Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

Females are almost always the individuals that choose their mates. Males will display anywhere any time but females cut them off at the pass.

If males are bigger and stronger than why would nature not want the biggest and strongest progenitors for each generation. You have your answer. I'd wager most individuals in most species know it as well. Sometimes nature does want tuna with good taste instead of what tastes good.

And selection of a trait does not occur in a vacuum. Lots of traits can be under selection at the same time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting articles the sci direct one much less so than the other, but we still don't know is the ultimate answer.

Yes well babies are not born as adults. Their brains help a normal child to eat.

 

[YoursTrue]

And selection of a trait does not occur in a vacuum. Lots of traits can be under selection at the same time.

Do you think the word selection can be misleading. For instance with abnormalities...or deleterious mutations.

 

[McBell]

Do you think the word selection can be misleading. For instance with abnormalities...or deleterious mutations.

ANY word can be "misleading" when the audience wants to be misled

 

[YoursTrue]

ANY word can be "misleading" when the audience wants to be misled

So the biological path is selective naturally. I guess you think it includes deformities.

 

[McBell]

So the biological path is selective naturally. I guess you think it includes deformities.

You are completely free to make whatever baseless assumptions you like.

I was merely pointing out the fact that you are "misled" an awful lot in evolution threads.
And offered up my opinion as to why.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are completely free to make whatever baseless assumptions you like.

I was merely pointing out the fact that you are "misled" an awful lot in evolution threads.
And offered up my opinion as to why.

That's fine. Just that natural selection infers that deleterious mutations might be naturally selected. Again, selected by ?? Nature maybe. Yup. Nature, according to the phrase, selects. I notice you did not address the point about selecting deformities. Naturally, of course.

 

[McBell]

That's fine.

[sarcasm]
SO glad you approve!
[/sarcasm]

Just that natural selection infers that deleterious mutations might be naturally selected. Again, selected by ?? Nature maybe. Yup. Nature, according to the phrase, selects.

One would think with the number of times this has been explained you would already understand it.
Is it that you are incapable of understanding it or are you merely being dishonest?

I notice you did not address the point about selecting deformities. Naturally, of course.

There is no reason to address it.
You are either completely incapable of learning about it or you are far to dishonest to be worried about addressing it, again.
Which is it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you must be pretty sure this isn't a hologram and you're not a transplant from any of the infinite number of worlds, you don't live in the matrix, and reality exists exactly as you perceive it. Not even you can step into the same river twice so exactly what Mississippi are you so sure is there? Are you sure the Ohio doesn't actually carry more water (as it is right now)?

Your silly solipsism argument is noted.
The fact that you feel like you need to go to these lengths to make your point, kind of says it all, doesn't it?

If I were going to pick something to believe in it would be something far more beneficial to me than the existence of some river or some opinionated and superstitious 19th century artist/ explorer/ believer.

It's you who brought up this river thingy.

But I've always had trouble believing in much of anything which is why I started with a single axiom and have pursued this.

Uhu.
This is becoming more absurd with every other sentence.

Looks like you do either believe in storks delivering babies or that avoiding discussion is a good thing.
Of course this assumes you are trying to do what's right.

And again you neatly sidestepped every point.

If you make a point worth discussing, I happily will.
But as seen above with the silly solipsism, you are entering the world of absurdities.

There is nothing here worthy of my time to discuss.

So with this, I think I'll leave it at that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Females are almost always the individuals that choose their mates. Males will display anywhere any time but females cut them off at the pass.

That's not true. It very much depends on the species in question.

If males are bigger and stronger than why would nature not want the biggest and strongest progenitors for each generation.

Ow? So you are saying that there are certain selection criteria involved here, where certain parameters make some more probable to reproduce then others?
How about that.

Sounds like even in your delusional world, natural selection does its thing.

 

[gnostic]

Just that natural selection infers that deleterious mutations might be naturally selected.

i have previously explained either to you or someone else, that Natural Selection & Mutations are 2 different evolutionary mechanisms.

it would seem you are incapable of being corrected & to learn from your errors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's fine. Just that natural selection infers that deleterious mutations might be naturally selected.

No.

Again, selected by ?? Nature maybe. Yup. Nature, according to the phrase, selects.

It's a concept. A figure of speech. "Nature" is not an entity that consciously "does" things.

I notice you did not address the point about selecting deformities. Naturally, of course.

What's the point of responding to absurd points rooted in ignorance and intellectual dishonesty?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

it would seem you are incapable of being corrected & to learn from your errors.

That's an understatement.

There's one particular error she keeps repeating which has been corrected on average at least once a week ever since at least june 2021.
It's quite sad, really.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

being comfortable doesn't mean anything.

It does to me. Seeking comfort drives behavior. We run from the rain and bask in the sun. When thirsty, we drink. When bored, we seek stimulation.

An atheist is somebody comfortable living without a god belief or a religion. A theist is somebody who has some need met by those, and who would feel a void without it, which is a kind of discomfort.

What kind of observation ?

That was asked following, "Even when you don't have all the answers, there is no value in invoking unseen agents before they are needed to account for some observation." You're asking me what observation would cause us to believe that an unseen agent was behind it. The ID people suggested irreducible complexity in a biological system and began searching for examples of it. They also suggested specified complexity: "Dembski asserts that specified complexity is present in a configuration when it can be described by a pattern that displays a large amount of independently specified information and is also complex, which he defines as having a low probability of occurrence." It's difficult to know what is meant by that, but I suppose writing like the Rosetta Stone would meet that definition, or a multiplication table.

It's not necessary to specify what would strongly suggest an intelligence behind it. Even if the answer was that nothing meets that criterion, still, we don't go invoking intelligent designers without a problem that requires one to account for it.

That is believing that "something" is likely/plausible/probable. Since it is not certain, people need to have faith on it

If by faith you mean unjustified belief as in unfalsifiable ideas about gods and afterlives, then no. Justified belief is also sometimes called faith, but it is a very different idea. Only the latter is based in evidence/experience.

I'm leaving the house soon. I expect the car to start as it has the last few hundred times it was tested, but I know that sometimes it doesn't. There is no unjustified belief there. The belief is correct and reflects experience.

[Update: that was written several hours ago; the car started; I was correct that it probably would even though it might not; there was no chance that I was wrong about that, as it either had to start or not, and usually does; that's justified belief, and yes, you could say that I had faith that it would in the sense I considered starting more likely than not, but that's a different word from religious faith]

Except that gorillas are still gorillas, fish are still fish. Ain't morphing now.

But they are. Every generation of any species that reproduced sexually is different from the previous generation. The morphing is nearly imperceptible in a lifetime, but over tens and hundreds of millions of years, if life on earth lasts that much longer, these species will have offspring that are noticeably different life forms.

You have no means of knowing who is pretending to have answers unless you already have them.

One can know that a question is unanswered without having the answers.

You have no means of knowing God didn't do it

Agreed, but even if that were true, there is no way to know it, no need to know it, and no benefit knowing it. Life works just as well without such answers, so there is no need to guess.

you must be pretty sure this isn't a hologram

Same response: The answer is unavailable, knowing it wouldn't change a thing, and there is no good reason to guess.

You have accepted what is most likely for what is real.

I consider what is most likely to be most likely, not fact (or reality as you call it).

It seems rare for people to not try to resolve the cognitive dissonance of uncertainty by guessing. It seems as if some people are unaware that some others can and do do that, so they project that guessing onto all others such that they can't hold position of possibly or likely, only yes and no.

everyone interprets evidence to fit what they want to believe.

If you believe that, why do you continue doing it yourself?

 

[cladking]

You are anthropomorphizing nature and attributing what you think would be the outcome of natural selection to nature. If size and strength had a fitness advantage in the environment, then it would be selected to a point.

We are talking about mate selection here, not survival of the fittest.

Individual females have no means of predicting the future or rating prospective mates in terms of intelligence, eye sight, and whether or not they will consume the off spring. They roll the dice and take their chances.

We call the desirability of mates "attractiveness" and this is a perception of numerous traits and appearances. I have little doubt that other species use the same sort of concept but it is species and context specific.


I have no means of knowing what appeals to a female praying mantis and have always had sufficient difficulty enough figuring out what appeals to women. But it's hardly outrageous to propose that at least in non-human species females tend to seek healthy and typical. Obviously if females started seeking smaller, faster, or clumsier mates that species would evolve but then you have the question of how individual females would get together to change the species. And, as I keep pointing out, no experiment has ever been done to show the females have actually caused a species to evolve through such a "selection process".

Consciousness doesn't work this way. Certainly members of a species have a great deal in common but they do not share a consciousness and no evidence exists that they can tune into God's consciousness assuming there is a conscious God. We are each conscious but we are each on our own. This is why we are conscious: Because we are on our own. We might not have Darwin, God, or magical fairies to protect us from predation and to find food. Species are not alive: Only individuals are alive and we each must do our best to understand and succeed. So why would a female seek sick, lame, disinterested, lazy, or weird mates? She wants to procreate not start a zoo.

 

[Argentbear]

We are talking about mate selection here, not survival of the fittest.

Individual females have no means of predicting the future or rating prospective mates in terms of intelligence, eye sight, and whether or not they will consume the off spring. They roll the dice and take their chances.

We call the desirability of mates "attractiveness" and this is a perception of numerous traits and appearances. I have little doubt that other species use the same sort of concept but it is species and context specific.

and what is considered attractive is based on an assessment of health and evaluation of a males ability to provide for offspring.

Consider what women find attractive in men. Women want men who are tall and broad shouldered and not obese all indication of health and fitness.

I have no means of knowing what appeals to a female praying mantis and have always had sufficient difficulty enough figuring out what appeals to women. But it's hardly outrageous to propose that at least in non-human species females tend to seek healthy and typical.

its completely logical. Courtship displays are assessments of heath and strength designed to impress the females of the species. the males of numerous birds species engage in nest building courtship the better nests shown that the males who built them are stronger, smarter, creative and hard working.
Dominance displays of many mammals demonstrate health and strength

And, as I keep pointing out, no experiment has ever been done to show the females have actually caused a species to evolve through such a "selection process".

Why would you keep pointing out something so silly?

 

[cladking]

Quote mining. Well I'm not surprised.

No. Not at all. A trivial similarity and your choice to cloud the issues with your own secret, personal definitions for words doesn't make you correct. You couldn't be more wrong. You keep trying to be, but completely wrong is a much wrong as you can be.

The original population from which a breeding pair or group was selected still exists. They or their offspring can be bred back into that original group. IT IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A POPULATION BOTTLENECK AND POPULATION BOTTLENECKS ARE NOT HOW SPECIATION OCCURS.

Portions of natural populations become isolated, return to the main population or continue on as a separate population. Both can exist concurrently. The founder group does not magically, suddenly become a new species upon separation from the main. Their offspring are not a new species either.

What you describe is not a population bottleneck. Insisting on using existing terms and redefining them to mean something else is confusing to others and reduces communication. I get the impression you want that. I guess you consider miscommunication critical to your "science".

You have still not explained why a group of individuals removed from a population through intention is not exactly the same thing as an artificial population bottleneck. So long as these individuals and offspring are kept separate from the original population they will "evolve" on their own as surely as Darwin's finches, dogs, sheep, pigs, rice, e coli, and tilapia.

I am merely proposing that this observed cause of change in species is the actual cause of change in species. Since we don't have an experiment we have little choice but to at least consider observation.

 

[cladking]

and what is considered attractive is based on an assessment of health and evaluation of a males ability to provide for offspring.

In most species the male's job is complete at mating.

its completely logical. Courtship displays are assessments of heath and strength designed to impress the females of the species. the males of numerous birds species engage in nest building courtship the better nests shown that the males who built them are stronger, smarter, creative and hard working.
Dominance displays of many mammals demonstrate health and strength

Indeed.

Why would you keep pointing out something so silly?

Many believers in science believe all these questions have been answered. I maintain we've yet to invent the questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

[sarcasm]
SO glad you approve!
[/sarcasm]


One would think with the number of times this has been explained you would already understand it.
Is it that you are incapable of understanding it or are you merely being dishonest?


There is no reason to address it.
You are either completely incapable of learning about it or you are far to dishonest to be worried about addressing it, again.
Which is it?

Try this:

Why the words we use in physics obscure the true nature of reality

Simple words like "force" and "particle" can mislead us as to what reality is actually like. Physicist Matt Strassler unpacks how to see things more clearly

www.newscientist.com

 

[YoursTrue]

And selection of a trait does not occur in a vacuum. Lots of traits can be under selection at the same time.

So how do these traits select?