Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[McBell]

Interestingly enough there was a scientific study recently with internal camera of sort revealing how eels escaped from the stomach of a fish. Fabulous scientific study with truly fascinating findings. (Nothing about natural selection, though. But it's an idea -- scientists might figure how to attach a camera to a population of whatever's and as generations go by, if you think the human "civilization" (I use the word civilization reservedly) will last long enough to keep track -- you know like maybe millions of years, well maybe after that long enough while, or who knows, maybe shorter while, some new "species" will evolve...or not evolve.

Here is the claim you forgot to support:

No fossil found exemplifies the theory of natural selection.

Still waiting.
I mean, you would not make such a bold claim without being able to support it, right?

 

[blü 2]

And where does here say that God demands sacrifice?

Ah, I see ─ dyslexia's your problem.

 

[blü 2]

Wanna see a miracle? Look around, and not with just your eyes.

Unfortunately I'm not so good at actually perceiving the world external to me without using my senses. But yes, I'd be interested to see a miracle ─ which is magic when performed by a god. (Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality.)

But looking around, all I see is the world external to me, and it all seems to accord with what we know of physics and of biology, as I'd expect.

What specifically did you have in mind?

 

[cladking]

You are defining it that way in some semantic summersault. But it is not defined that way in biology. Fitness doesn't cause speciation. Fitness is a measure of the reproductive success of a phenotype or genotype. It is selected by environmental conditions. Do you have any secrete definitions for other words. Just asking so we can skip what you claim about those too.

I don't believe in fitness. Sure you can ask if Janice is fit for the big game Monday or if Bob will fit through the door but no such thing as "fitness" exists in change in species. Janice might not be fit for the game but is fit to to trigonometry. Individual differences matter but consciousness and its individual differences are important in speciation.

 

[cladking]

There is a basic scientific method, but specific methodology within that framework varies with the discipline. You don't run physics experiments in ecology study.

There is no standardized scientific method in and field of science.

There is always danger from those that claim to know everything and don't really know much.

You're preaching to the choir now.

And yet, you claim he is all wrong. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

SURE I can. I reach no conclusions so I can just stop at "I believe there is a two in three chance that Darwin is "completely" wrong.

Random statements tell us nothing. Consciousness matters in what context. It isn't a requirement for evolution for instance and seems to be the product of evolution.

Darwin ignored consciousness because he assumed it was irrelevant and he believed only humans possessed it. This was his first mistake among a great number of errors as i have pointed out many times.

These threads do have me thinking about the first life. I had always assumed biogenesis was exceedingly rare in the cosmos but life pervasive because it blew around on the cosmic wind. I assumed it was likely that biology was likely about right that it arose spontaneously. But now I'm having some doubts about the ability of comp[lex chemicals destined to "evolve" into life being able to maintain their integrity and feed without consciousness. Apparently they'd also need to reproduce without consciousness. I suppose there isn't much consciousness in simple organisms anyway and just as a slime mold can hold its memory outside of itself perhaps complex chemicals can have a consciousness through their effect on reality. Life is virtually a force of its own but this requires more thought.

Reality is infinitely complex but consciousness is infinite orders of magnitude more complex yet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't believe in fitness.

I know. You don't understand it. Don't seem to want to understand it.

Sure you can ask if Janice is fit for the big game Monday or if Bob will fit through the door but no such thing as "fitness" exists in change in species.

Because you don't understand. That is not what biological fitness means. I've already explained this many times. Others have explained many times. You don't seem to listen to anyone and seem to rely solely on what you imagine without basis.

Janice might not be fit for the game but is fit to to trigonometry.

Different traits can provide a fitness advantage and be propagated through a population. You seem to think that the expression of a specific affinity is the trait, but the trait might be some feature that promotes intelligence generally and not specific interest in trigonometry.

Individual differences matter but consciousness and its individual differences are important in speciation.

So you declare as if omniscient. There is no evidence of this and none that you ever offer. All I can see is that you have come to an erroneous conclusion based on flawed personal beliefs that you have elevated to fact, because you want to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no standardized scientific method in and field of science.

There is a basic methodology that is modified to particular study.

It is in no way the method you seem to use of wild, empty assertion elevated to fact without effort or reason.

You're preaching to the choir now.

No. I'm talking to someone that seems to feel they know everything. There is no other way to interpret your empty assertions offered as fact. I specifically had you in mind when I was formulating my statement.

SURE I can. I reach no conclusions so I can just stop at "I believe there is a two in three chance that Darwin is "completely" wrong.

No you cannot. You didn't even do that. You have consistently declared Darwin is wrong with no ambiguity or room for any other possibility. Also, implying that you are "ALL RIGHT".

Darwin ignored consciousness because he assumed it was irrelevant and he believed only humans possessed it.

It isn't a necessary consideration in going from the observation of change to a theory that explains the phenomenon. You have never established that recognition of it is necessary and given how little you actually seem to know, it would be something of a miracle if you did by accident.

This was his first mistake among a great number of errors as i have pointed out many times.

So Darwin was all wrong as you have stated many times. So much for the offer of meaningless odds.

These threads do have me thinking about the first life.

I'm sure you have many declarations and truth of special knowledge to reveal to us masses on the subject.

I had always assumed biogenesis was exceedingly rare in the cosmos but life pervasive because it blew around on the cosmic wind. I assumed it was likely that biology was likely about right that it arose spontaneously. But now I'm having some doubts about the ability of comp[lex chemicals destined to "evolve" into life being able to maintain their integrity and feed without consciousness. Apparently they'd also need to reproduce without consciousness. I suppose there isn't much consciousness in simple organisms anyway and just as a slime mold can hold its memory outside of itself perhaps complex chemicals can have a consciousness through their effect on reality. Life is virtually a force of its own but this requires more thought.

I'm sure that the scientific community is trembling to know more of your thoughts on these things and cannot wait until you elevate them to facts with no basis for doing so.

Reality is infinitely complex but consciousness is infinite orders of magnitude more complex yet.

I have no idea what this supposed to mean and hypothesize that you don't either since you cannot articulate it in some understandable and coherent form.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no standardized scientific method in and field of science.



You're preaching to the choir now.



SURE I can. I reach no conclusions so I can just stop at "I believe there is a two in three chance that Darwin is "completely" wrong.



Darwin ignored consciousness because he assumed it was irrelevant and he believed only humans possessed it. This was his first mistake among a great number of errors as i have pointed out many times.

These threads do have me thinking about the first life. I had always assumed biogenesis was exceedingly rare in the cosmos but life pervasive because it blew around on the cosmic wind. I assumed it was likely that biology was likely about right that it arose spontaneously. But now I'm having some doubts about the ability of comp[lex chemicals destined to "evolve" into life being able to maintain their integrity and feed without consciousness. Apparently they'd also need to reproduce without consciousness. I suppose there isn't much consciousness in simple organisms anyway and just as a slime mold can hold its memory outside of itself perhaps complex chemicals can have a consciousness through their effect on reality. Life is virtually a force of its own but this requires more thought.

Reality is infinitely complex but consciousness is infinite orders of magnitude more complex yet.

Darwin observed the evidence. He didn't need to consider consciousness anymore than he needed to consider metallurgy in formulating hypotheses and theories and discovering mechanisms for biological change.

That you developed some poorly understood notion about consciousness that you have since elevated to fact still doesn't mean it is required to come to a theory of biological evolution.

Isaac Asimov novels are great, but the fictional stories are not a sound basis for theory.

 

[cladking]

Darwin and his believers just paper over any proper definition for fitness. It sounds logical so why define it? Obviously if a fox is chasing two rabbits it will catch the slower so long as they run together. If one trips then clumsiness is bred out of the species. If one hits a soft patch and is slowed then better eyesight is bred into the species. If one is darker and easier to see then this gets bred out. I could go on and on but obviously this is all absurd. It is equally absurd to postulate that Darwin can induce the existence of fitness from drawing of finches and the fossil record.

People picture life as a big pressure cooker where the fit claw their way to the top like a Sumo Wrestler. They see life as competition to be biggest, strongest, best fed, and having the ability to toss others off of life's dohyo. This is the picture painted by a belief in "fitness". But the reality is very different. Rabbits don't run together. Foxes won't even chase a rabbit unless it gets a good jump on it. Lions don't seek out the least fit from a herd to eat nor do they chase the whole herd to find which is slowest or least fit. Rather they observe the individuals until they see one close to the edge that looks old, young, sick, or weak. These characteristics are not innate to any animal because every animal is young, gets, sick, and gets old. Herds contain the "unfit" but no individual is inherently less fit than any other. If there were such a thing as the most fit gazelle it was just as likely to be eaten by a lion when it was young as any other.

Darwin sold us a bill of goods because being a 19th century Britisher and a scientist made him one of the most fit human beings of all time. he wanted to believe and survival of the fittest sounds good. It would help any cognitive dissonance he might have about the way Great Britain treated the people in its colonies. It was obvious that species change and always have so why not through nature that in her capriciousness created individuals who were unfit for use as food or cannon fodder.

Nature/ God/ or whatever wants every individual to survive. Where this is impossible the number of individuals "born" to each "mother" soars. But all are given consciousness in order to improve their chances. Perhaps consciousness within any given biosphere really does evolve but species do not. Species merely change and they do so not over millions and millions of years but suddenly.


To postulate that some individuals are more fit than others sounds good to us but is hardly scientific rigor. It is a facile answer to something uniquely complex.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin and his believers just paper over any proper definition for fitness.

No. That is what you are doing.

It sounds logical so why define it?

Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?

Obviously if a fox is chasing two rabbits it will catch the slower so long as they run together. If one trips then clumsiness is bred out of the species. If one hits a soft patch and is slowed then better eyesight is bred into the species. If one is darker and easier to see then this gets bred out. I could go on and on but obviously this is all absurd. It is equally absurd to postulate that Darwin can induce the existence of fitness from drawing of finches and the fossil record.

This is just simplistic drivel that demonstrates nothing. It doesn't define fitness or exemplify it.

People picture life as a big pressure cooker where the fit claw their way to the top like a Sumo Wrestler.

Unlike you I don't pretend to know what people picture, but this is not a definition found in or determined by the application of science.

They see life as competition to be biggest, strongest, best fed, and having the ability to toss others off of life's dohyo. This is the picture painted by a belief in "fitness".

Fitness is not a belief. Fitness is a quantification of reproductive success. It has nothing to do with what you keep blathering on about. No matter how omniscient you may feel, there is no reason for any of us to feel you are.

But the reality is very different. Rabbits don't run together. Foxes won't even chase a rabbit unless it gets a good jump on it. Lions don't seek out the least fit from a herd to eat nor do they chase the whole herd to find which is slowest or least fit. Rather they observe the individuals until they see one close to the edge that looks old, young, sick, or weak. These characteristics are not innate to any animal because every animal is young, gets, sick, and gets old. Herds contain the "unfit" but no individual is inherently less fit than any other. If there were such a thing as the most fit gazelle it was just as likely to be eaten by a lion when it was young as any other.

More meaningless drivel that tells us what you believe reality is, but no actual data. Just speculation out of personal desire that things be the way you want them to be in defiance of the evidence.

I find it ironic that you recommend observation while seeming avoid it for yourself at all costs.

Darwin sold us a bill of goods because being a 19th century Britisher and a scientist made him one of the most fit human beings of all time. he wanted to believe and survival of the fittest sounds good. It would help any cognitive dissonance he might have about the way Great Britain treated the people in its colonies. It was obvious that species change and always have so why not through nature that in her capriciousness created individuals who were unfit for use as food or cannon fodder.

There's that complete misunderstanding of fitness that you are becoming famous for. And like clockwork, derogatory reference to anyone living in the 19th Century. None of this is working out too well for you.

Nature/ God/ or whatever wants every individual to survive.

Species overproduce beyond the capacity of their environments to sustain such overproduction. It doesn't seem that this is a feature that is unsupported by nature as you are claiming. Darwin recognized this and it is one of the assumptions of the theory he formulated. I'm pretty sure you didn't know that, since you have thus far refused to even list one of those assumptions

Where this is impossible the number of individuals "born" to each "mother" soars. But all are given consciousness in order to improve their chances. Perhaps consciousness within any given biosphere really does evolve but species do not. Species merely change and they do so not over millions and millions of years but suddenly.

Wild omniscient speculation from what you have revealed to us. There is no evidence that all life is conscious. The recognized fact is that species do evolve and you have provided nothing to alter that fact.

To postulate that some individuals are more fit than others sounds good to us but is hardly scientific rigor.

I don't recognize your expertise to even know what is and what is not valid science. The rigor of 150 years and millions of experiments says otherwise.

It is a facile answer to something uniquely complex.

It is an established fact in order to understand a complex system that you clearly do not.

You have an argument from ignorance. You can't understand it so it isn't real to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin and his believers just paper over any proper definition for fitness. It sounds logical so why define it? Obviously if a fox is chasing two rabbits it will catch the slower so long as they run together. If one trips then clumsiness is bred out of the species. If one hits a soft patch and is slowed then better eyesight is bred into the species. If one is darker and easier to see then this gets bred out. I could go on and on but obviously this is all absurd. It is equally absurd to postulate that Darwin can induce the existence of fitness from drawing of finches and the fossil record.

People picture life as a big pressure cooker where the fit claw their way to the top like a Sumo Wrestler. They see life as competition to be biggest, strongest, best fed, and having the ability to toss others off of life's dohyo. This is the picture painted by a belief in "fitness". But the reality is very different. Rabbits don't run together. Foxes won't even chase a rabbit unless it gets a good jump on it. Lions don't seek out the least fit from a herd to eat nor do they chase the whole herd to find which is slowest or least fit. Rather they observe the individuals until they see one close to the edge that looks old, young, sick, or weak. These characteristics are not innate to any animal because every animal is young, gets, sick, and gets old. Herds contain the "unfit" but no individual is inherently less fit than any other. If there were such a thing as the most fit gazelle it was just as likely to be eaten by a lion when it was young as any other.

Darwin sold us a bill of goods because being a 19th century Britisher and a scientist made him one of the most fit human beings of all time. he wanted to believe and survival of the fittest sounds good. It would help any cognitive dissonance he might have about the way Great Britain treated the people in its colonies. It was obvious that species change and always have so why not through nature that in her capriciousness created individuals who were unfit for use as food or cannon fodder.

Nature/ God/ or whatever wants every individual to survive. Where this is impossible the number of individuals "born" to each "mother" soars. But all are given consciousness in order to improve their chances. Perhaps consciousness within any given biosphere really does evolve but species do not. Species merely change and they do so not over millions and millions of years but suddenly.


To postulate that some individuals are more fit than others sounds good to us but is hardly scientific rigor. It is a facile answer to something uniquely complex.

I notice you provide no proper definition of fitness of your own. No doubt it would be like your expansive definition of sudden and rendered useless for lack of utility.

 

[cladking]

It is in no way the method you seem to use of wild, empty assertion elevated to fact without effort or reason.

You might be surprised how closely I follow the scientific method. It's hard to see because almost all my work is anecdotal experimentation often on the order of thought experiments as derived from thousands of scientific experiments done by others. In more recent times there's a lot of historical study and the adoption of a second metaphysics.

The primary difference between our sciences is that I believe all experiments apply to all things all the time. I have come to believe that prediction is the touchstone of all science and ancient scientists were called something we mistranslate as "Prophets" and "Seers". By modern scientific standards I have nothing but a bunch of hypotheses dressed up as a new paradigm but it is solid "theory" by the standards of ancient science.

I have no idea what this supposed to mean and hypothesize that you don't either since you cannot articulate it in some understandable and coherent form.

All things affect all other things all the time and are dependent on all things that have already occurred or existed. This is like infinitely complex to the third power. Free will is a component of consciousness which exists in virtually infinite amounts in the universe. All individuals are conscious and have free will with which they can affect anything within their life from a butterfly causing a hurricane in Haiti to bobcat causing an avalanche in the here and now. This is infinity raised to the infinite power.

Since it requires 42 x 10 ^ 799,999th power monkeys to write War and Peace you see why I just substitute "infinity" for the improbability of existence. This number is far larger than most peoples' conception of infinity. I might add I don't believe in "infinity" anyway. It is merely an artifact of the way we quantified the logic of reality as mathematics.

Reductionistic science always serves to hide this complexity when it's summarized for textbooks. You can't put complex before students or rocket scientists because nobody can do complex. So we look at one experiment at a time and apply one set of equations to every calculable question. We simply turn a blind eye to what we can't see and to the complexity.

We seek simple interpretations and this is what Darwin provided. Unfortunately he simplified reality all the way out of change in species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin and his believers just paper over any proper definition for fitness. It sounds logical so why define it? Obviously if a fox is chasing two rabbits it will catch the slower so long as they run together. If one trips then clumsiness is bred out of the species. If one hits a soft patch and is slowed then better eyesight is bred into the species. If one is darker and easier to see then this gets bred out. I could go on and on but obviously this is all absurd. It is equally absurd to postulate that Darwin can induce the existence of fitness from drawing of finches and the fossil record.

People picture life as a big pressure cooker where the fit claw their way to the top like a Sumo Wrestler. They see life as competition to be biggest, strongest, best fed, and having the ability to toss others off of life's dohyo. This is the picture painted by a belief in "fitness". But the reality is very different. Rabbits don't run together. Foxes won't even chase a rabbit unless it gets a good jump on it. Lions don't seek out the least fit from a herd to eat nor do they chase the whole herd to find which is slowest or least fit. Rather they observe the individuals until they see one close to the edge that looks old, young, sick, or weak. These characteristics are not innate to any animal because every animal is young, gets, sick, and gets old. Herds contain the "unfit" but no individual is inherently less fit than any other. If there were such a thing as the most fit gazelle it was just as likely to be eaten by a lion when it was young as any other.

Darwin sold us a bill of goods because being a 19th century Britisher and a scientist made him one of the most fit human beings of all time. he wanted to believe and survival of the fittest sounds good. It would help any cognitive dissonance he might have about the way Great Britain treated the people in its colonies. It was obvious that species change and always have so why not through nature that in her capriciousness created individuals who were unfit for use as food or cannon fodder.

Nature/ God/ or whatever wants every individual to survive. Where this is impossible the number of individuals "born" to each "mother" soars. But all are given consciousness in order to improve their chances. Perhaps consciousness within any given biosphere really does evolve but species do not. Species merely change and they do so not over millions and millions of years but suddenly.


To postulate that some individuals are more fit than others sounds good to us but is hardly scientific rigor. It is a facile answer to something uniquely complex.

I imagine your redefinition process as if you were given a hammer. After tinkering around with it in what you seem to believe is your omniscience, you would produce a hammer with six handles and rendered useless as a hammer. Then you would back off and it only has 4 handles, but still useless.

That is the sort of thing I see with you every changing, yet seemingly omniscient renderings here. Perhaps you should read some books on biological evolution and learn something rather than just imagine about it and think you know all there is to know.

 

[wellwisher]

They didn't.

It's a development that happened gradually over several thousand years.
And while agriculture developed independently in several parts of the world, this wasn't at the same time at all.

You can call it "sudden" in a geological timescale, but not when measured against human lifespan.




Your question makes zero sense.
Farming is not a genetic trait.




This is a great example of GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
When you start with nonsense assumptions, only more nonsense follows

Farming comes from the brain, with the human brain more than the sum of its genetic parts. Our natural collective human propensities and instinct evolved with the DNA and natural selection, and are engrained in the brain. However, the brain, via the ego, can externally learn beyond what is written on the DNA; cultural knowledge. The iPhone is not part of the human DNA, but the invention appeared due to the brain being more than the sum of the generic parts. We are not stuck at instinct and that is it. The human brain is where the DNA centric approach to evolution, falls short. This is evident with the rise of civilization, where there is full departure from the old ways of genetic based instinct. Cain symbolically kills Abel and farming supersedes migratory herding and gathering. The symbolism shows the change being quick.

For example, early humans migrated all over the earth. This would be more of a function of the brain reacting to altered environmental parameters that may have triggered survival instinct. In this case, it is a team effort of DNA and the real time situational brain. Natural selection can be a combination; genetics plus what is more than genetics via the brain. The current DNA model of evolution is half baked and needs an update.

The earth had a mini-Ice age as recent as 10,000 years ago. The urge to move south; in the Northern Hemisphere, may have been connected to having enough sense to follow the animals, who lived there, and who may have made his journey before; change of seasons. Farming could be due to being tired and deciding to stop and not have travel all the time, as the climate began to stabilize more south.

The hunter gatherers ate seeds, among other things, and noticed spring seeds sprout and spouts taste good; gourmet, and also form new plants. The brain in an inspiration, does an experiment, and sure enough you can grow your own seeds; early applied science. Once theconcept is proven others copy and make further process improvements.

The rise of the human ego or secondary center was key, since it was semi-separated from the instinctive DNA based primary; inner self, and could make separated decision making. This is why change quickens about 6000 years ago. While the impact of the ego has an impact on the DNA based inner self, which can help do main frame data crunching for advanced building projects; pyramids.

Many scientists do not believe that ancient civilization could do some of the things they did, and some postulate aliens. However, the DNA based inner self has much more capacity and could help the ego get over the top.

 

[cladking]

I notice you provide no proper definition of fitness of your own.

I don't believe Darwin's abstraction "fitness" even has a referent in the real world. There is no thing, no abstraction, nothing with existence to use the word "fitness". If I use the word I am referring to the appropriateness of something or something connoted by a woman's figure. It's hardly a word I use often except to deny it exists as Darwin used it.

 

[cladking]

It sounds logical so why define it?

"Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?"

You're right. Let me rephrase it. While we can choose any word we want to mean anything we want science demands proper definitions and scientific rigor. You can't just kill half a population of mice and say they are more fit than the half you killed. What is "fitness" in this case or ANY OTHER CASE?

All you're really saying is only those which are healthy and alive tend to reproduce. This is tautological. What would anyone expect?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't believe Darwin's abstraction "fitness" even has a referent in the real world.

I agree. You don't seem to have the understanding of this science to come to a rational conclusion and go with what you want to believe is real.

There is no thing, no abstraction, nothing with existence to use the word "fitness".

Sure there is. It has been explained to you. You just reject the explanations for no apparent reason other than it the facts don't seem to fit with what you want to believe.

If I use the word I am referring to the appropriateness of something or something connoted by a woman's figure. It's hardly a word I use often except to deny it exists as Darwin used it.

You're drifting into obscurity again.

That a word may have more than one meaning doesn't render the use with a particular meaning invalid.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?

You posted it, so odds are no one really knows what you mean with all the revolving, expanding and contracting secret definitions.

You're right. Let me rephrase it. While we can choose any word we want to mean anything we want science demands proper definitions and scientific rigor.

I wish you demanded it.

You can't just kill half a population of mice and say they are more fit than the half you killed.

Which is it. Killed the whole population or just half. You are saying both. Where's the rigor you talk about?

What is "fitness" in this case or ANY OTHER CASE?

You've had more than ample opportunity to see the definitions and explanations offered to you for you examination and dissection. You have chose to avoid those posts and meander through discussions of weightlifting, attractive women, and killing mice instead.

Whatever you are up to, it doesn't make anymore sense to me than it seems it does to you either.

All you're really saying is only those which are healthy and alive tend to reproduce.

No. No one but you is claiming that and it is WRONG!!!!!!

This is tautological. What would anyone expect?

You are ripe with tautology, meandering, appeals and logical fallacies of all sort. I expect that those would be removed from a rational conversation. You seem to feel that any conversation is reliant on such tactics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?

You're right. Let me rephrase it. While we can choose any word we want to mean anything we want science demands proper definitions and scientific rigor. You can't just kill half a population of mice and say they are more fit than the half you killed. What is "fitness" in this case or ANY OTHER CASE?

All you're really saying is only those which are healthy and alive tend to reproduce. This is tautological. What would anyone expect?

I believe all of your efforts discussing science on this forum are signs that you do not understand science. I believe this. No need to keep repeating it.

 

[metis]

is death a natural part of life?

Of course it is. For example, imagine if every human who ever lived was alive today. We already have roughly 7 billion on Earth today, so imagine if we had to add all humans who ever lived.