Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

Upholding science being morally justified, even if one doesn’t understand it themselves?

Take the time to learn some science then. I recommend it.

 

[GoodAttention]

Take the time to learn some science then. I recommend it.

You don’t seem like one who practices what they preach, but I’ll ask anyway…what is the most recent science topic you have been learning about?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don’t seem like one who practices what they preach, but I’ll ask anyway…what is the most recent science topic you have been learning about?

Sorry to hear you have come to that conclusion. Perhaps there are others here that you will find more fitting to your needs.

What interests you about science and what do you know about it? I wouldn't want to overwhelm you with unfamiliar information. But then again, I have yet to see reason to see any value in going on. Especially in the middle of this busy holiday season and having to get ready for Easter.

Let's just say I don't really know much about science and I just like to stick my nose into subjects that seem controversial. How's that sound?

 

[GoodAttention]

Sorry to hear you have come to that conclusion. Perhaps there are others here that you will find more fitting to your needs.

What interests you about science and what do you know about it?

Every unanswered question interests me, and @shunyadragon has been very helpful in stimulating discussion about geology.

I wouldn't want to overwhelm you with unfamiliar information. But then again, I have yet to see reason to see any value in going on. Especially in the middle of this busy holiday season and having to get ready for Easter.

If this is a cry for help it has been noted.

Let's just say I don't really know much about science and I just like to stick my nose into subjects that seem controversial. How's that sound?

As a staff member here your work is appreciated, regardless where your nose goes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Every unanswered question interests me, and @shunyadragon has been very helpful in stimulating discussion about geology.

I'm sure he is overjoyed.

If this is a cry for help it has been noted.

Indeed. I'm floundering here unmercifully. Sorry, I'm such unworthy fodder for fight picking.

As a staff member here your work is appreciated, regardless where your nose goes.

Much appreciated. I'll save this for memoirs. It's book jacket praise that is leaving me swooning.

 

[GoodAttention]

I'm sure he is overjoyed.

I heard his grin goes from ear to ear.

Indeed. I'm floundering here unmercifully. Sorry, I'm such unworthy fodder for fight picking.

Fights pick me unfortunately, and this is worthy friendly banter!

Much appreciated. I'll save this for memoirs. It's book jacket praise that is leaving me swooning.

I’m pass it on to the appreciators.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I heard his grin goes from ear to ear.

I was certain I had felt a recent disturbance in the Force and now I know why.

Fights pick me unfortunately, and this is worthy friendly banter!

Interesting. I'm not very sharp, so I'm probably misreading things as usual.

I’m pass it on to the appreciators.

I would be ever so grateful.

 

[YoursTrue]

I agree. It doesn't seem that they do or can manifest more than straw men to beat on. I have yet to find anyone denying that Darwin incorporated Spencer's phrase into later editions of Origin of Species, for instance.

Post #3131 was in response to a reference to the term "Survival of the Fittest" by claiming that, "Darwin did not use the term and the common definition is wrong when discussing evolution but the mistake is typical of stinky footed bumpkins."
So I did some research to make sure of what was correct and find that Darwin did indeed incorporate Spencer's terminology ("Survival of the Fittest") in his subsequent writings, and that Darwin himself did not coin the term but used it later on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am quite certain that the "experts," and/or scientists that do research and publish treatises on the subject of evolution would not accept ANY of those here as their "peers." So thank you for that. I understood your usage of the term right away.

In science, peers are publishing scientists in the same field.
So if there are people here that qualify as such, they are peers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But here you are performing the same action and expecting a different result?

There have been 1000 comments a month since this thread started in August, and the original question asked is a very good one, but doubtful if answered.

There are several problems with the OP. Besides that the question is disingenuous because the asker will never understand nor accept any answer and is unwilling to learn if someone answers it the question is not even a question on evolution. It is a question on natural abiogenesis, and evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis.

 

[cladking]

The evolution of whales

evolution.berkeley.edu

Surely you don't really believe this is relevant.

Did you even read your own link?

 

[cladking]

Survival of the fittest is an incomplete description for natural selection at best,

Survival of the fittest is four words. Natural selection is two.

That's a lot of work for two fewer words. Average number of letters per word is higher but total letters is still lower.

Can't you just parse any group of words to mean exactly what you want them to mean?

Doesn't nature select the fittest and isn't every survivor a natural of selection?

When there's nothing there all that's left is semantics.

It simply doesn't matter what words anyone chooses to define the cause of speciation. It has nothing to do with either selection or fitness. It has to do with consciousness and this is the elephant in the room being ignored. Since we have no definition for "consciousness" we don't even know that it's "natural" rather than "supernatural" and we don't know what "survival" is if life is really consciousness.

And since we have no definition for natural selection it could be supernatural. Nobody knows that God didn't save the rabbit from the fox despite it having been so careless because it was an extra good God fearing rabbit.

Reality is immune to words. It is immune to models. It does not change to reflect expert opinion. Observation shows life changes suddenly at all levels. There is no support for survival of the fittest by any name at all and no name for it has ever been sufficiently defined as to have ANY PREDICTATIVE CAPABILITY WHATSOEVER.

Now the meaning of every word and attempt at communication in this post will be ignored, gainsaid, or twisted to reflect what doctrine says. An entire straw army will be dispatched to slay it. But not with bullets or facts but with semantics. Not with argument but with empty rhetoric.

 

[Pogo]

Fittest is an apt term for the Theory of Evolution at the time but oft misunderstood, and DID NOT then and now mean survival of the strongest, Today it specifically means the natural selection to survive in a changing environment over time.

But the whole point is equivocations of colloquial and scientific use of terms in service of the tiny little doubt argument and to cast aspersions on science. It is in no way an honest argument in discussion of the actual theory of evolution any more than the fact that "There is no God" is in the Bible is a serious argument that the Bible denies god's existence.

It is just another example of table pounding when you have no evidence that the theory is wrong and even less for any alternative explanation except that you believe in magic.

 

[Pogo]

Post #3131 was in response to a reference to the term "Survival of the Fittest" by claiming that, "Darwin did not use the term and the common definition is wrong when discussing evolution but the mistake is typical of stinky footed bumpkins."
So I did some research to make sure of what was correct and find that Darwin did indeed incorporate Spencer's terminology ("Survival of the Fittest") in his subsequent writings, and that Darwin himself did not coin the term but used it later on.

Brain fart, should have been "did not use the term in the derogatory sense you are implying but as a popular colloquial acceptance of it as popularized by spencer". OOPs, still a pathetic waste of time in your attempts to deny evolution by presenting only strawman versions of it.

 

[wellwisher]

Not meaningful.

Darwin simply proposed the natural Theory of evolution based on the limited scientific evidence at the time, HE acknowledge that the the evidence was limited and more discoveries and research was needed, He did not consider anything he proposed as "truthful;'

Likewise the scientist who research the sciences of evolution as "truthful," As ith Darwin they consider it the evolving and changing knowledge of science.

What objective evidence could determine something is "truth or truthful."?

One path we know, that does not work, in terms of truth, is statistical science. This type of science, by its own nature, is full of margins of error, and therefore cannot be fully true due to compounding mistakes. You cannot make pure white paint by adding any black; black boxes and margin of error. You get gray or partial truth, at best. Without truth you cannot make accurate predictions and you will get stuck at empirical, which is not truth, but an irrational form of partial truth.

Let me show you how truth in science works, untainted by any margin of error. If we took a cell and removed the water, nothing will work; 100% white. This is not ruled by dice but cause and effect. If we added any other solvent, besides water, nothing works and there is still no life. If we clean out the solvents and add water everything works and life is restored. This is on or off, or odds of 1 and 0, avoiding the black paint of statistics, in the middle, that does allow for pure truth. Truth does not need or use statistics.

This is why casino science has to depend on prestige; emotional manipulation similar to liberalism.

Statistics is a tool, that exists beyond materialism. It is a product of the mind. You appear to be trying to make the naturalism of life in the form of that tool. You let the tool think for you and put aside your reason; black box. Natural material consciousness; instinct, seeks tangible reality for selective advantages, while that tool gives you fuzzy dice leading to delusions. The, off and on, nature of water and life, is not fuzzy dice but is white reality. Try to falsify! Statistical is pure falsification, due to the added black box. Show me a statistical result that is 100% fool proof. You cannot, thereby allowing room for fools.

I believe in evolution, but a version that is based on pure truth; 1 or 0, which is a partnership of water and organics, with water leading based on hydrogen bonding, the liquid state physics of water and entropy increase. That is all the physics you need.

 

[shunyadragon]

If it were hogwash someone would have proved me wrong by simply citing the experiment. You know, the one that showed walking whales slowly turning into swimming ones.

This. of course, reflects your intentional ignorance of science based on an ancient personally created mythical Egyptian agenda not much different from the fundamentalist Christians except you believe in many Gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

One path we know, that does not work, in terms of truth, is statistical science. This type of science, by its own nature, is full of margins of error, and therefore cannot be fully true due to compounding mistakes. You cannot make pure white paint by adding any black; black boxes and margin of error. You get gray or partial truth, at best. Without truth you cannot make accurate predictions and you will get stuck at empirical, which is not truth, but an irrational form of partial truth.

Let me show you how truth in science works, untainted by any margin of error. If we took a cell and removed the water, nothing will work; 100% white. This is not ruled by dice but cause and effect. If we added any other solvent, besides water, nothing works and there is still no life. If we clean out the solvents and add water everything works and life is restored. This is on or off, or odds of 1 and 0, avoiding the black paint of statistics, in the middle, that does allow for pure truth. Truth does not need or use statistics.

This is why casino science has to depend on prestige; emotional manipulation similar to liberalism.

Statistics is a tool, that exists beyond materialism. It is a product of the mind. You appear to be trying to make the naturalism of life in the form of that tool. You let the tool think for you and put aside your reason; black box. Natural material consciousness; instinct, seeks tangible reality for selective advantages, while that tool gives you fuzzy dice leading to delusions. The, off and on, nature of water and life, is not fuzzy dice but is white reality. Try to falsify! Statistical is pure falsification, due to the added black box. Show me a statistical result that is 100% fool proof. You cannot, thereby allowing room for fools.

I believe in evolution, but a version that is based on pure truth; 1 or 0, which is a partnership of water and organics, with water leading based on hydrogen bonding, the liquid state physics of water and entropy increase. That is all the physics you need.

Terrible lack of understanding of the use of statistics in science, The above is terribly confusing and meaningless rambling basically incomprehensible in terms of how science works, The purpose of statistics is to test the reliability of experimental results of individual experiments in ALL of science, We would not have any of the technology we have today without testing the results of experiments,

The validity of the sciences of evolution is not based on statistics. It is based on the physical objective verifiable evidence and predictability of the evidence based on Methodological Naturalism,

Statistical relevance—relevant statistics, part I - PMC

As part of a new EMBO Journal statistics series, this commentary introduces key concepts in statistical analysis and discusses best practices in study design.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Statistical analysis is an important tool in experimental research and is essential for the reliable interpretation of experimental results. It is essential that statistical design should be considered at the very beginning of a research project, not merely as an afterthought. For example if the sample size for an experiment only allows for an underpowered statistical analysis, then the interpretation of the experiment will have to be limited. An experiment cannot be reverse engineered to become more statically significant, although experiments can of course be repeated independently to account for biological variation (see section on technical versus biological replicates below). Statistical methods are tools applied to situations in which we encounter variability, noise and uncertainty. They help make more definitive scientific conclusions, and to make better use of available resources.

 

[shunyadragon]

If certain ones here make claims and then go on to foster errors, why believe anything they say? So--since @Pogo said that Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest" and has been shown where Darwin DID use it (the 5th edition of his book about Origins) why would someone continue to pronounce or justify the error, among other things. Why believe ANYONE like that about their opinions?

Rambling incoherent nonsense.

 

[shunyadragon]

Another thread?

I’m only curious what you consider truth or fact, since you haven’t acknowledged science to be either.

It is true science is neither. Science is the evolving verifiable and predictable knowledge of the nature of our physical existence. Truth is the illusive unverifiable subjective claims of many variable conflicting claims of 'belie.' in religions.

Fact is best used to describe individual verifiable pieces of evidence used by science as evidence.

 

[Димитар]

Especially in the middle of this busy holiday season and having to get ready for Easter.

You meant Christmas , right ?