Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

Nobody can explain how life came about.

No one has. That is much different than no one can. Your claim assumes that you have a much greater knowledge than, not only the scientific community, but the whole of mankind.

Certainly they can show that chemicals can come together in unique ways that might lead to life and hence have a possible answer but there are numerous flaws in such thinking.

And you, of course, cannot name even one of the alleged flaws or show how it is a flaw.

Chief among them is the improbability of genes evolving and the total inability to even define "consciousness" which at least many species mustta been blessed with. Assuming mind arises from brain is no more relevant to true science than assuming species arise from the most fit or assuming you don't need to understand individuality or behavior to understand how species change over time.

And of course you didn't, since none of this rambling ode to consciousness represents nothing known to be required for life to arise. Or was this an example of flaws?

Real life, real consciousness, and real change in species is millions of orders of magnitude more complex that any biologist can even imagine. In their haste to find answers they simply made assumptions and proved those.

So your reason is a big argument from ignorance. It's too complicated. Perhaps for you, but that doesn't mean for everyone.

This isn't to say life couldn't have arisen through natural processes merely that there is no evidence it did and the actual evidence suggests other means; namely that life is far too complex to arise (or have arisen) naturally and instead comes from other sources. You can't have nice clean primordial soup because it will be contaminated with life eating its constituents and excreting in it.

Now you are saying life could arise through natural processes. Which is it?

What other means do you believe are suggested by the evidence that you seem to have said in the past doesn't even exist.

The metaphor of primordial soup isn't as a substrate for existing life. It is the idea of a natural chemical "soup" interacting in ways that eventually lead to the first living thing. You've completely misunderstood the metaphor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Each of these species eating the soup will then "evolve" in "predictable" ways dependent on their specific genes, their food sources, and their interactions with other life. Their complex genes are complex because their ancestors date back so far into the past.

This doesn't make any sense. Life is thought have arisen through natural chemical processes often described metaphorically as "primordial soup".

Each individual strives to survive and prosper and are equally fit because of their genes which were passed down through countless eons.

Fitness varies and differences in fitness are not a judgement of the quality of the individuals due to any demonstrated fitness differences.

We know almost nothing about anything at all.

Some people clearly seem to know more than others.

It seems like we do.

For those educated individuals that rely on evidence and rational explanations.

Reductionistic science generates exploding numbers of specialties.

So what. Completely irrelevant. It's just a mantra from what I've seen. It seems to be repeated to scare away things that go bump in the night.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Let me go back for a moment to fish. It is said that fish evolved to become mammals and believers in evolution will give the sequence. But frankly it doesn't make sense any more to me. Do scientists know or estimate how many fish evolved from that state to become land dwellers?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Death is sudden.

An individual with cancer can reproduce.

Cancer normally kills within five years. This is sudden.


?

So according to you, sudden means nanoseconds, 5 years or several generations. You've rendered the word "sudden" useless with your secret personal definition that extends the meaning sudden well beyond its intent or usefulness. By your stretchy definition, claiming something is sudden becomes meaningless and useless and tells us nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then you must agree with me!



NO!!!!
Every single individual is different. There are no two individuals alike. What is good for one kills another. Different things are good and bad for every single individual. There is no "species" with more or less fit individuals. There are only individuals.

You are describing biological fitness. More or less.

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

No it doesn't. It isn't an assumption. It is a demonstrated fact. If you were at all familiar with the science, you should recognize that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

No idea what you are saying here. I wonder if you know.

That no two members of a species are identical is the basis for determining fitness.

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.

It is a question meaningless to the discussion.

EVERY SINGLE HUMAN EVER BORN is a product of his time and place.

And genetics. Some of them were more fit for the environment they were born into and others less. Some didn't survive to reproduce at all.

And this includes the language he speaks. Just like all life we are distinct.

Again a meaningless statement in relation to the question. Language changes over time an English speaker of today does not give birth to a child speaking English of 500 years ago. The change in language over time is a great model for explaining biological evolution.

There is no "gradual change" over millions of years.

All the evidence says that there is.

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.

So now there is change over time, but it is random. And here is where you adjusted your definition of sudden to include an ever larger span of time.

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.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

No idea what you are saying here. I wonder if you know.

That no two members of a species are identical is the basis for determining fitness.

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.

It is a question meaningless to the discussion.

EVERY SINGLE HUMAN EVER BORN is a product of his time and place.

And genetics. Some of them were more fit for the environment they were born into and others less. Some didn't survive to reproduce at all.

And this includes the language he speaks. Just like all life we are distinct.

Again a meaningless statement in relation to the question. Language changes over time an English speaker of today does not give birth to a child speaking English of 500 years ago. The change in language over time is a great model for explaining biological evolution.

There is no "gradual change" over millions of years.

All the evidence says that there is.

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.

So now there is change over time, but it is random. And here is where you adjusted your definition of sudden to include an ever larger span of time.

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.

The offspring of a species are the same species as their parents. The evidence supports the gradual change and speciation (evolution) over time, but it isn't between generations.

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

Which you have established tells us nothing. The only thing that seems to come by destroying the utility of the word seems to be in allowing you to claim it and seem to know something. I'm beginning to think that includes a lot of what you post and the seeming semantic games that are used in those posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Address what I said!

Everyone does.

 

[YoursTrue]

This doesn't make any sense. Life is thought have arisen through natural chemical processes often described metaphorically as "primordial soup".

Fitness varies and differences in fitness are not a judgement of the quality of the individuals due to any demonstrated fitness differences.

Some people clearly seem to know more than others.

For those educated individuals that rely on evidence and rational explanations.

So what. Completely irrelevant. It's just a mantra from what I've seen. It seems to be repeated to scare away things that go bump in the night.

As I have said, while scientists may believe fossils explain or fit into the theory of evolution, there were are still are no video cameras showing the small changes in any organism leading to what happened insofar as the theory goes as fish developing legs and then breathing air and crawling on land as absolute air breathers. No certainty of anything happening like that now to fish, is there? Or apes, is there? Yes, so far as it can be seen, birds remain birds, fish remain fish right now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

There is no speices callied agriculture. Agriculture is the practice of farming.

No! Little mutations like this are just nature playing games like a cat with a mouse.

I can get nothing useful from this statement. Those mutations can vary in size from single point changes up to whole duplication. A single change can make a big impact. Nothing little about them.

It's makes "species" more diverse and robust.

So you do consider species to be real. You can't have it both ways. The exist as the evidence demonstrates or they don't as you should demonstrate but do not.

Things that change species are major differences whether caused by behavior at bottlenecks or by mutation. There is no Evolution except in peoples' minds.

Bottlenecks are not speciation events. And little changes that enter a population can result in speciation. The evidence exists. Denying it or not understanding it won't make it go away.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. There is no means to show Evolution as a "very, very, v-e-r-y slow" change caused by survival of the fittest.

It has been done. Many people have posted the evidence and reports.

We can have no experiment to show it but Darwin et all believe it anyway because this is how they interpret the "fossil record'.

We have experiments that show it.

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.

Evolution is a theory that you seem to know very little about. Perhaps you should focus on pyramids and leave biology to those that understand it. There aren't that many people around here that seem knowledgeable of pyramids and might not recognize when some alleged fact about them is revealed to the seemingly considered, stinky-footed, ignorant masses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

What do you claim are better explanations for whale evolution that is demonstrated by the fossil evidence among other evidences. I seen none listed here. Should I expect to see that list and explanation anytime soon? Suddenly?

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

Natural selection and fitness have demonstrated by observation and experiment. I should probably post some of those reports, but you have demonstrated sufficiently to me that you will ignore them. You have so far.

 

[gnostic]

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'.

It is change caused by “Natural Selection”, not by “survival of the fittest”.

As I have stated before the evolutionary mechanism is “Natural Selection”, not “survival of the fittest”.

Plus, it was Hebert Spencer who coined the term “survival of the fittest” for his social economic theory, originally. Spencer would later used this mantra on Darwin’s NS.

Second, while Darwin did work on fossils, most of his work were on observations of living & extant species, not fossils, and his real specialty were those of plants.

You are also ignoring life form that are not “conscious”, such as those plants, fungi, archaea & bacteria. Only animals exhibited consciousness, and evolutionary biology, included non-conscious living or extinct organisms, hence all non-animal organisms.

 

[YoursTrue]

No idea what you are saying here. I wonder if you know.

That no two members of a species are identical is the basis for determining fitness.

It is a question meaningless to the discussion.

And genetics. Some of them were more fit for the environment they were born into and others less. Some didn't survive to reproduce at all.

Again a meaningless statement in relation to the question. Language changes over time an English speaker of today does not give birth to a child speaking English of 500 years ago. The change in language over time is a great model for explaining biological evolution.

All the evidence says that there is.

So now there is change over time, but it is random. And here is where you adjusted your definition of sudden to include an ever larger span of time.

The offspring of a species are the same species as their parents. The evidence supports the gradual change and speciation (evolution) over time, but it isn't between generations.

Which you have established tells us nothing. The only thing that seems to come by destroying the utility of the word seems to be in allowing you to claim it and seem to know something. I'm beginning to think that includes a lot of what you post and the seeming semantic games that are used in those posts.

Oh, now you got me wondering about caterpillars. And butterflies. Some moths are very pretty. Fish have eggs. So far what is there to see that fish are evolving?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

This is just a rambling attempt that seems intent to falsely associate fitness with moral and personal values.

You don't know how consciousness evolved, but you know that it wasn't the straw man that you posted. Good.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I have said, while scientists may believe fossils explain or fit into the theory of evolution, there were are still are no video cameras showing the small changes in any organism leading to what happened insofar as the theory goes as fish developing legs and then breathing air and crawling on land as absolute air breathers. No certainty of anything happening like that now to fish, is there? Or apes, is there? Yes, so far as it can be seen, birds remain birds, fish remain fish right now.

That's fine. Believe whatever you want. It doesn't refute theory or offer any alternative explanation that surpasses what we have learned so far.

Of course no videos. That is a rational objection. No painting either. No newspaper articles in a million year long series of exposes highlighting evolutionary change.

You've nailed it. Fish reproduce fish.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let me go back for a moment to fish. It is said that fish evolved to become mammals and believers in evolution will give the sequence. But frankly it doesn't make sense any more to me. Do scientists know or estimate how many fish evolved from that state to become land dwellers?

If a person is this so called "believer" in evolution, then being a believer is a bad thing. Right? You don't paint a very appealing view of believing in something the way you put it.

You've done it again. You've refuted evolution, because no one has an accurate count of the population size of fish that are ancestral to land animals.

I guess you must be done here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, now you got me wondering about caterpillars. And butterflies. Some moths are very pretty. Fish have eggs. So far what is there to see that fish are evolving?

I'm done. You have a great rest of your day. I'm not following you down another rabbit hole if you don't mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

...Of course no videos. That is a rational objection. No painting either. No newspaper articles in a million year long series of exposes highlighting evolutionary change.

You've nailed it. Fish reproduce fish.

Nothing new I guess among the current fish population showing observers they're moving maybe to land.

 

[YoursTrue]

If a person is this so called "believer" in evolution, then being a believer is a bad thing. Right? You don't paint a very appealing view of believing in something the way you put it.

You've done it again. You've refuted evolution, because no one has an accurate count of the population size of fish that are ancestral to land animals.

I guess you must be done here.

lol, you have a pretty good sense of humor. Thanks. And thank you for understanding what I'm saying...yes, bye for now maybe.