Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

Then explain it or withdraw your insult with an apology

What insult?

 

[YoursTrue]

Really?! I wasn't aware of this. When I studied the subject back in the '50's and '60's it wasn't treated as such. It was considered part of the cause of Evolution but not considered part of survival of the fittest or natural selection.

I wonder who died and left females as the architects of "natural selection". Mother Nature?


There are species that the female doesn't or doesn't really have such power. Even in major species there are those where a single dominant male does most of the mating with an entire herd. I seriously doubt any individual female who finds this male unacceptable is going to strike out on her own and start a new herd but then I don't claim to know such things or to have all the answers.

I appreciate the info.

Um...I hate to say this, but I'm betting no money on the fact that you will get no answer except to tell you don't understand...lol...uneducated and etc. in that vein. Vein? Oh no, that's a metaphor...lol...

 

[cladking]

Um...I hate to say this, but I'm betting no money on the fact that you will get no answer except to tell you don't understand...lol...uneducated and etc. in that vein. Vein? Oh no, that's a metaphor...lol...

I know. If it's not in a textbook then you're wrong. You can even paraphrase the text and they'll say you are wrong.

A lot of scientific knowledge is held as beliefs. A lot of what is believed to be science is actually circular reasoning.

Anyone who believes he can't be wrong does not understand the nature of science.. ...you know... ...metaphysics.

I know full well I can be wrong and am virtually a professional at being wrong. I'm very good at it and have a great deal of practice. But what some may not understand is that I've been right before as well.

 

[John53]

What insult?

What apology?

 

[John53]

Um...I hate to say this, but I'm betting no money on the fact that you will get no answer except to tell you don't understand...lol...uneducated and etc. in that vein. Vein? Oh no, that's a metaphor...lol...

You mean like what you posted to me?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are still ignoring the point.

I'm not. You're not listening. A trivial similarity does not a bottleneck make.

Once a breeding stock is separated from the population there is no need that it continue to exist for the breeder.

That's not completely true from my experience how breeding is done and that stock actually still exists. It can be called on again at will and need.

Dog breeders do not capture wolves to breed new dog species.

No one said they do. Dogs had been under selection for traits that made them a desirable basis for breeding long before humans made a concerted effort to do so. Dog breeders don't start with wolves and get poodles in the first place. They start with some breed of dog. It's ridiculous to use your claim as evidence in support of breeding or bottlenecks.

Dogs can still breed with wolves. Dogs couldn't breed with any former member of the population that has been eliminated by a bottleneck. A difference you seem to blindly and willfully ignore.

That they may have early in the process is irrelevant to the point. It is equally irrelevant that they had existed or might continue to exist. If they continue to exist it could become relevant in the future only if the new species can still mate with the original AND they actually do.

I have no idea what you are rambling on a bout here. Not that it matters. You have been corrected sufficiently. I would suggest you read What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr and The Theory of Evolution Canto edition by John Maynard Smith. Both of those scientists were above even my pay grade, so certainly above yours I would say. Those are pretty easy to read for someone like you that has no significant knowledge of biology and they are full of evidence and explanation.

This simply is how all known species have been observed to originate.

Not at all. No species has been observed to change from a bottleneck. Same species entering, experiencing and exiting the bottleneck event. Radically fewer numbers and potentially much reduced genetic variation.

Unusual individuals survive an artificial bottleneck and suddenly create a new species.

I believe this is all made up. It has no support of the evidence. You certainly never provide evidence for your wild speculation.

I am merely proposing this is the exact same way nature does it AND that our ancestor species observed this and duplicated it to invent farming.

You can propose it, but you can't support it. It defies the evidence.

What is so outrageous other than the way it was discovered?

Someone claiming a thing to exist as if they know it as fact without the ability to demonstrate it is a fact. That outrageous? Yes, I think so.

How else would ancient superstitious people come to understand that they could use nature for their own benefit? Why wouldn't ancient people have observed upside down flies or flying cockroaches and then used this knowledge, this theory, to try to create a steady food supply that allowed them to live more efficiently and provide more leisure?

Maybe you should actually read what is known about the origins of agriculture before you start speculating wildly with no real basis to do so and be taken seriously.

We believe one fly or one cockroach is just like another except that some are more fit than others.

Maybe you do, but I recognize that there are 150,000 species of flies and almost 5,000 species of cockroaches.

Interestingly, you are now claiming that you believe that some flies and cockroaches are more fit than others. I'm sure this was a mistake on your part, since you claim not to recognize and accept fitness for your own incomplete, speculative and seemingly bizarre reasons.

We believe consciousness is irrelevant to speciation and even to life itself.

No one has shown that it is relevant, so why worry about it.

We believe we can reason to conclusions that are reflective of reality.

And that you sound like you can't and that may be the problem here. You seem to reason to things that don't reflect reality.

We believe there is such a thing as intelligence and we have it in spades while other animals are each lacking individually and collectively.

No one says that. What you have here from the beginning of this paragraph is an entire series of straw man claims.

We believe we see reality and if there were any blind spots science will eventually fill them or God will allow us to see when it suits His purpose.

Another straw man. You seem to love straw man arguments among other fallacious arguments.

But we can't show any of these things and experiment again and again shows them to be false or wholly unsupported (by experiment).

Experiments support the theory of evolution. They don't seem to support your claims and whatever you call "your theory" seems to be a belief system without basis in any sort of evidence or experience.

There is no reason to believe anybody can reason to a conclusion free of the starting assumptions.

Now you are moving the goal posts. We can reason to conclusions in this version, but not without assumptions. Not that I disagree, but still, it is moving the goal posts as well contradicting your previous straw man on the subject.

There is no reason to suppose there is such a thing as "intelligence" as we define it.

There is no reason to accept your claim here.

Of course, you can always secretly redefine intelligence to mean ice hockey or beans or sudden or...

There is no need to believe in survival of the fittest rather than that this belief led inexorably to the "Theory of Evolution". Without any experiment to confirm the theory we merely interpreted the experiments that did exist to support it.

Another flawed and failed argument in defiance of the evidence and as empty as all your other claims.

Do you really believe you are omniscient and know these things as fact without evidence?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know. If it's not in a textbook then you're wrong. You can even paraphrase the text and they'll say you are wrong.

I know that if a claim sound outrageous and the one claiming it refuses to do anything but run when asked to support their claim, it is probably so much balloon juice.

A lot of scientific knowledge is held as beliefs.

Perhaps by those completely unfamiliar with science and are prone to hold most of their knowledge as belief.

A lot of what is believed to be science is actually circular reasoning.

Unsubstantiated and empty claim. It may be true for someone that doesn't really understand the science and is basically creating their own scientism. I have some thoughts on who that might be.

Anyone who believes he can't be wrong does not understand the nature of science.. ...you know... ...metaphysics.

I believe you are one that doesn't believe you can be wrong.

I know full well I can be wrong and am virtually a professional at being wrong.

And yet you talk of ancient science and the morphology and physiology of ancient brains as if all you say is established fact. Your demurral doesn't fit with what looks like your delivery of revealed truth.

I'm very good at it and have a great deal of practice.

On that I would agre.

But what some may not understand is that I've been right before as well.

Not in these discussions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You mean like what you posted to me?

The insults and dismissal of sound responses because they are not understood seems to be all that is available in response to the fact that the crowd supporting the rejection of science is recognized for their duality and ignorance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know. If it's not in a textbook then you're wrong. You can even paraphrase the text and they'll say you are wrong.

A lot of scientific knowledge is held as beliefs. A lot of what is believed to be science is actually circular reasoning.

Anyone who believes he can't be wrong does not understand the nature of science.. ...you know... ...metaphysics.

I know full well I can be wrong and am virtually a professional at being wrong. I'm very good at it and have a great deal of practice. But what some may not understand is that I've been right before as well.

I would add that nothing you have claimed is supported in any written work except your own and then only as bare claims with no support.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Clearly, you are clueless as to how Natural Selection works.

Fitness is about having traits that are adapted for specific changes to the environment, so it isn’t about just strength or larger size.

Jes wondering what evolved traits were "adapted" to the environment in reference to fish to -- Tiktaalik. You think the fish wanted to get on land?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again. I not only don't believe in the Theory of Evolution I also don't believe that it is reflective of reality.

And for reasons that you won't even begin to explain in any reasonable, meaningful way.

One of its numerous problems, the reasons it is not reflective of reality, is that they have weird and erroneous definitions and assumptions.

Definitions and assumptions that you must think are secret and cannot be revealed to the rest of us.

When I abandoned the "theory" many many years ago I also abandoned their definitions.

I can't imagine you ever had it to abandon.

I can read the results of an experiment without knowing they believe females engage sexually in "natural selection". I would describe this as "unnatural selection" if I believed in survival of the fittest and such things. Females can control with whom they mate but they can't control the mostly wired parameters for how they make such choices. I am merely suggesting that selection of healthy and typical mates is part of what makes up every individuals and, as such, related to consciousness and language.

One more set of claims without basis and in defiance of the evidence of experiments and studies into the nature of selection. I even posted a review so that you can later claim no one has ever posted any references to experiments and studies.

No, I probably won't remember that you say that this is part of survival of the fittest because I don't care about it any more than you care whether I believe in God or not or the nature of that God.

Don't blame God for your choices.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Most of Darwin's problems and most of the problem for so many who still agree with him and have created models upon the foundational assumptions is that Darwin anthropomorphized nature itself. He ascribed human characteristics and human beliefs to other living things. A female rabbit hardly administers IQ tests or feats of strength demonstrations to prospective mates. She doesn't even eyeball him because this is a human concept. Rather she observes how closely he is appearing and behaving to her mostly hard wired model of an ideal partner. This model involves countless millions of brain cells and her four dimensional thought will discern things we couldn't see. Rabbits don't create models of their beliefs, their models spring from reality itself and their individual understanding of that reality.

Just more rambling speculation with no basis in fact.

I'm not claiming to know what she's thinking or any specifics of her model but logically she seeks fertile, fit, energetic, aware, and healthy. Since consciousness is the only thing with which any individual was naturally born to prosper it stands to reason she wants the most conscious mate. There is likely a "chemical" attraction as well such as there is in humans as demonstrated by an attraction to individual of the opposite sex with virtually no information about their characteristics or even their appearance. In humans such things probably spring from the amygdala but for all I know it rises up from the heart.

I read it again and changed my mind. You did mention that females are looking for mates with the best fitness. I agree with that. The evidence supports it. So one thing. The rest is just rambling speculation with a couple of facts thrown in that don't negate the speculative nature of it all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Good luck. I've not seen this happen yet with any insult levied against those that accept science whether they are atheist, agnostic or theist.

Interesting that I've not seen explanations from some of those here who claim to be a "theist" as to why they are theists. very interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

You mean like what you posted to me?

I called you uneducated? If I did, I apologize.

 

[YoursTrue]

What apology?

What insult? Let's keep going over it, ok?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've seen no evidence from some claiming to be theists on here that demonstrate they are theists. In fact, the behavior often seems the opposite to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just more rambling speculation with no basis in fact.

I read it again and changed my mind. You did mention that females are looking for mates with the best fitness. I agree with that. The evidence supports it. So one thing. The rest is just rambling speculation with a couple of facts thrown in that don't negate the speculative nature of it all.

And this has to do with evolution? or -- societal conditions.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've seen no evidence from some claiming to be theists on here that demonstrate they are theists. In fact, the behavior often seems the opposite to me.

OK, if that is so, let's see how you respond as to why you are a theist, how about it? I can start, but how about you, will you say why you are a "believer in God" under that circumstance?

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, if that is so, let's see how you respond as to why you are a theist, how about it? I can start, but how about you, will you say why you are a "believer in God" under that circumstance?

Sorry, to @Dan From Smithville -- that is, of course, if you are a "theist."

 

[rkwnyc]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

Dawkins' book, The Genetic Book of the Dead: A Darwinian Reverie, just published September 17, 2024, is very likely to provide as much as scientists know today. I have only just started the book so I cannot yet say how detailed Dawkins is about the evolution of the DNA structure. However, based on what I have read so far, the newest Dawkins book is likely to be very relevant to your question.