Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

1. You don't know the answer and don't want to reveal that fact.

I don't know how many times I've said 'I don't know".

2. You don't understand the question and don't want to reveal that fact.

I've said several times I don't understand a question. Frequently the response is "sure you don't". Sometimes it is clarified or explained to me and then I address it.

3. You know that you are wrong and don't want to reveal that fact.

I Don't know much of anything including when I am wrong. However I maintain exactly zero beliefs I know are wrong.

I do have a lot of difficulty unlearning anything so I may repeat errors.

4. You believe you are right no matter how disconnected your belief might be.

I don't know if I am right or not. This is why I'm here to talk these things out. I believe Darwin was wrong about everything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know how many times I've said 'I don't know".



I've said several times I don't understand a question. Frequently the response is "sure you don't". Sometimes it is clarified or explained to me and then I address it.



I Don't know much of anything including when I am wrong. However I maintain exactly zero beliefs I know are wrong.

I do have a lot of difficulty unlearning anything so I may repeat errors.



I don't know if I am right or not. This is why I'm here to talk these things out. I believe Darwin was wrong about everything.

This has rapidly degraded from nearly uninteresting to just plain boring.

I have never seen you offer anyone any reason to agree that you are right about any empty claim you make. You never, I MEAN NEVER provide evidence or any sort of sound argument to back up your claims. You meander off on rambling monologues about morality and your interpretation of the state of the world that have nothing to do with the subject being discussed. It is repetitive, boring and informs others of nothing in support of what you claim as if it is established fact. You deliver like an all-knowing being revealing truth. Most of the things you post seem made up. Your human taxonomic references for instance or ancient language, ancient science, claims about consciousness and evolution. Much of what you claim doesn't seem to exist with anyone anywhere but with you. You seem to be the source. And no one seems to be able to reach you, because you aren't here to be reached. You seem to be here to preach. And it is a religion I would call cladkingism.

I'm bored of seeing you deny things or flaccid attempts to justify failed positions in the face of evidence that clearly contradicts all that. I think this repetition you offer is all that there is.

I'll just correct you when I see you making these empty claims and point it out for the record.

The correction won't be for you to learn. You've convinced me you don't care to learn and don't care what others have to say unless it is flattering to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nothing here remotely relates to the thread. The problem in the Middle East is a very long religious Tribal war between Muslims, Jews, and Christians that has been going on for thousands of years. Atheists are not involved,

Yes, they do not care, It is tribal war based on Old Testament morals.

Stay on the subject of the thread. Start a thread on the Hamas war and I will deal with it. Your source is an anti=science anti evolution rag. It is a religious war atheists are not involved.

It does not consider the history of atrocities by both sides.

Yes, it does "relate to the thread." Did atheists evolve to have moral opinions about things? and did religious people evolve so their "moral opinions" may be different -- from others and their co-religionists? Certainly it relates to the thread.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't know how many times I've said 'I don't know".



I've said several times I don't understand a question. Frequently the response is "sure you don't". Sometimes it is clarified or explained to me and then I address it.



I Don't know much of anything including when I am wrong. However I maintain exactly zero beliefs I know are wrong.

I do have a lot of difficulty unlearning anything so I may repeat errors.



I don't know if I am right or not. This is why I'm here to talk these things out. I believe Darwin was wrong about everything.

Obviously (some) people believe him about his theory in general. Yet (quite frankly) there is nothing beyond fossils being put in the arrangement of the theory that substantiates the idea of gradual, gradual, very very gradual transmission of body parts changing from, let's say, fish to humans. Tiktaalik is a fossil. A very interesting fossil in some people's minds, I suppose. Yet there is nothing to show from whence it came and to where it went. That's how I see it now. Thus far, gorillas remain gorillas, they haven't pushed their brains to wonder how they might invent telescopes or x-ray machines. At least I have not read any reports of researchers claiming the gorillas told them as much.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, and about Darwin and morals -- and evolution -- here are some interesting concepts -- The Enduring Relevance of Darwin's Theory of Morality

 

[YoursTrue]

First in the period when the first fish/amphibians had the capability walking on the shallow coastal sea floor and had capabilities of gill breathing and primitive lungs there were at least several candidates.

The earliest species before amphibians related to lobe-fined fish: 29.3A: Characteristics and Evolution of Amphibians.

One of the earliest known tetrapods is from the genus Acanthostega. Acanthostega was aquatic; fossils show that it had gills similar to fishes. However, it also had four limbs, with the skeletal structure of limbs found in present-day tetrapods, including amphibians.

Read more in the above reference.

Earliest fish with amphibian attributes - Google Search

The earliest fish with amphibian attributes were lobe-finned fish, which evolved into amphibians around 370 million years ago. These fish had leg-like fins with digits that allowed them to crawl along the sea floor.


Some characteristics of lobe-finned fish include:

• Lungs
  They had lungs that allowed them to breathe air. These lungs evolved from modified swim bladders.
• Appendages
  They had appendages with internal skeletal support that extended beyond their trunk muscles.
• Fins
  They had four fleshy fins that were supported by bones, similar to the structure of a tetrapod's hand.
  

The three groups of lobe-finned fish that are relevant to the evolution of amphibians are coelacanths, lung-fish, and panderichtyids. The panderichtyids are the ancestors of amphibians, but they are now extinct. Coelacanths and lung-fish are still living relatives of the panderichtyids, and can provide clues about the biology of the ancestors of amphibians.

Do they (scientists) know which species of fish started the movement from them to whatever came next in the evolutionary next viable organism? Which fish actually started it, or was it a lot of different species & fish maybe?

 

[YoursTrue]

Thanks guys and gals -- later maybe --

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it does "relate to the thread." Did atheists evolve to have moral opinions about things?

No

and did religious people evolve so their "moral opinions" may be different -

No

- from others and their co-religionists?

No

Certainly it relates to the thread.

No, the above has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, and about Darwin and morals -- and evolution -- here are some interesting concepts -- The Enduring Relevance of Darwin's Theory of Morality

Yes, Darwin first proposed the Theory of evolution, but Darwin's view of issues of morality moral evolution are no longer valid today. If you want to discuss evolution please cite more contemporary references that reflect the sciences of evolution today.

The evolution of morals and social order and structure such as the family and tribal and territorial hierarchy are common to all humanity regardless of religious belief of non-belief.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, Darwin first proposed the Theory of evolution, but Darwin's view of issues of morality moral evolution are no longer valid today. If you want to discuss evolution please cite more contemporary references that reflect the sciences of evolution today.

The evolution of morals and social order and structure such as the family and tribal and territorial hierarchy are common to all humanity regardless of religious belief of non-belief.

So you're saying that religion, atheism, and morality have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, is that right, i.e. the brain evolving?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, Darwin first proposed the Theory of evolution, but Darwin's view of issues of morality moral evolution are no longer valid today. If you want to discuss evolution please cite more contemporary references that reflect the sciences of evolution today.

The evolution of morals and social order and structure such as the family and tribal and territorial hierarchy are common to all humanity regardless of religious belief of non-belief.

Did you read the article? To recap re: morality and evolution, "there is now enough evidence to suggest that Darwin is broadly vindicated." The Enduring Relevance of Darwin's Theory of Morality

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No! We know species change.

"no" and then proceeds to say the opposite. Priceless.

That doesn't mean they changed gradually because of survival of the fittest.

Not "because of", no.
"Survival of the fittest" is just the media's popularized way of talking about natural selection.

You said yourself that defining "fitness" was unnecessary.

I never said any such thing.

You can define it on a broader level if you wish but then you are obligated to show that consciousness and individuality are irrelevancies. You can't just assume that every individual has the exact same genome but some are fitter than others. Your logic is unsound.

I never said every individual has the exact same "genome". They don't.

You are assuming the conclusion just as Darwin assumed that populations are stable. And this despite the fact that every observed change in species involves rapid effective decreases in population.

I can't make sense of this statement.

Now you don't believe in Evolution!

No.

Speciation won't happen without genetic change.

There are no simple answers but this is what is seen by many people in science.

That God created reality et al is not really a simple answer because the question becomes what is the nature of God and how it was done. Surely nobody would stop the search if we did learn "gods dun it".

Every time, in every field, whenever people claim "gods dun it", the questioning stops.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

You couldn't be more wrong.
You could try, but you would not be successful.

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.

Yeah. This is one of the reasons why you are consistently wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"no" and then proceeds to say the opposite. Priceless.



Not "because of", no.
"Survival of the fittest" is just the media's popularized way of talking about natural selection.



I never said any such thing.



I never said every individual has the exact same "genome". They don't.



I can't make sense of this statement.



No.

Speciation won't happen without genetic change.


Every time, in every field, whenever people claim "gods dun it", the questioning stops.

While there is often a confused twisting, turning and doubling back in position, I believe the statement you can't make sense of refers to yet another confusion. It seems that selection, reproduction and population bottleneck have been redefined and the claim is that speciation occurs at population bottlenecks under new, secret definitions of those terms.

Apparently, the view is based on the short-sighted idea that artificial breeding eliminates the possibility of two members of a sexually reproducing population from breeding with all other members of the population. And from that breeding, offspring of a new species are born. It seems another instance where knowledge and understanding of what is known is ignored in favor of personal conjecture from few, if any facts.

That is as near as I can tell, but it is consistent as a wild idea where there is no basic understanding of biology, species or populations.

It seems like another attempt to self-justify concepts that are not at all personally understood and make a belief system out of the few facts that are accepted. One natural conclusion following this line of thinking would be that reproduction in a population would require massive orgies where every member of the population breeds with every other member and that artificial breeding breaks that cycle by forcing only two to breed together.

Like everything else offered, it is difficult to nail down what the hell is being said. Not surprising when the knowledge base these ideas arise from seems incomplete, twisted, confused and often as manufactured from nothing as the claims coming out of them.

Interestingly, having thought about it a bit, if species did give birth to new species, a bottleneck wouldn't be necessary. But I doubt that much thought or understanding has been put into the convoluted and baseless nonsense to arrive where it has.

 

[cladking]

While there is often a confused twisting, turning and doubling back in position, I believe the statement you can't make sense of refers to yet another confusion.

When individuals are selected for breeding they are removed from that gene pool. Certainly the individuals selected might have bred naturally without having been removed but the odds are very low and then their off spring would have bred into the population.

The removal of individuals and their offspring is effectively the same thing as the rest of the species dying off.

The odds of nature accidently breeding dogs into existence through survival of the fittest is virtually nonexistent. Indeed, almost any major changes caused by such a process might be nearly as improbable.

"no" and then proceeds to say the opposite. Priceless.

Species change but there is no such thing as "Evolution". "Evolution" is defined as gradual change caused by survival of the fittest but this does not exist.

I never said any such thing.

When you ignore individual differences, consciousness, and specific behavior you are effectively saying these things play no role in speciation. The expression of the genome is irrelevant. Genes are irrelevant. Individuals are irrelevant. Experience and life are irrelevant.

Every time, in every field, whenever people claim "gods dun it", the questioning stops.

I don't know. But certainly even theologians are seeking answers. Philosophers are seeking answers. Who isn't seeking answers except those who have already found them?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Species change but there is no such thing as "Evolution".

You make no sense. It's self-contradictory.

"Evolution" is defined as gradual change caused by survival of the fittest but this does not exist.

Gradual change occurs every generation as mutations are accumulated.
"survival of the fittest", in the sense of natural selection, is inevitable.

Those that don't reproduce, don't spread their (mutated) genes. Their mutations, in other words, don't contribute to the accumulation of changes.
Only the changes of those that survive and reproduce contribute to this accumulation.

That is, at base, all natural selection is.

When you ignore individual differences, consciousness, and specific behavior you are effectively saying these things play no role in speciation. The expression of the genome is irrelevant. Genes are irrelevant. Individuals are irrelevant. Experience and life are irrelevant.

I'm not ignoring anything.
I might be ignoring your strawmen though.

I don't know. But certainly even theologians are seeking answers. Philosophers are seeking answers. Who isn't seeking answers except those who have already found them?

That's just it. When you are stuck and get intellectually lazy, your answer becomes "god dun it".
This is why so-called "creation scientists" don't do any research. They "have" their answer: god did it.

 

[cladking]

Gradual change occurs every generation as mutations are accumulated.
"survival of the fittest", in the sense of natural selection, is inevitable.

You are reasoning in circles. "Evolution happens because there is gradual change, gradual change happens because there is Evolution." Rinse, lather, repeat.

 

[cladking]

That's just it. When you are stuck and get intellectually lazy, your answer becomes "god dun it".

Yes. This is one reason people believe they already have all the answers. Another reason they quit investigating is that they science has all the answers. It's not God or a belief in "God" that makes people lazy, it's finding the answers.

Finding the answers is very easy to do because we all reason in circles. We all of necessity circle all the way back to our assumptions. It is our nature. Nothing except experiment can break this savage cycle. Unfortunately breaking the cycle merely leads us tangentially to a brand new cycle in which we are stuck.

 

[wellwisher]

I am not the one fooling others, it is YOU.

You don't have any idea about what kind of animal was, let's say, the great-grandfather of any of all those 4 apes, but you want to force people to believe that this great-grandfather (a different ape) existed and was the same for all of them included the humans on top.

That is a lie; you can not assume as true what you are just especulating ... and you can't force people to accept it.

The formation of a new species, essentially creates a new and different genetic platform; foundation, on which to build further. Technically, apes are not ancestors of humans, since they are not human, and cannot cross breed with humans.

However, if we word this better, Humans are a quantum step upward, from apes, who still occupy a lower species quantum state. This quantum jump is like a wall to separate the new species from the old. Quantum stepping is why there are few missing links. We get clean breaks between species and then distinct species steps forward; new foundations. Once we trace back to the first human there is a quantum gap, backwards.

If the evolutionary movement of new species was continuous, then all species could cross breed. The problem is this would violate the 2nd law, and the movement to higher complexity. People would be banging the dinosaurs and apes for giant warrior offspring.This movement toward higher complexity is better served by keeping the apex species separate and breeding among itself, for the next big step upward to even higher complexity.

Within the firmware of the animal brain; inner self, is the urge to breed among its own kind; same steps or platforms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are reasoning in circles. "Evolution happens because there is gradual change, gradual change happens because there is Evolution." Rinse, lather, repeat.

That's not even close to what I said.

Here's what I actually said:

Evolution happens by the gradual accumulation of changes every generation.
That's how evolution happens.