware of a species called "agriculture".

No! Little mutations like this are just nature playing games like a cat with a mouse. It's makes "species" more diverse and robust. Things that change species are major differences whether caused by behavior at bottlenecks or by mutation. There is no Evolution except in peoples' minds.

Ok. So in your opinion at some point a member of species A will giver birth to a member of species B?
Or a latin speaking mother will raise a spanish speaking child?

Let me ask you something....
If every generation adds ~55 mutations....

What does that accumulate into after 1000 generations?
Could it perhaps be...like... I don't know... many mutations?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You literally just described evolution and how it happens... then said it doesn't happen.

Isn't it hilarious....

 

[cladking]

Uhu. Because.... -drumroll-... not all are equally fit.

NO!

Because they are fit in different ways. Being equally fit is NOT the same as being identical.

 

[cladking]

Because they are fit in different ways. Being equally fit is NOT the same as being identical.

Darwin et all just decided to overlook the most important characteristics of every "species". Namely that only individuals exist at all and they are each distinct. There is no such thing as a "rabbit" except to Darwin. There is only, Fluffy, Bugs, and Hoppy et al. Not one is any more fit than any other. While it's true nature may favor a specific type at any given time there is no pattern to what type is favored over the long term in most instances. Stressors and diseases come and go and even if they don't go the entire population will become immune but they are still equally fit just like their parents.

Consciousness is the primary means of survivability but more importantly to Darwin's imaginary "species" it is also the primary driver of change.

 

[cladking]

Can you rephrase that so that it makes sense?
I'm not aware of a species called "agriculture"

It's the magic word and something you might see every day around the farm house.

There were no farm houses a mere 10,500 years ago and then suddenly agricultures were born and they sprouted up everywhere shoosting to the sky like weeds. These creatures transformed human life in a few generations. Where every agriculture had been wild and men had to go into the jungles and deserts to hunt them suddenly they were tame and could be reproduced on a massive scale around every house. This allowed cities to rise from the earth as well where people were much more numerous and agricultures more sparse.

And yet agricultures were invented without Darwin's beliefs and assumptions. People learned to raise wheat from kittens.

It's a truly remarkable story but you might think I have the details wrong. But no Darwin was involved in the process. None of Darwin's beliefs were employed. We believe they spoke Latin just like every Spanish speaker but the reality is we just don't know. The reality is they obviously didn't share your beliefs in survival of the fittest or gradual change in "species". They had no words for "species" or "belief".

 

[gnostic]

You keep saying we agree and then that my point is bizarre!

Many species we call "agriculture" appeared suddenly 10,000 years BD (before darwin). Is this invisible?



No! Little mutations like this are just nature playing games like a cat with a mouse. It's makes "species" more diverse and robust. Things that change species are major differences whether caused by behavior at bottlenecks or by mutation. There is no Evolution except in peoples' minds.

It's the magic word and something you might see every day around the farm house.

There were no farm houses a mere 10,500 years ago and then suddenly agricultures were born and they sprouted up everywhere shoosting to the sky like weeds. These creatures transformed human life in a few generations. Where every agriculture had been wild and men had to go into the jungles and deserts to hunt them suddenly they were tame and could be reproduced on a massive scale around every house. This allowed cities to rise from the earth as well where people were much more numerous and agricultures more sparse.

And yet agricultures were invented without Darwin's beliefs and assumptions. People learned to raise wheat from kittens.

It's a truly remarkable story but you might think I have the details wrong. But no Darwin was involved in the process. None of Darwin's beliefs were employed. We believe they spoke Latin just like every Spanish speaker but the reality is we just don't know. The reality is they obviously didn't share your beliefs in survival of the fittest or gradual change in "species". They had no words for "species" or "belief".

Fairytale fantasies, misrepresentation of science and history, and conspiracy theory, all rolled into one cladking’s deluded special.

The absurdity of these two posts.

 

[cladking]

Because they are fit in different ways. Being equally fit is NOT the same as being identical.

One is more resistant to most diseases another has great stamina. One is fast, one is alert. One is clever another has more extensive experience. One has faster reaction times another has better vision. One needs less sleep another can stay awake much longer. One has good hearing another can seduce more females. One has a longer tongue to snatch flies another has superior hunting techniques.

They are not only all equally fit but nobody can predict in advance which will survive and produce the most offspring. Life is a gamble whether your quick, clever, experienced, or have the longest tongue.

There are no such things as "weaknesses" only individual differences. Just as no individual is more fit and more worthy of survival no individual is less fit or less worthy of survival. These things existed only in Darwin's head. Life adapts on both an individual and species basis but it does not gradually evolve. Consciousness did not evolve either. I don't know how it arose but there were no unthinking chemicals that combined into consciousness. Chemicals don't work this way.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are no two identical things in reality and you want to claim something so ephemeral and abstract as "Latin" is identical across generations???

Seriously?

At EXACTLY what point does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly? I'm guessing you can define it down to much less than a nanosecond even though a caterpillar is designed from birth to be a butterfly.

EVERY SINGLE HUMAN EVER BORN is a product of his time and place. And this includes the language he speaks. Just like all life we are distinct.



There is no "gradual change" over millions of years. All change is a random walk that may or may not reflect changes in the habitat until a real change suddenly occurs over a few generations. There are no gradual changes that result in new species even though off spring are always a little different species than their parents just neither parent nor off spring can't step into the same river twice.

Real change, massive change, comes to "species" suddenly.

OK, I was thinking about what you said. And here's how I see it now. According to the theory of evolution change of species was very, very, v-e-r-y slow. We have many, many species of beings on the earth now, all said to have evolved very slowly, I guess, from some common ancestor of sorts. The reason I have seen given for the fact that there are no instances of any new species emerging now is that there has not been enough time for humans to notice it. ??? I leave it there for now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

AND THE STATEMENT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A STATEMENT ABOUT CHANGE IN SPECIES.

So you have switched to claiming that sudden change only applies to speciation. You do realize you claim species don' exist, so by your own claims, change couldn't happen at all in speciation since it doesn't happen. I see this as a strange set of contradictory nonsense. Unfortunately, that seems typical to me.

But you can't provide a single example of a gradual change!

I've done it. @TagliatelliMonster has done it. Others have done it. You ignore all of it and just repeat your empty assertion.

 

[cladking]

The reason I have seen given for the fact that there are no instances of any new species emerging now is that there has not been enough time for humans to notice it.

Yes. There is no means to show Evolution as a "very, very, v-e-r-y slow" change caused by survival of the fittest. We can have no experiment to show it but Darwin et all believe it anyway because this is how they interpret the "fossil record'.

Without experiment "Evolution" remains an hypothesis but it is my contention that there are better fit explanations for the physical evidence and experiment and these explanations are closer to ancient "beliefs" and the Bible than to Darwin et al.

 

[cladking]

I've done it. @TagliatelliMonster has done it. Others have done it. You ignore all of it and just repeat your empty assertion.

There are better explanations for whale fossils than gradual change caused by "survival of the fittest".

This is simply beside the fact that "survival of the fittest" is presumptive and puts the cart before the horse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

AGAIN; I've listed dozens of these changes dozens of times so it's your turn to list just one single gradual change observed in individuals, species, or life. But if you say "evolution" you'll need to support your contention with an experiment

No you haven't. I know. I follow these threads.

Unless you can predict in advance which two die you have no argument but merely a BELIEF that they were less fit.

Fitness has nothing to do with measuring or predicting death. Can't you just admit that you have no idea what fitness means?

The two that died might have otherwise been the most capable, able, and robust two individuals of the entire species and each with a dozen healthy children. Disease, accidents, and predators don't care which individuals they cut down. The 1918 flu killed young and healthy more than old and senile. Lions chase young or sick gazelles not because they taste better or are unfit. They chase them because they are easier to catch. Lions don't study Darwin to survive.

They were not fit for the selection of the pathogen on the population. The gazelles that get away are likely to have greater fitness.

Darwin put the lion before the gazelle. His assumptions are as wrong today as when he invented them from thin air in the 19th century.

You have never listed these assumptions or shown them to be in any way wrong. Like your evidence for sudden change, it has not been posted anywhere on this forum.

Nature doesn't waste resources making individuals to sicken and die.

Nature overproduces and those that have the traits that allow them to survive better than others are more fit.

I don't recall this but it is an excellent example.

Of course you don't recall it.

The problem though is all your definitions and assumptions are wrong.

And of course, you will not list any of what you claim are his assumptions and show that what you claim is wrong. That is what I have come to find to be typical.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are eight billion different languages the simple fact is ALL modern languages are changing at a very rapid rate. Even in a single lifetime this change can be seen. The patterns, rules and convention used by the parents is distinct from that of the off-spring but this is more noticeable between children and grandparents usually. Just as we rarely notice we each have a different understanding of every utterance this is much more pronounced across generations.

The languages are evolving over time. Just like living things.

You simply choose not to see this.

I have found that this is typically a description indicative of what you post. Claims that everything is invisible except to you can be dismissed as far as I'm concerned.

Just as lions don't study Darwin neither did the inventors of agriculture.

So what. Darwin explained what they were doing. According to you, plants and animals can't even be bred for the traits that are useful to us.

You need to think about this and see how these facts apply to the real mechanisms of change in species.

Again, why would you say this when you claim species don't exist. More contradiction.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is sudden change by definition!!!!

How can a mutation be gradual when every individual either has it or does not and it arose suddenly?

The mutation entering the population is not a sudden change for the population. How is it that you can't take this information and understand how it might be over time? It isn't that difficult. There is a body of research that demonstrates it for you to review. For anyone to review.