Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

I know this, since I have been involved these discussions since arriving here, but a careful search reveals numerous threads where those informed of the facts acknowledge that Darwin incorporated Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest" in later editions of his work. Perhaps in an attempt to make it more understandable to the lay public. I don't know. But the point is that it is no longer considered useful and a good description of natural selection. It was an imperfect description and is out of date and essentially archaic. This has been routinely demonstrated to deniers and denied just as often. It is incorrect to claim that inclusion by Darwin has been denied. It hasn't been. It has been acknowledged from the beginning. To claim otherwise is a straw man and trash talk in my view.

Oddly, I found no evidence in the way of numerous links demonstrating that the phrase still stands or has any meaning today. One link to the use of the phrase in later additions of On the Origin of Species, but that hardly rises to the claims of incredible rigor and was known and not some shocking revelation that shook science support to the ground.

Just more smoke and mirrors to give the appearance that science deniers have some level of soundness to their denial I suppose. When you can search for evidence and find it in these threads, those empty claims don't hold up.

 

[GoodAttention]

I acknowledge the evidence of many polls every year in recent history, stated beliefs of churches, and their leaders, and the intentional ignorance of science over the past hundreds of years, The conclusions of the research by @F1fan are in agreement with the pols

Is that person a close friend?

You are willing to ignore my reasonable request of sample size so that you can defend a conclusion that didn’t need his “experiment” anyway?

So now we can make up experiments and pretend to have data that matches the answers we already have?

Even science has a sales department it seems…but fraud is fraud

 

[shunyadragon]

So how do you figure beavers learned to make dams? And bees make beehives? Do you or scientists know?

Yes they evolved. Your intentional ignorance of science is profound.

 

[YoursTrue]

What I find amazing is it took three years of links and repeating that Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" to get the believers to acknowledge the simple fact he did and now they turn it around as evidence we're ignorant. At least when I suggested beavers ate fish and swamp denizens I admitted the error immediately.

I'm glad I looked it up because I associated the phrase "survival of the fittest" as the term that Darwin originated, but he did not, yet used it approvingly later on. Until you said what you did to Pogo, I would have just accepted that it was a phrase Darwin coined. But now I know that he did not originate the phrase but used it in a way he acknowledged as proper after Herbert Spencer used it to describe what he also believed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes they evolved. Your intentional ignorance of science is profound.

They "evolved" to build dams and nests and beehives? Any substantiation to that viewpoint?

 

[cladking]

I've seen hundreds, perhaps thousands of claims regarding things not in evidence--ancient science, ancient language and so on--and they remain not in evidence. And that isn't because the evidence is invisible or we must be emperors to see it. It is because claims are not evidence for what is claimed and rambling nonsense is not evidence for what is claimed.

I could easily write a 1000 word essay with citations of actual Ancient Language, physical evidence, and logic to show how I predicted the hot spots and where they would be in G1. The citations span centuries of writing and include writings that would eventually be in the Bible and proliferate to this day. They include the very definitions of gods as understood by the authors of the "book of the dead" and the literal meanings of words from the Pyramid Texts. Why should I bother. Nobody would read it or even attempt to understand the logic. This is exactly the strategy I once used and found ineffective. Now I write the essays in posts anyone can understand with no real effort. Then they can see how people simply ignore simple concepts like the invention of agriculture how a speciation event would erase our history.

It at least makes people think "maybe science doesn't know everything after all". While I was campaigning to get my theory proven by showing my predicted hot spots Egyptologists were screaming that infrared could not possibly show anything because they already knew it was done with ramps that couldn't show up!!! While I'm talking about agriculture being the imposition of artificial bottlenecks most will know exactly what I mean. When I describe how ancient people could easily observe the effects of bottlenecks it has a ring of authenticity unlike "survival of the fittest" which can't be predicted and therefore has no real meaning. Anyone can understand a simple idea like all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden. Not even a mutation takes thousands of years to be born or lingers in death for millions of years.

Darwin was wrong and led science down a garden path. It was ever so easy to believe the pyramid builders were stinky footed bumpkins when Ancient Language was finally discovered and misinterpreted in 1883.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes they evolved. Your intentional ignorance of science is profound.

You say it's intentional ignorance. Do you have evidence that they evolved to figure how to build nests, dams and the like?

 

[cladking]

They "evolved" to build dams and nests and beehives? Any substantiation to that viewpoint?

Of course not.

The behavior is hardwired into every individual but an individual had to be first and more individuals had to make improvements over the eons.

People believe in instinct so they can't see "intelligence" and consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is that person a close friend?

You are willing to ignore my reasonable request of sample size so that you can defend a conclusion that didn’t need his “experiment” anyway?

I made it clear I am not relying on his research for my conclusions. I simply concluded that is compatible with the overwhelming evidence.

So now we can make up experiments and pretend to have data that matches the answers we already have?

NO! I do not base my conclusions on his research.

Even science has a sales department it seems…but fraud is fraud.

Statements like this gets you deeper and deeper into the intentional ignorance of an ancient tribal agenda without provenance,

Needs an explanation. What do you consider fraud?!?!?!!? Scientists are poor salespersons. They simply do science and publish. There is no sales budget in science. Minsters often rack in far more than scientists,

Your accusations of fraud are based on ancient tribal religious beliefs without provenance, I anything churches and organizations like the Discovery Institute rely on their sales staff to appeal to religious beliefs without provenance,

 

[shunyadragon]

You say it's intentional ignorance. Do you have evidence that they evolved to figure how to build nests, dams and the like?

You stoically intentionally ignore and reject all references supporting the sciences of evolution based on an ancient religious agenda in the entire history of your posts in this thread. Enough is enough.

 

[GoodAttention]

I made it clear I am not relying on his research for my conclusions. I simply concluded that is compatible with the overwhelming evidence.

NO! I do not base my conclusions on his research.

Statements like this gets you deeper and deeper into the intentional ignorance of an ancient tribal agenda without provenance,

Needs an explanation. What do you consider fraud?!?!?!!? Scientists are poor salespersons. They simply do science and publish. There is no sales budget in science. Minsters often rack in far more than scientists,

Your accusations of fraud are based on ancient tribal religious beliefs without provenance, I anything churches and organizations like the Discovery Institute rely on their sales staff to appeal to religious beliefs without provenance,

Read comment #3272 and tell me how I’m wrong?

 

[YoursTrue]

I could easily write a 1000 word essay with citations of actual Ancient Language, physical evidence, and logic to show how I predicted the hot spots and where they would be in G1. The citations span centuries of writing and include writings that would eventually be in the Bible and proliferate to this day. They include the very definitions of gods as understood by the authors of the "book of the dead" and the literal meanings of words from the Pyramid Texts. Why should I bother. Nobody would read it or even attempt to understand the logic. This is exactly the strategy I once used and found ineffective. Now I write the essays in posts anyone can understand with no real effort. Then they can see how people simply ignore simple concepts like the invention of agriculture how a speciation event would erase our history.

It at least makes people think "maybe science doesn't know everything after all". While I was campaigning to get my theory proven by showing my predicted hot spots Egyptologists were screaming that infrared could not possibly show anything because they already knew it was done with ramps that couldn't show up!!! While I'm talking about agriculture being the imposition of artificial bottlenecks most will know exactly what I mean. When I describe how ancient people could easily observe the effects of bottlenecks it has a ring of authenticity unlike "survival of the fittest" which can't be predicted and therefore has no real meaning. Anyone can understand a simple idea like all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden. Not even a mutation takes thousands of years to be born or lingers in death for millions of years.

Darwin was wrong and led science down a garden path. It was ever so easy to believe the pyramid builders were stinky footed bumpkins when Ancient Language was finally discovered and misinterpreted in 1883.

The account about Darwin recanting on his deathbed was said here by Pogo. As if it really happened. Kind of like fish becoming humans that many believe. Yet that idea that Darwin recanted his belief has not been substantiated beyond the report of Lady Hope, who claims she was there. Darwin's relatives rejected the account told by this woman. Although it did go further than that. Kind of sad about what's accepted as true or not. Given the propensity at the time of religion back then as well as in some religions now, promoting the idea that some would be tortured in some place called hell is a sad thing. So -- Darwin did use and agree with the term which he did not invent, "Survival of the Fittest," and there is nothing but an unsubstantiated report by Lady Hope to say he recanted on his deathbed, yet these ideas will float around. I'm glad you mentioned it about survival of the fittest, so I learned more about that. Thanks!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I have found amusing in my search of "survival of the fittest" is that there exists one repeating element by those supporting science denial. And that is that they describe fitness and consider that factual, but just don't call it fitness. As if acknowledging a recognized word in science somehow is too revealing of their flawed position. Or perhaps it is just that they do not care to listen to anybody and don't understand what fitness is despite having the definition of fitness explained regularly, ad nauseum.

I've seen similar efforts from Kent Hovind regarding evolution. Just rename it adaptation and you can accept it without further adieu. As long as it is not stinky, nasty evolution. I believe the semantic games are afoot Watson.

 

[YoursTrue]

You stoically intentionally ignore and reject all references supporting the sciences of evolution based on an ancient religious agenda in the entire history of your posts in this thread. Enough is enough.

Do you believe Darwin initiated the term "Survival of the Fittest" or do you agree that Herbert Spencer coined it and Darwin liked it and used it in an approving way after that?

 

[YoursTrue]

What I have found amusing in my search of "survival of the fittest" is that there exists one repeating element by those supporting science denial. And that is that they describe fitness and consider that factual, but just don't call it fitness. As if acknowledging a recognized word somehow is too revealing to their flawed position. Or perhaps it is just that they do not care to listen to anybody and don't understand what fitness is despite having explained regularly, ad nauseum.

I've seen similar efforts from Kent Hovind regarding evolution. Just rename it adaptation and you can accept it without further adieu. As long as it is not stinky, nasty evolution. I believe the semantic games are afoot Watson.

The situation is that Darwin did not initiate (or coin) the term "Survival of the Fittest," yet used it later in an approving manner. Glad to have researched that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you believe Darwin initiated the term "Survival of the Fittest" or do you agree that Herbert Spencer coined it and Darwin liked it and used it in an approving way after that?

Unfortunately creationists have no understanding of what the term "fittest" means in that context.

 

[YoursTrue]

Read comment #3272 and tell me how I’m wrong?

Because I like to make sure of things, I looked for post 3272 and see it has been possibly removed?

 

[F1fan]

I acknowledge the evidence of many polls every year in recent history, stated beliefs of churches, and their leaders, and the intentional ignorance of science over the past hundreds of years, The conclusions of the research by @F1fan are in agreement with the pols and the statements of the beliefs of the leaders and organizations like the Discovery Institute widely funded and supported in the USA by churches and Christians.

I acknowledge the basis of the rejection of the sciences based on the claims of accuracy and historicity of the Pentateuch in Christianity and Islam.

It is interesting that in contemporary Judaism dominated by Reform Judaism the Pentateuch is no longer considered factually or historically accurate and it is their books in their language, This view of science in Judaism evolved through the large Jewish scientific community in the 19th and 20th century like Einstein.

It's interesting that evangelical Christians interpret Genesis literally while Jews do not, and its their book. There's an arrogance among such Christians that they know what the stories mean better than the tradition that wrote it. It's a further shame that science demonstrates that a literalist interpretation is factually incorrect.

 

[YoursTrue]

Unfortunately creationists have no understanding of what the term "fittest" means in that context.

You really did not, would not, answer the question. But I am glad I researched it. Darwin did not initiate the term "survival of the fittest," but did use it later on as an apt term for his theory.

 

[F1fan]

So how do you figure beavers learned to make dams? And bees make beehives? Do you or scientists know?

If you think beavers were taught to make dams by someone, and bees how to make beehives, why didn't this "someone" put an end to cancers? If life is so sacred why do cancers exist in your creator's world? Let's note cancer kills hundreds of children every year. It would be more but science has created treatments to save these kids.