Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

Actually it's sad that so many are duped to doubt science,

I can only speak for myself but I certainly don't doubt science for a moment. I doubt scientists though. Until you find one who jumps or summersaults into his pants EVERY morning (anyone can do it when they're young and motivated) or is anointed by God I will continue to doubt every single scientist and the opinions he rode in on.

 

[cladking]

YOUR ignorance. Neuroscientists know much more about the brain than you do, apparently.

Of course they do.

I probably know a great deal more about the natures of thinking and consciousness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Experiments and evidence for evolution have been routinely provided on this forum. Explanations of these experiments and evidence are regularly presented. Responses indicate that this is clearly misunderstood by those that lack the understanding they claim is theirs. It is ignored, I think because it shatters the illusions and integrity of denial. It is better to repeat unevidenced claims of informational superiority (omniscience) in vague language, rambling and obscure commentary and unevidenced claims for things like ancient science, ancient language, ancient brain scans and misguided conclusions based on what the claimant wants to be. Better to play semantic acrobatics or not listen and run away than confront the fact that the claims delivered as revealed truth have no substance.

 

[gnostic]

Darwin said that it was an apt description of what he was talking about.

Why do we still even have this conversation after you were shown to be wrong hundreds and hundreds and half a dozen threads ago? How many times for how many years did I correct you et al about this?

Is it possible to just drop it?

This is the 21st century, and the biology, today, isn’t the same as it was, in Darwin’s day, as Darwin didn’t know of modern taxonomy, modern genetics, modern palaeontology, molecular biology, biochemistry, modern stratigraphy, and so many other fields that Darwin was unaware about. Darwin also didn’t know about the other evolutionary mechanisms

Why are you so damn stuck in the 19th century, when Natural Selection have also been modified and updated beyond Darwin’s original framework?

Natural Selection, and not the often misunderstood and misrepresented “Survival of the fittest”, is stronger today, as it now has incorporated the knowledge of modern biology, that Darwin didn’t know about?

You are so bloody focused on what Darwin didn’t know, that you have forgotten that you in the 21st century, not the 19th century, and that you should be looking at what Natural Selection is today, not in Darwin’s days. That‘s your mistakes, not Darwin’s.

I don’t see harping on Faraday & Maxwell for not not knowing about modern electromagnetism (Quantum Electrodynamics), which incorporated knowledge of particle physics, all of modern QUANTUM PHYSICS (eg 21st century Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, etc).

Faraday & Maxwell are the founders and geniuses, but they didn’t know anything about EM fields connections with electrons, which was only discovered after their death. How come we don’t see you complaining about their lack of knowledge about them not knowing about the electrons and other elementary particles in the Standard Model of Particle Physics? Or not knowing about the current theories of everything relating to Quantum Physics?

When you are not looking into 21st century’s Natural Selection, that’s your oversight and your errors, not Darwin’s fault. You’re the one being anachronistic with something that Darwin wasn’t unaware of.

You keep talking about 19th century “Survival of the fittest” only demonstrated your own ignorance as to how far today’s biology has gone beyond Darwin’s original conception and observations.

it is your fault that your head is stuck in the 19th century.

 

[gnostic]

Of course they do.

I probably know a great deal more about the natures of thinking and consciousness.

WOW! You really you think, you are a genius?!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ancient science. No evidence has been presented and none is known to support this claim. No experiments or refence to prior work has been offered to support this claim. It is just the word of the claimant and nothing more.

Ancient language. No evidence has been presented and none is known to support this claim. No experiments or refence to prior work has been offered to support this claim. It is just the word of the claimant and nothing more.

A speciation event in humans 2,000 or 4,000 years ago is claimed, but no evidence supports this. There is no reason to conclude that Homo omniscience is anything more than mental meandering and wishful desire. Not even a thought experiment and more akin to the world creation of science fiction authors.

Anatomical changes in human brains found by comparison of modern human brains with ancient human brains from a range of times in the remote past are empty claims. There is nothing available to compare on which to draw any sort of rational conclusion. It is something someone believes, but with no reason for anyone else to believe or accept or consider substantial.

The list goes on and on. All empty claims based on what a person wants to see and not what is there to see. Conclusions drawn on desire and not evidence. No experiment supports these claims.

They are not science or reason. I see them as desire for reasons I feel strongly about but don't see this as the place to explore them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Attempts to conflate the biological fitness of populations with moral positions or vigor have always failed. I think largely out of ignorance of what the term actually describes. Some would blame the victim and claim that all those attempts are missed at the fault of the reader. The reader can't see them for some unknown, unusual and unevidenced reason. Or they would insist it is semantic games. Oddly while in the middle of playing what I think the evidence has easily identified as semantic games.

Biological fitness is simply the propensity of an individual or group of individuals within a population, possessing a particular genome, to reproduce in greater numbers compared to other members of that population, with varied and slightly different genomes, while existing in the same environment. It has nothing to do with moral assessment or athletic ability or personal prejudice.

Now, of course, all this will be denied or ignored, but that just tells me how much this is all on the right track.

 

[gnostic]

Well, let's see -- did Darwin ever use the term "Survival of the Fittest," if you've been following along? Perhaps we can start there and move along after that.

How about you focusing on what today’s Natural Selection ACTUALLY SAY, and not be stuck what Darwin didn’t know back then?

Survival of the fittest, isn’t explanation to the theory of evolution, Natural Selection is, especially as it has been updated to include modern taxonomy, knowledge about DNA (hence 21st century’s genetics), molecular biology, modern paleontology, and so on.

Like @cladking, you are both stuck on the 19th century, when Natural Selection have gone beyond Darwin’s original framework to NS (Natural Selection).

How about you sticking to 21st century’s biology & paleontology, and not be mired on what Darwin know or didn’t know, so that we can all move forward?

The problem with Survival of the fittest phrase, is because it is often misunderstood, misrepresented & misused by people like you (creationists) that they ignored what we do know today.

We don’t care what Darwin think about Survival of the fittest, because it is not relevant today, and hardly any modern biologists referred to “Survival of the fittest”.

 

[GoodAttention]

How a phosphate ion even met a fatty acid is beyond comprehension.

 

[gnostic]

Then you are suggesting the birds must compete with mountain goats for survival?

Now you are being disingenuous with your comparative example.

Birds are not mammals, and mammals are not birds, so why used such irrelevant and irrational arguments?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is the 21st century, and the biology, today, isn’t the same as it was, in Darwin’s day, as Darwin didn’t know of modern taxonomy, modern genetics, modern palaeontology, molecular biology, biochemistry, modern stratigraphy, and so many other fields that Darwin was unaware about. Darwin also didn’t know about the other evolutionary mechanisms

Since the evidence indicates that Darwin's defamers don't understand the science at a 19th Century level and don't show a hint of understanding of the science at a contemporary level, and poor Darwin isn't here to defend himself, beating on him seems the only path for denial.

Why are you so damn stuck in the 19th century, when Natural Selection have also been modified and updated beyond Darwin’s original framework?

It is interesting to see from the evidence who it is that is actually stuck in the 19th Century.

Natural Selection, and not the often misunderstood and misrepresented “Survival of the fittest”, is stronger today, as it now has incorporated the knowledge of modern biology, that Darwin didn’t know about?

Indeed, it is a much refined concept, the nature of that refinement and the ignorance of deniers has resulted in "beat on the dead" as the only strategy to lead the charging denial.

You are so bloody focused on what Darwin didn’t know, that you have forgotten that you in the 21st century, not the 19th century, and that you should be looking at what Natural Selection is today, not in Darwin’s days. That‘s your mistakes, not Darwin’s.

Natural selection has been demonstrated by experiments. Several prominent examples are regularly posted without any denier commentary or even acknowledgement of being posted. I believe they think there best strategy is to beat on a straw man given what they have revealed of the resources available to this position of denial.

I don’t see harping on Faraday & Maxwell for not not knowing about modern electromagnetism (Quantum Electrodynamics), which incorporated knowledge of particle physics, all of modern QUANTUM PHYSICS (eg 21st century Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, etc).

Faraday & Maxwell are the founders and geniuses, but they didn’t know anything about EM fields connections with electrons, which was only discovered after their death. How come we don’t see you complaining about their lack of knowledge about them not knowing about the electrons and other elementary particles in the Standard Model of Particle Physics? Or not knowing about the current theories of everything relating to Quantum Physics?

Brilliant! A perfect example of the pick and choose philosophy employed to promote an ideology, not by defense and demonstration of it, but by ridicule and meaningless assault on science.

When you are not looking into 21st century’s Natural Selection, that’s your oversight and your errors, not Darwin’s fault. You’re the one being anachronistic with something that Darwin wasn’t unaware of.

You keep talking about 19th century “Survival of the fittest” only demonstrated your own ignorance as to how far today’s biology has gone beyond Darwin’s original conception and observations.

it is your fault that your head is stuck in the 19th century.

I think you've revealed very well who it is that is stuck in the 19th Century.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps you could explain why you think this is at all relevant to anything. Darwin died 142 years ago.

Easy target, out of date and unable to defend himself.

Darwin's contribution was important and substantial, but we've moved on in science and deniers don't seem to have reached a 19th Century level of understanding from what I've seen.

I think that they see Darwin in religious terms as well. As if he is regarded as some sort of prophet or messiah. By attacking him they are attacking what they see as the heart of the issue. I believe it is a matter of confusion and ignorance. Darwin was an important scientist that contributed to our knowledge. No prophet, messiah or god.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is another one of the myths about Darwin typically propagated by deniers as if it had some truth or significance.

AI Overview
Learn more


No, Charles Darwin did not recant his theory of evolution on his deathbed. The story that he did is considered an urban myth and has been disputed by Darwin's family and other evolutionists.


The story of Darwin's deathbed conversion is based on a claim by Lady Hope, who claimed to have visited Darwin in 1881 and witnessed him renounce evolution. However, Darwin's family denied the story, and Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley in 1887 that the report was "false and without any kind of foundation". Darwin's autobiography, written late in his life, also fully supported evolution.


The story of Darwin's deathbed conversion has been used by proselytizers and polemicists to discredit Darwin.

Even if he had recanted, it would be meaningless. His work was sound and valid and lives on in an ever increasing understanding and accumulation of support.

Darwin didn't come down from some mountain bearing revealed truth. He engaged in observation and evidence gathering to draw a rational conclusion from the information he had available. Science.

That entire story about Lady Hope smacks of fabrication is meaningless at its heart anyway.

I am confident you know this and I'm explaining to the informed, but I think you will agree it bears mention.

 

[GoodAttention]

Even if he had recanted, it would be meaningless. His work was sound and valid and lives on in an ever increasing understanding and accumulation of support.

Darwin didn't come down from some mountain bearing revealed truth. He engaged in observation and evidence gathering to draw a rational conclusion from the information he had available. Science.

That entire story about Lady Hope smacks of fabrication is meaningless at its heart anyway.

I am confident you know this and I'm explaining to the informed, but I think you will agree it bears mention.

Still, Darwin didn’t deny the existence of God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Still, Darwin didn’t deny the existence of God.

So what. Darwin's personal beliefs in God are not the issue here.

 

[GoodAttention]

So what. Darwin's personal beliefs in God are not the issue here.

He did reveal truth nevertheless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He did reveal truth nevertheless.

No. He observed, tested, drew conclusions came up with a reasonable explanation that he published so that others could do the same.

Science isn't a means to reveal truth. How would anyone know that it is truth, unless they already knew it. And then it would need revealing would it.

 

[GoodAttention]

No. He observed, tested, drew conclusions came up with a reasonable explanation that he published so that others could do the same.

Science isn't a means to reveal truth. How would anyone know that it is truth, unless they already knew it. And then it would need revealing would it.

Science is the only means to reveal facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science is the only means to reveal facts.

I don't know that, but you can believe it if you like. An argument for another thread. Perhaps you'll start it.

 

[gnostic]

Still, Darwin didn’t deny the existence of God.

Darwin was originally Christian prior to publishing On Origin (1859).

He later became agnostic, post-1869, when his friend Thomas Henry Huxley coined Agnosticism (1869).

Agnosticism isn't about whether God exist or not, but whether it can be known or not, and God is unknowable.

What people believe or not believe, isn't really relevant to evolutionary biology.