Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dimi95]

2 Samuel 21
1 Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year, and David inquired of the LORD. The LORD said, “There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house because he put the Gibeonites to death.” 2 So the king called the Gibeonites and spoke to them. (Now the Gibeonites were not of the people of Israel but of the remnant of the Amorites; although the people of Israel had sworn to spare them, Saul had tried to wipe them out in his zeal for the people of Israel and Judah.) 3 David said to the Gibeonites, “What shall I do for you? How shall I make expiation, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?” 4 The Gibeonites said to him, “It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put anyone to death in Israel.” He said, “What do you say that I should do for you?” 5 They said to the king, “The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel, 6 let seven of his sons be handed over to us, and we will impale them before the LORD at Gibeon on the mountain of the LORD.”l The king said, “I will hand them over.” 7 But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Saul’s son Jonathan, because of the oath of the LORD that was between them, between David and Jonathan son of Saul. 8 The king took the two sons of Rizpah daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Merab daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite; 9 he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they impaled them on the mountain before the LORD. The seven of them perished together. They were put to death in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of barley harvest. 10 Then Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it on a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodiesn by day or the wild animals by night. 11 When David was told what Rizpah daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done, 12 David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan from the people of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hung them up, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa. 13 He brought up from there the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan, and they gathered the bones of those who had been impaled. 14 They buried the bones of Saul and of his son Jonathan in the land of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of his father Kish; they did all that the king commanded. After that, God heeded supplications for the land.

(NRSVue)[/b][/b]

2 Samuel 21:1:
1.And there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David sought the face of the LORD.And the LORD said: 'It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites.

The word famine means 'hunger' today but in Hebrew it means 'to be hungry'.

I know that i was not given to eat as a kid and punished because i did something stupid and could havy hurt somebody badly.And if you hunger time does not matter.But i learned i lesson , that i will be punished in life for the things that do harm.When you understand a lesson you don't complain about it , you take it as it is and instead of it being a wickness it becomes strenght.

I can't imagine myself beeing the the complaining all the time and not taking responcibility for my actions.

So i see only a lesson here , nothing more.

Let's continue
2 Samuel 21:2
"And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them--now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them; and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah--"
I see here that the king.
Who is the King?

The part "now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites" is just an explenation and is of irrelevance.
Next we see "the children of Israel had sworn.."

We see also that Saul sought to slay themin his zeal.

And at the end the most important : 'for the children of Israel and Judah'.

So we know who is it for know.

Next
2 Samuel 21:3
"and David said unto the Gibeonites: 'What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?"

-David uses his power to calm things down so that can be peace again.
That is what i think , what do you think?

2 Samuel 21:4
"And the Gibeonites said unto him: 'It is no matter of silver or gold between us and Saul, or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel.' And he said: 'What say ye that I should do for you?'

They tell him that the matter is not of any prize , and not to put any death to Israel.
That means Saul also
That is how i understand it.

Then he - the king said: 'Then you tell me how can i help you'.

So now we see King David again trzing to make peace.

2 Samuel 21:5
"And they said unto the king: 'The man that consumed us, and that devised against us, so that we have been destroyed from remaining in any of the borders of Israel,"

Ok , now we see that they talk about some man , which is Saul btw and confirming what he wanted Saul sworn to do.

2 Samuel 21:6
"let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the LORD.
And the king said: 'I will deliver them.'
"
Ok , so now we see that they are requisting human sacrifice.
And that the king sais he will deliver them.

2 Samuel 21:7
"But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD'S oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul."

And no we see someone spared.


Let's read further when it gets more interesting.

2 Samuel 21:8-9
"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite;
and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the mountain before the LORD, and they fell all seven together; and they were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, at the beginning of barley harvest".

We see now that the king took seven sons from two daughets of Saul.

By 'they fell all seven together' it means the seven sons fell and we see that some 'they' are being put do death.We don't know who are these 'they' yet.

So we know now who was trying to be killed and we know that some 'they' are being killed.
We know what was said and who said it.

2 Samuel 21:11
"And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water was poured upon them from heaven; and she suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.
And it was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done."

-And we see know that the daughter of Saul spread sackcloth and spread upon some rock and waited untill some water from heaven is being poured.
And she didn't leave that place.
All this what is happening - she staying day and night there , someone told all of this to king David.

2 Samuel 21:12
"And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the broad place of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, in the day that the Philistines slew Saul in Gilboa;"

So Saul and his firstborn son are dead.
It is probably that they surrendered themselfs and the others were saves.

The seven sons that were hanged fell and they were saved and Saul and Jonathan died saving them and by the Philistines or the Gibeonites - They are the same.
Gibeonites and Philistines , one representing the entity and the other name specifies the city they inherited.

For example where i come from we are calling ourselfs "Македонци" because of our enticity and "Скопјани" because of the city that we inhabit.
You will understand probably only Makedon , but this "ци" анд "ки" on the end is equivalent to "es" from Philistines and Gibeonites.

Gibeon was a Canaanite and later an Israelite city.
The Philistines were an ancient people who lived on the south coast of Canaan during the Iron Age in a confederation of city-states generally referred to as Philistia.
Same as 'Elada' or what you english speakers want to say "Hellada".

This info also tells something else about the land where democracy is born , but we the Macedonians(sorry North Macedonians official) came there(that is what the world is being taught althrough in Ancient History and Archeology it says that Ancient Macedonians lived on these lands) - but ok , let they fool the world that "Greece" was always there ..

Modern Greeks share similar proportions of DNA from the same ancestral sources as Mycenaeans, although they have inherited a little less DNA from ancient Anatolian farmers and a bit more DNA from later migrations to Greece.
I wonder where did the Philistines disapear...
That's what most schollars say ,they disapeared magically
Both of them , Philistines in 6th BC century and later on Ancient Macedonians.
I always wonder , where can so many people disapear..

Let's move on , that was a little bonus for you to read something up.

So next we have

2 Samuel 21:13
"and he brought up from thence the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son; and they gathered the bones of them that were hanged."
Oh , i was wrong - nobody was saved - everybody died , now we know that they did did not just fell.

Ok , it doesn't matter what happend or how they tried to save them since everybody died.

2 Samuel 21:14
"And they buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the sepulchre of Kish his father; and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was entreated for the land."

So they preformed something , and we don't know what it is , and yet you claim to say that was accepting human sacrifice.
Maybe they preformed prayers for forgiveness , how do you know that was of sacrifice?
We don't see anywhere that "the LORD" says anything to kill.

So i just might also ask now, why do you misinterprete this passage , to what use?

Either way , i am done.

 

[blü 2]

2 Samuel 21:1:
1.And there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David sought the face of the LORD.And the LORD said: 'It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites.

The word famine means 'hunger' today but in Hebrew it means 'to be hungry'.

I know that i was not given to eat as a kid and punished because i did something stupid and could havy hurt somebody badly.And if you hunger time does not matter.But i learned i lesson , that i will be punished in life for the things that do harm.When you understand a lesson you don't complain about it , you take it as it is and instead of it being a wickness it becomes strenght.

I can't imagine myself beeing the the complaining all the time and not taking responcibility for my actions.

So i see only a lesson here , nothing more.

Let's continue
2 Samuel 21:2
"And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them--now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them; and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah--"
I see here that the king.
Who is the King?

The part "now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites" is just an explenation and is of irrelevance.
Next we see "the children of Israel had sworn.."

We see also that Saul sought to slay themin his zeal.

And at the end the most important : 'for the children of Israel and Judah'.

So we know who is it for know.

Next
2 Samuel 21:3
"and David said unto the Gibeonites: 'What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the LORD?"

-David uses his power to calm things down so that can be peace again.
That is what i think , what do you think?

2 Samuel 21:4
"And the Gibeonites said unto him: 'It is no matter of silver or gold between us and Saul, or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel.' And he said: 'What say ye that I should do for you?'

They tell him that the matter is not of any prize , and not to put any death to Israel.
That means Saul also
That is how i understand it.

Then he - the king said: 'Then you tell me how can i help you'.

So now we see King David again trzing to make peace.

2 Samuel 21:5
"And they said unto the king: 'The man that consumed us, and that devised against us, so that we have been destroyed from remaining in any of the borders of Israel,"

Ok , now we see that they talk about some man , which is Saul btw and confirming what he wanted Saul sworn to do.

2 Samuel 21:6
"let seven men of his sons be delivered unto us, and we will hang them up unto the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the LORD.
And the king said: 'I will deliver them.'
"
Ok , so now we see that they are requisting human sacrifice.
And that the king sais he will deliver them.

2 Samuel 21:7
"But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the LORD'S oath that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul."

And no we see someone spared.


Let's read further when it gets more interesting.

2 Samuel 21:8-9
"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite;
and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the mountain before the LORD, and they fell all seven together; and they were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, at the beginning of barley harvest".

We see now that the king took seven sons from two daughets of Saul.

By 'they fell all seven together' it means the seven sons fell and we see that some 'they' are being put do death.We don't know who are these 'they' yet.

So we know now who was trying to be killed and we know that some 'they' are being killed.
We know what was said and who said it.

2 Samuel 21:11
"And Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it for her upon the rock, from the beginning of harvest until water was poured upon them from heaven; and she suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night.
And it was told David what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done."

-And we see know that the daughter of Saul spread sackcloth and spread upon some rock and waited untill some water from heaven is being poured.
And she didn't leave that place.
All this what is happening - she staying day and night there , someone told all of this to king David.

2 Samuel 21:12
"And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the broad place of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, in the day that the Philistines slew Saul in Gilboa;"

So Saul and his firstborn son are dead.
It is probably that they surrendered themselfs and the others were saves.

The seven sons that were hanged fell and they were saved and Saul and Jonathan died saving them and by the Philistines or the Gibeonites - They are the same.
Gibeonites and Philistines , one representing the entity and the other name specifies the city they inherited.

For example where i come from we are calling ourselfs "Македонци" because of our enticity and "Скопјани" because of the city that we inhabit.
You will understand probably only Makedon , but this "ци" анд "ки" on the end is equivalent to "es" from Philistines and Gibeonites.

Gibeon was a Canaanite and later an Israelite city.
The Philistines were an ancient people who lived on the south coast of Canaan during the Iron Age in a confederation of city-states generally referred to as Philistia.
Same as 'Elada' or what you english speakers want to say "Hellada".

This info also tells something else about the land where democracy is born , but we the Macedonians(sorry North Macedonians official) came there(that is what the world is being taught althrough in Ancient History and Archeology it says that Ancient Macedonians lived on these lands) - but ok , let they fool the world that "Greece" was always there ..

Modern Greeks share similar proportions of DNA from the same ancestral sources as Mycenaeans, although they have inherited a little less DNA from ancient Anatolian farmers and a bit more DNA from later migrations to Greece.
I wonder where did the Philistines disapear...
That's what most schollars say ,they disapeared magically
Both of them , Philistines in 6th BC century and later on Ancient Macedonians.
I always wonder , where can so many people disapear..

Let's move on , that was a little bonus for you to read something up.

So next we have

2 Samuel 21:13
"and he brought up from thence the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son; and they gathered the bones of them that were hanged."
Oh , i was wrong - nobody was saved - everybody died , now we know that they did did not just fell.

Ok , it doesn't matter what happend or how they tried to save them since everybody died.

2 Samuel 21:14
"And they buried the bones of Saul and Jonathan his son in the country of Benjamin in Zela, in the sepulchre of Kish his father; and they performed all that the king commanded. And after that God was entreated for the land."

So they preformed something , and we don't know what it is , and yet you claim to say that was accepting human sacrifice.
Maybe they preformed prayers for forgiveness , how do you know that was of sacrifice?
We don't see anywhere that "the LORD" says anything to kill.

So i just might also ask now, why do you misinterprete this passage , to what use?

Either way , i am done.

In that story, why did God impose a famine?
What did [he] require of David before [he]'d lift the famine?
When David had fulfilled those requirements, and only then, did God indeed lift the famine?

Let me know if you can't work that out for yourself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One time you say a woman's mate selection is survival of the fittest

I've never said that. I would say it is selection on the male. I wouldn't use the term "survival of the fittest" in a modern discussion of this science. It is an antiquated popular term favored most often by those unfamiliar with science and/or who generally reject science.

and then you say it is not conscious.

I didn't say that either.

What you are responding to is satire referencing how you often make contradictory claims.

 

[Dimi95]

In that story, why did God impose a famine?
What did [he] require of David before [he]'d lift the famine?
When David had fulfilled those requirements, and only then, did God indeed lift the famine?

Let me know if you can't work that out for yourself.

He didn't require anything.

He punished Saul and his house with famine.

2 Samuel 21:1
"And there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David sought the face of the LORD.And the LORD said: 'It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he put to death the Gibeonites."

It is for Saul , because he put to death the Gibeonites.

Where does it say that he requires anything in the first place?
Show me where as i gave examples in my answers.
Can you do that?

 

[Yerda]

I think of all change in species as resulting from population bottlenecks. But don't forget that each time a pair reproduce they are excluding every other individual. It is a population bottleneck in microcosm. By the same token when populations are isolated or restricted severely due to predation, disease, or lack of food other aspects of "bottleneck" apply. This especially shows where the stressor is extreme and the response to the stressor is insignificant. "Peppered moths" make a good example because the population of moths of the wrong color plummet leaving a niche wide open for moths of the right color. This results in the species suddenly making the transition in a change I call "adaptation". Like all change in species adaptation is sudden and results from a bottleneck. Most large changes are caused by consciousness but peppered moths are unlikely to have their coloration affected by consciousness; certainly not directly.

Hi, I can see you're involved in multiple debates, so I have no wish to argue. I'm just a bit curious about your ideas. If you get bored or don't have time to respond, I don't mind.

Let me see if I understand you perspective. A population can "adapt" as a result of a population bottleneck, though what you mean by population bottleneck includes sexual reproduction, predation, disease or hunger. Is this correct?

Obviously large changes do not occur through adaptation.

But large changes can occur and are caused by consciousness, as you stated above. Would this mean that many different species can have a common ancestor in your understanding, but that the cause of the divergence is consciousness and not the features we typically associate with evolution?

What would you say is the evidence that adaptation doesn't cause large changes but consciousness does?

An animal doesn't choose to wander to the water and give birth to whales nor will it happen naturally through predation or disease. It requires a bottleneck where the only individuals which survive are more closely related to the water.

I'm not sure that I see why predation, disease, hunger, reproduction etc can't change the proportion of individuals within the population more closely related to the water successively until there are only the water related individuals in the population.

How does a lineage of animals give birth to whales now that did not give birth to whales before?

I don't believe any such pressure exists.

But you've already named a few. Hunger, predation, disease, reproduction are some of the pressures that can affect the rate of survival and reproductive success of individuals.

Each individual is adapted to its environment virtually by definition. A whale depends on things that exist to support whales or he would never have been born. Whales exist because their exists a niche and their existence precludes almost all similar species. This means nothing will "evolve": to fill the niche so long as the whale exists.

Yes, individuals are different but we all breed true. If there were a net change in the parameters of the individuals which survive such as the fastest then there would be such a change in species but even in aggregate and even over a very long time period these changes will not normally result in a new species. They probably could just as Darwin imagines but in point of fact it appears that most such major changes that aren't dependent on mutation are actually very sudden and arise at bottlenecks. Unusual individuals are "selected" by nature because they have unusual consciousness leading to an unusual behavior which allows them to survive a bottleneck. The unusual consciousness derives from unusual genes which are the very basis of how life is formed and these unusual genes result in speciation suddenly over a few generations.

I think it would be helpful if we could agree on the meaning of bottleneck and consciousness here. You indicated earlier that a bottleneck isn't just the situation that we would normally call a bottleneck. At this point I'm not entirely sure whether you agree with the standard understanding of evolution with different definitions of terms, or if you are saying something very different.

Mutations are essentially instantaneous events on the scale of even a single organism's life. That is very sudden change that can occur through sexual reproduction which you seemed to indicate meets your understanding of a bottleneck. But then you speak here of unusual behaviour allowing an individual to survive a bottleneck which sounds much more like the conventional way we would use the term.

Do you see my confusion?

No. An animal nor a species has a choice in what happens to it. Individuals have free will but free will can lead to either success or failure. You choose your course but not your destination.

Sure it's possible whales' ancestors were unusual individuals that ate more fish than rabbits but unusual behavior related to random characteristics like proximity to water with easily caught fish is not going to have an effect because these individuals are just like every other member of its species other than having the opportunity to eat fish.

Again, I'm not sure what you are saying, and insofar as I think I understand you I don't see how you are coming to these conclusions.

Let's think of an imaginary terrestrial ancestor of a later aquatic creature. They could be fairly widespread with many variations between populations, like we see today with almost all species that have some geographic distribution. There are any number of reasons a population living close to the shore of the ocean or a lake might go into the water more frequently, agreed?

All observed change in life is sudden. I am wagering the unobservable change as displayed in the fossil record is equally sudden. I am wagering Darwin was wrong because all his assumptions were wrong and we're still wrong because these assumptions survive even today.

Ok. I'm still trying to work out how much our understanding differs.

I'm not particularly interested in Darwin, so much. He wasn't aware of all the things that I find most interesting and compelling about the changes in populations over time. Like genetics, biochemistry, epigenetics, molecular and cell biology, niche construction, foetal development etc. He wasn't even aware of the fossil record like we are. He did propose that the variety of life is due to "descent with modification" which as I understand it describes evolution about as well as any short phrase.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are countless, infinite, ways that conscious can drive change in species in whole or in part. It's possible individuals can affect mutation by all manner of processes. It's possible the species change suddenly at bottlenecks because of unusual consciousnesses, it's possible that an overarching consciousness is driving it, it's possible that life in aggregate could be conscious, and for all I know it's possible a committee of rabbits is sitting down right now drafting a proposal to make foxes just a little bit slower.

It is possible that you feel you know everything and are bringing revealed truth to us stinky-footed, ignorant bumpkins. This is the one thing you do that you actually provide evidence for, but you don't seem to provide it consciously.

There is no evidence for the possibilities as you propose them and in some cases the proposals go against the evidence. Your personal redefinition of bottlenecks, declarations of sudden and a seemingly poor species concept among them.

Without even so much as a definition for consciousness it's wholly impossible to even study it or to assess its impact on change in species.

Another contradiction. You make claims as fact about the impact of consciousness on species constantly and here you confess you have no definition of conscious to support even making those claims.

To blithely just ignore the possibility that just as every individual controls itself and defines its species that these individuals are irrelevant to change in species is most unfortunate.

When there is no evidence to the reasonable consideration of a possibility, then there is no rational reason to consider it is relevant.

When one person seems to believe they know everything and demands that the world bend to their will despite a lack of any evidence and apparent understanding that others to come to the conclusion it should be so, that is unfortunate for all of us.

Wanting the world to bend to a will composed of an ignorance of that world and deprived of even trivial support for the claims it makes is unfortunate for all of us.

If consciousness can have such a huge effect on a single individual why can't a population of individuals be far more affected by it?

I don't know that anyone is claiming the trait doesn't have an effect. But we are rejecting fanciful, unsupported claims and declarations of revealed truth that offer no room for acceptance.

To put it in Darwinian terms, how do you know that consciousness is not the most critical component of fitness.

How do you know it is? What is your evidence?

Why aren't feet important enough to be included as a necessary component of the fitness and not merely another trait that impacts fitness? Why not penises or kidneys or migration?

You already seem to believe that consciousness is the primary driver in mate selection and mate selection is a primary driver of Evolution.

I've not said that. You are saying that. And not saying it too. You called the reasons for female mate selection hard wired, thus outside of conscious control. One of the few claims you make, and in your case with the usual lack of evidence, I my agree with in part.

You always seem to want things both ways. The only constant seems to be in placing yourself as the final arbiter of truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A female parakeet can't predict the future environment or the characteristics required of her suitors to deal with it. She's not almighty Darwin, afterall. Many people don't even think she is conscious so how is she supposed to know? Even if she is conscious how can she know longer beaks are really going to be in next year.



No. Science is science. There are plenty of experiments comprising the ToE.

However there are no experiments that apply to our belief in gradual change caused by survival of the fittest as the cause of speciation. This is what we're talking about; whether speciation exists and if it exists its nature and causes. Fitness and gradual do not rise to the level of "theory" and could be wrong.



People get hung up on definitions. You can't cause something to exist by naming it. Adam named the animals, he didn't invent them.

That's interesting. You seem to believe you can create by redefining terms or declaring your claims are fact. Another contradiction you parade around in blissful ignorance by all accounts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think I called that 'it's a dirty job but somebody has to do it". Logically the job would fall to the female since it is she who looks after the offspring or at the very least endeavors to give each of them the best possible chance of survival. If she's already looking after the offspring she might as well look before them as well.

Normally it's the bigger and stronger members of a species that get his way. Surely this affects "survival of the fittest". So why is this usually not true in the determination of which genes are propagated? This is anomalous but all Darwin can do is provide anthropomorphized and facile answers.

There are numerous species where the model for rearing offspring is a paternal one. I could be wrong, but I assume you base your ideas on the few animals that you are familiar with and probably don't know much about the rest of the animal kingdom.

All you seem to be able to do is yip at the heels of the theory that you have never demonstrated an ability to understand or find sound reason for rejecting.

 

[cladking]

Let me see if I understand you perspective. A population can "adapt" as a result of a population bottleneck, though what you mean by population bottleneck includes sexual reproduction, predation, disease or hunger. Is this correct?

"Adaptation" involves very minor change that makes the difference between life and death for many individuals. moths will change their color very rapidly. It can not suddenly grow another set of wings or begin feeding wood by this means.

But large changes can occur and are caused by consciousness, as you stated above. Would this mean that many different species can have a common ancestor in your understanding, but that the cause of the divergence is consciousness and not the features we typically associate with evolution?

No. There's no evidence for this to my knowledge. But taxonomies are not clean and species can change in such ways as to appear to be from a different descent.

What would you say is the evidence that adaptation doesn't cause large changes but consciousness does?

Big differences in species are found at the beginnings of eras. Small changes are noted within eras.

I'm not sure that I see why predation, disease, hunger, reproduction etc can't change the proportion of individuals within the population more closely related to the water successively until there are only the water related individuals in the population.

I agree that it could happen. But I believe this is the exception to the rule. Rather than species calving off new species what we see is one species ending and a different beginning. I believe this is caused by something that kills almost every individual leaving only a few that are very different and survived BECAUSE of this difference. These different individuals create a new species in a few generations

How does a lineage of animals give birth to whales now that did not give birth to whales before?

Whales didn't exist before because there was nothing at hand to change into whales. Even after a species makes a huge change the new individuals bear many similarities to their grandparents. The new species will quickly make some adaptations to suit the new way they live and their new niche.

What would you say is the evidence that adaptation doesn't cause large changes but consciousness does?

Consciousness is pattern recognition and free will that drives all behavior. As such it is simply fundamental to all life and all of the changes it undergoes. It can not be ignored or factored out. Every individual is different even in other species.

This can be seen in numerous experiments and observation. It is especially apparent in observation. All species demonstrate cleverness and individuality.

I think it would be helpful if we could agree on the meaning of bottleneck...

My fault in part.

I imagine a mathematical system that can show the odds of mating between every two individuals of a species. Where the odds are low for a large number of individuals this is a sort of "functional bottleneck" ie- everyone else may as well be dead. Don't forget that under normal conditions the odds of any two oddballs mating is very low because even oddball females are likely to select healthy typical mates. Forces tend to keep changes to a minimum so long as there are no severe stressors on population. So as populations go up and down more diversity arises and oddball genes arise at localized bottlenecks. It is extreme population variances that give rise to change but more importantly these variations increase the odds of speciation if a global bottleneck arises: The more diverse the genome the higher the probability that a few individuals will survive an event that reduces the population. The fewer the individual which survive and the more odd the behavior that saved them the bigger the change in the species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No! Theory is state of the art. Theory is by definition what science knows.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Theory is the best explanation for phenomena that can be found in science.

But every scientist should know that theory will stand only until an experiment comes along to show it is wrong.

And they do.

Saying it's just a theory is a cop out. I am saying gradual change caused by fitness isn't even a proper theory.

You say all sorts of things. You don't bother to substantiate most of it leaving others no reason to consider what you say.

Not only can theory be wrong but hypotheses to explain the nature of change can be wrong as well.

So. Empty declarations and claims can be wrong too. Most often they are, since they are an empty cup.

But you can't point out a single instance of me using a word that is inconsistent with the 1952 unabridged Funk and Wagnalls dictionary. You simply choose to parse my words wrong.

No. You make up your own secret definitions for words that are widely recognized and used in specific context and then misapply them. It is your responsibility for communicating in a coherent and recognizable manner. Stop blaming your victims. It is your burden.

For all I know...

The extent of that is a very big part of the problem. You seem to think you know all things.

Of course you're just paraphrasing something that was paraphrased before it got in the bible and then was retranslated six times. But I'm sure you know the original author's intent since you know how to parse words.

The world sure looks different to someone who assumes reality exists, all people see this reality, and they always make sense all the time. With such assumptions you quickly realize the world is not what it appears to be to any observer. I very seriously doubt that the original author believed in talking snakes pulling fast ones on Eve nor did he believe in magical fruit. People have lots of strange beliefs but as a rule of thumb they fit seamlessly with all their other strange beliefs. People don't pick beliefs randomly off a shelf because we are each a product of our time and place. Without this knowledge you can not possibly understand anything outside your own narrow sphere.

All I get from this is that you think knowledge and understanding are important and then proceed to make claims without either.

 

[cladking]

Let's think of an imaginary terrestrial ancestor of a later aquatic creature. They could be fairly widespread with many variations between populations, like we see today with almost all species that have some geographic distribution. There are any number of reasons a population living close to the shore of the ocean or a lake might go into the water more frequently, agreed?

They don't all do it at once and similar creatures, as you said, are spread far and wide. Where are the whales that didn't move into the water? How did they all die out at once?

Species can evolve just as Darwin imagined it. But, I believe that this is not at all common in speciation because forces are keeping the species the same to best utilize its niche which changes only in a random walk. Certainly this random walk has cycles and changes but species tend to quickly adapt to changes. This is another of Darwin's assumptions that is problematical; that populations tend to be stable. It is the instability that creates the diversity that allows adaptation and speciation. You could probably create a computer program to model the evolution of whales. But it would be chock full of unnatural forces and conditions that mandate the evolution. It's surprising someone hasn't done it already to prove survival of the fittest not only works but has been proven as settled science.

I'm not particularly interested in Darwin, so much. He wasn't aware of all the things that I find most interesting and compelling about the changes in populations over time. Like genetics, biochemistry, epigenetics, molecular and cell biology, niche construction, foetal development etc. He wasn't even aware of the fossil record like we are. He did propose that the variety of life is due to "descent with modification" which as I understand it describes evolution about as well as any short phrase.

Modern science is far more experiment and fact based than Darwin. I can't really understand why Darwin and survival of the fittest are still taught and still held as being real. It might largely be inertia.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think of all change in species as resulting from population bottlenecks.

No one else does, because there is no reason to draw that conclusion.

But don't forget that each time a pair reproduce they are excluding every other individual. It is a population bottleneck in microcosm.

It isn't. The population gene pool still exists.

By the same token when populations are isolated or restricted severely due to predation, disease, or lack of food other aspects of "bottleneck" apply.

No. Isolation is not a population bottleneck. A population bottleneck has a specific meaning and application in science and what you are doing creates confusion. Then you will just blame others for not understanding your secret definitions or being unable to read you mind and know what you really mean.

It's ridiculous.

This especially shows where the stressor is extreme and the response to the stressor is insignificant. "Peppered moths" make a good example because the population of moths of the wrong color plummet leaving a niche wide open for moths of the right color. This results in the species suddenly making the transition in a change I call "adaptation". Like all change in species adaptation is sudden and results from a bottleneck. Most large changes are caused by consciousness but peppered moths are unlikely to have their coloration affected by consciousness; certainly not directly.

Now you are trying to reinvent the science of biology. Is there nothing where you do not seem to believe you are omniscient?

The peppered moths are a great example of natural selection and adaptation as they are described understood by evidence and reason in science and not by some random stranger suddenly deciding he is the source of all knowledge.

Obviously large changes do not occur through adaptation.

What does this mean? How is it obvious? What direction will you take this now?

An animal doesn't choose to wander to the water and give birth to whales nor will it happen naturally through predation or disease. It requires a bottleneck where the only individuals which survive are more closely related to the water.

What? This doesn't make any sense.

I don't believe any such pressure exists.

Sure. It seems to be all about belief with you and no facts or misinterpreting them.

Each individual is adapted to its environment virtually by definition. A whale depends on things that exist to support whales or he would never have been born. Whales exist because their exists a niche and their existence precludes almost all similar species. This means nothing will "evolve": to fill the niche so long as the whale exists.

The whale could come up against new competition. There is nothing preventing that from happening. This isn't magic.

Yes, individuals are different but we all breed true. If there were a net change in the parameters of the individuals which survive such as the fastest then there would be such a change in species but even in aggregate and even over a very long time period these changes will not normally result in a new species. They probably could just as Darwin imagines but in point of fact it appears that most such major changes that aren't dependent on mutation are actually very sudden and arise at bottlenecks. Unusual individuals are "selected" by nature because they have unusual consciousness leading to an unusual behavior which allows them to survive a bottleneck. The unusual consciousness derives from unusual genes which are the very basis of how life is formed and these unusual genes result in speciation suddenly over a few generations.

There is no evidence to even suggest looking at this speculation let alone considering it as replacement for the knowledge gained through science.

No. An animal nor a species has a choice in what happens to it. Individuals have free will but free will can lead to either success or failure. You choose your course but not your destination.

Now you are contradicting your claim that mate selection is hard wired in females.

Sure it's possible whales' ancestors were unusual individuals that ate more fish than rabbits but unusual behavior related to random characteristics like proximity to water with easily caught fish is not going to have an effect because these individuals are just like every other member of its species other than having the opportunity to eat fish.

No evidence for any of this speculation.

All observed change in life is sudden.

No. It is not.

I am wagering the unobservable change as displayed in the fossil record is equally sudden.

You can claim and believe whatever you like, but the change seen in the fossil record does not indicate that it was sudden. I guess you lose another wager.

I am wagering Darwin was wrong because all his assumptions were wrong and we're still wrong because these assumptions survive even today.

You have already lost this wager. Repeating on heavy rotation won't change that.

 

[cladking]

Another contradiction. You make claims as fact about the impact of consciousness on species constantly and here you confess you have no definition of conscious to support even making those claims.

I said "without a definition for consciousness". I have a definition.

When there is no evidence to the reasonable consideration of a possibility, then there is no rational reason to consider it is relevant.

Every encounter between a fox and a rabbit is obviously dependent on at least three consciousnesses, yet many propose that since a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit ad infinitum that all three consciousnesses factor out. I disagree. People do all rabbits a disservice just by calling them rabbits.

They each have a personality and a unique presence of their own.

I often cheer for the fox anyway since all God's creatures gotta live.

How do you know it is? What is your evidence?

All behavior appears to be driven by consciousness.

You called the reasons for female mate selection hard wired, thus outside of conscious control. One of the few claims you make, and in your case with the usual lack of evidence, I my agree with in part.

No, not exactly. In all species (not ours) everything is hardwired including the ability to select proper mates in females. However, this hardwiring manifests through consciousness which involves experience and knowledge. It involves every part of the individual's life including their scent trails and their feet. Two females of a species will have virtually identical hardwiring but will select different mates or even different types of mates. No doubt bit seek healthy and typical however.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Adaptation" involves very minor change that makes the difference between life and death for many individuals. moths will change their color very rapidly. It can not suddenly grow another set of wings or begin feeding wood by this means.

Of shivering, callouses and the eye, which are examples of adaptation? Explain your answer clearly and provide the supporting evidence.

No. There's no evidence for this to my knowledge. But taxonomies are not clean and species can change in such ways as to appear to be from a different descent.

Demonstrate that species change in response to taxonomists.

Explain taxonomy.

Big differences in species are found at the beginnings of eras. Small changes are noted within eras.

Please provide an explanation, evidence and references to demonstrate this claim and provide context.

I agree that it could happen. But I believe this is the exception to the rule. Rather than species calving off new species what we see is one species ending and a different beginning. I believe this is caused by something that kills almost every individual leaving only a few that are very different and survived BECAUSE of this difference. These different individuals create a new species in a few generations

Please demonstrate your claims here. Remember, evidence and coherent explanation is important. Provide examples and references. Preferably scientific references and not Nazis. Please refrain from secret redefining of terms in your answers.
1. Demonstrate that offspring are a different species than their parents.
2. Explain what you mean by calving off new species.
3. What is the basis for concluding that speciation occurs in a few generations?
4. Please explain in detail how a trivial similarity means the same and how a trivial similarity does not mean the same?

Whales didn't exist before because there was nothing at hand to change into whales.

Please provide a sound argument with evidence that life did not exist immediately prior to the ancestry of whales.

Even after a species makes a huge change the new individuals bear many similarities to their grandparents. The new species will quickly make some adaptations to suit the new way they live and their new niche.

Please demonstrate that species are able to anticipate future existence in potential environments that do not currently exist and the species has no experience interacting with. How does a species pre-adapt to an unknown future environment?

As always. Evidence. Reason. Explanation. Please.

Consciousness is pattern recognition and free will that drives all behavior.

So you do believe you have a definition for consciousness. Before you said there wasn't one.

As such it is simply fundamental to all life and all of the changes it undergoes.

You have been asked numerous times to demonstrate that consciousness exists in all life and is fundamental to all life. Please do so now.

The same reasonable requirements for rational argument continue to apply.

It can not be ignored or factored out. Every individual is different even in other species.

Explain what you mean here. What does it mean for every individual to be different even in other species. Provide the evidence and your best argument with that evidence to demonstrate this and explain its significance here.

This can be seen in numerous experiments and observation.

Please provide us with a list of those experiments and observations along with the supporting commentary establishing their significance in this context.

It is especially apparent in observation. All species demonstrate cleverness and individuality.

Again, please explain this in some reasoned argument with evidence and reference to prior art leading to whatever this conclusion says.

My fault in part.

I imagine a mathematical system that can show the odds of mating between every two individuals of a species. Where the odds are low for a large number of individuals this is a sort of "functional bottleneck" ie- everyone else may as well be dead. Don't forget that under normal conditions the odds of any two oddballs mating is very low because even oddball females are likely to select healthy typical mates. Forces tend to keep changes to a minimum so long as there are no severe stressors on population. So as populations go up and down more diversity arises and oddball genes arise at localized bottlenecks. It is extreme population variances that give rise to change but more importantly these variations increase the odds of speciation if a global bottleneck arises: The more diverse the genome the higher the probability that a few individuals will survive an event that reduces the population. The fewer the individual which survive and the more odd the behavior that saved them the bigger the change in the species.

Here we are again. Is there any real basis for concluding that you are onto something here by noting a minor similarity between a population bottleneck and artificial selection to the point we can ignore all the differences that are significant?

 

[cladking]

No. You make up your own secret definitions for words that are widely recognized and used in specific and misapply them. It is your responsibility for communicating in a coherent and recognizable manner. Stop blaming your victims. It is your burden.

I do sympathize with my "victims". I am well aware of the pitfalls and hazards in parsing my sentences. Ironically a small part of it is caused by my trying to force the listener to parse the sentence to reflect my intent. If you just assume my meaning is literal it will help a lot.

Communication is a two way street and a big part of the failures is simply that many of these concepts are new and very very different. I believe everyone makes sense all the time and try to parse their words such that they do.

Most of the changes I've made at the insistence of others to communicate these ideas have backfired on me. I'm not sure there exist any words to put most of these ideas into easily understood sentences. People have lots of assumptions that I don't share which results in parsing of my sentences to mean something I did not intend.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I said "without a definition for consciousness". I have a definition.

I do too. Mine is better by all accounts.

Every encounter between a fox and a rabbit is obviously dependent on at least three consciousnesses, yet many propose that since a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit ad infinitum that all three consciousnesses factor out. I disagree. People do all rabbits a disservice just by calling them rabbits.

I don't know these many people or their opinions that you seem so intimately familiar with. How is it that you know so much about what other people think? Of course, you can cite the data and references. On this I have no doubts.

They each have a personality and a unique presence of their own.

I often cheer for the fox anyway since all God's creatures gotta live.

Irrelevant.

All behavior appears to be driven by consciousness.

Undemonstrated. More special knowledge that us stinky-footed bumpkins are not privy to?

No, not exactly.

Yes, exactly! Do you not know your own words?

In all species (not ours) everything is hardwired including the ability to select proper mates in females.

This contradicts your claims that all behavior is driven by consciousness. Which is it?

However, this hardwiring manifests through consciousness which involves experience and knowledge.

So it is not hard wiring. You are contradicting yourself again.

It involves every part of the individual's life including their scent trails and their feet. Two females of a species will have virtually identical hardwiring but will select different mates or even different types of mates. No doubt bit seek healthy and typical however.

Undemonstrated speculation that does not address your contradictions with any evidence. Your speculation is not evidence for your claims.

 

[wellwisher]

No! Theory is state of the art. Theory is by definition what science knows. But every scientist should know that theory will stand only until an experiment comes along to show it is wrong.

Saying it's just a theory is a cop out. I am saying gradual change caused by fitness isn't even a proper theory. Not only can theory be wrong but hypotheses to explain the nature of change can be wrong as well.

This is a statistical based theory, which has a watered down standard, compare to a logical theory. If you could come up with one single experiment, to show a flaw in Einstein relativity; GR or SR, Physics would be shaken. Evolution and Statistical theory can fail often, and nothing is required, in terms of change, since it has the dice and cards buffer. The weatherman is not required to get an A, since dice card is happy with C. State of the art is not saying much, for a dice and cards theory. State of the Art should be reserved for rational theory.

A new medicine, approved by dice and cards theory, can be highly acclaimed and accepted in the market place. However, they still need to show all the sides effects on the label; margins of uncertainty. But that does not change its status as the new and improves leg cramp medicine. This is evolution in a nutshell. It is marketable, but with all the side effects, not shown on the label. If you bring them up, you are a Creationists. They theory appear to more of the state of the art of politics, like crying racism to end an argument and avoid truth?

I prefer a higher rational standard, before state of the art with side effects. State of the art should be rational and therefore predictive. Predictive, if rational, can be used to reverse engineer to predict the past, also. Wouldn't that be better? It would be nice to predict a species before the fossils are found. The standard is not even close to that.

When I was young the main science argument for Evolution, that set it apart, as good science, were ancient fossils were much older than the Bible time of Creation. That was the hard proof of Evolution; time scale proof.

But now it is more about trying convince others, to assume this new and improved dice and card theory is the best we can do. If you do not agree with this 's and cards theory, in full, you are a Creationists. Or you are a racist creationist. The entire thing has become too political and is no longer about pure science, which can see its own limitations, and can also admit how dice and card's science, is too lax of a standard, to be called top notch science. That would require scientific objectivity which is the doorway to reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do sympathize with my "victims".

I don't see that. What I see is that you blame them (us) for for the incoherence of your responses.

I am well aware of the pitfalls and hazards in parsing my sentences.

And yet you choose to keep it all ambiguous and confusing on purpose then. That seems to be the sort of thing you accuse others of doing.

Ironically a small part of it is caused by my trying to force the listener to parse the sentence to reflect my intent.

You could do that by explaining things clearly, concisely and with recognized terminology following recognized rules. To do otherwise seems deceitful and misleading.

If you just assume my meaning is literal it will help a lot.

I don't have to do anything. It is your responsibility to explain yourself and answer questions reasonably and rationally. Coming up with weak excuses is a cop out to cast blame for your failure on anyone but yourself.

Personally, I think it is an escape mechanism to cover your ignorance of the subjects under discussion and to get unsupported claims out there as sudden facts without basis.

Communication is a two way street

Then why make it a one way blind alley?

and a big part of the failures is simply that many of these concepts are new and very very different.

New to you perhaps, but not to many of us that have actually worked in science.

I believe everyone makes sense all the time and try to parse their words such that they do.

Believe whatever you like, but this doesn't make any sense to me. If you don't know what the words mean, then look them up or ask. Instead you make up your own definitions and then circle the wagons when this is recognized. You don't seem to be able to express that you were wrong.

Most of the changes I've made at the insistence of others to communicate these ideas have backfired on me.

Then they were not likely very good or useful changes. I understand others when I discuss these topics with them. I also recognize those that don't really understand them by the actions they take and tactics they use too.

I'm not sure there exist any words to put most of these ideas into easily understood sentences.

There are 600,000 words in the English language and growing. Surely, some of those would be sufficient in this context.

People have lots of assumptions that I don't share which results in parsing of my sentences to mean something I did not intend.

You have lots of assumptions that you can't even put into words and don't seem to have any meaningful place in this discussion of biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi, I can see you're involved in multiple debates, so I have no wish to argue. I'm just a bit curious about your ideas. If you get bored or don't have time to respond, I don't mind.

Let me see if I understand you perspective. A population can "adapt" as a result of a population bottleneck, though what you mean by population bottleneck includes sexual reproduction, predation, disease or hunger. Is this correct?


But large changes can occur and are caused by consciousness, as you stated above. Would this mean that many different species can have a common ancestor in your understanding, but that the cause of the divergence is consciousness and not the features we typically associate with evolution?

What would you say is the evidence that adaptation doesn't cause large changes but consciousness does?


I'm not sure that I see why predation, disease, hunger, reproduction etc can't change the proportion of individuals within the population more closely related to the water successively until there are only the water related individuals in the population.

How does a lineage of animals give birth to whales now that did not give birth to whales before?


But you've already named a few. Hunger, predation, disease, reproduction are some of the pressures that can affect the rate of survival and reproductive success of individuals.


I think it would be helpful if we could agree on the meaning of bottleneck and consciousness here. You indicated earlier that a bottleneck isn't just the situation that we would normally call a bottleneck. At this point I'm not entirely sure whether you agree with the standard understanding of evolution with different definitions of terms, or if you are saying something very different.

Mutations are essentially instantaneous events on the scale of even a single organism's life. That is very sudden change that can occur through sexual reproduction which you seemed to indicate meets your understanding of a bottleneck. But then you speak here of unusual behaviour allowing an individual to survive a bottleneck which sounds much more like the conventional way we would use the term.

Do you see my confusion?


Again, I'm not sure what you are saying, and insofar as I think I understand you I don't see how you are coming to these conclusions.

Let's think of an imaginary terrestrial ancestor of a later aquatic creature. They could be fairly widespread with many variations between populations, like we see today with almost all species that have some geographic distribution. There are any number of reasons a population living close to the shore of the ocean or a lake might go into the water more frequently, agreed?


Ok. I'm still trying to work out how much our understanding differs.

I'm not particularly interested in Darwin, so much. He wasn't aware of all the things that I find most interesting and compelling about the changes in populations over time. Like genetics, biochemistry, epigenetics, molecular and cell biology, niche construction, foetal development etc. He wasn't even aware of the fossil record like we are. He did propose that the variety of life is due to "descent with modification" which as I understand it describes evolution about as well as any short phrase.

Hi. I think I'm done. For now anyway. I've seen all that I need to. Any further engagement would be even more gratuitous at this point.

I'm happy to let this go and leave room for you to discuss this with @cladking. I'm sure he will be relieved to have a reason to move on from what I've asked and pointed out.

I'm interested in reading further.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Consciousness is not in the current Evolutionary Thery since that theory is half baked and not sophisticated enough.

It would be half-baked were it to include reference to trait of consciousness as a mechanism driving change without any evidence for that.

The easiest example of the importance of consciousness is migration. Migration needs brains. If any species stayed put, say during a coming ice age, they may not be selected, since they are optimize to warmer climate and not extreme cold and snow. But if they have the sense to migrate, where to where it is still warmer, they can increase their odds of being selected. If you move to where the weather suits your clothes; like the song, you have a better chance to become optimized for selection.

No one is saying that consciousness isn't important in providing a selection advantage, but your examples cited are a mix of conscious effort and instinct that is outside of conscious choice. Insects do not have much of a brain and they migrate. Locusts swarm and migrate as a response to close contact stimulating the migratory response. Bacteria do not have a brain at all and will move to and away from stimuli.

If you compare the first humans and their descendants who left African to those who remained, the descendants of those who migrated north, appear to have more selective advantages in modern terms.

This sounds almost racist to me.

Natural selection is like a matrix of local potentials. If these do not work for you in terms of selection, if you are smart you can move where you fit in better. This takes the brain and consciousness.

There is no evidence that a brain is required for selection to occur.

Civilization is about the brain and consciousness learning to control the environment, until natural selection becomes a minor player for humans.

No. Selection is just changed. It doesn't just disappear. Glasses improve vision in those that need them. The selective advantage of better vision is eliminated and nothing is preventing poor vision from becoming the norm if those with poor vision have other advantages increasing their fitness.

Selection is a function of the environment. Changing the environment doesn't remove selection across the board. It changes selection to something else.

A climate controlled house and supermarket allows you to live anywhere and avoid de-selection.

Anyway those things are. But then we select for a population that needs climate control to exist.

Darwin, when he visited the Galapagos Island, saw ancient animals stuck in time.

I have no idea what that means. The species he encountered were found no where else, but they were contemporary species.

They could not migrate, being on islands,

I wonder how they got there then?

but rather were optimized to an environment that had reached steady state.

Then they were discovered and that stability and selection was changed by people, rats, dogs, cats, and whatever else we brought with us. The environment changed.

England on the other hand, had been deforested, over generations, and through migration, commerce and world trade, people had brought in planst and foods from around the world. England, at the time of Darwin, had this evolutionary variety, based on the spin offset migration; migration of species via commerce. If one takes care of the rare foreign plant, with proper breeding, it can be acclimated; then selected by local nature.

Some alien species don't need husbandry to survive and become invasive having been removed from the environment that was limiting their abilities. Others don't adapt at all and selection of the environment overcomes the ability to adapt.

Consciousness can control selective pressures, through migration, breeding, and even by altering the environment; pull weeds.

No one is saying that it doesn't have a value or use and isn't being used. The claim is that it controls evolution and there is no evidence for that.

Some cool plants can only survive if you pull weeds, since weeds tend to have more selective value and can even create they own selective pressure, But thanks to consciousness this is not s problem, if goal are fine perennial gardens.

Yes. Humans are conscious beings and can willfully change their environments. Weeds tend to be r-selected species that employ excellent reproductive strategies without evidence of conscious choice in the matter. That humans weed gardens is evidence of our consciousness. But weeds are often evidence of our ignorance to make sound conscious choices.

None of this establishes consciousness as a mechanism of speciation and required to formulate a sound theory of evolution. Plant breeders have bred some plants to the point that they are nearly unrecognizable from their wildtype ancestors to the untrained eye, but they routinely backcross new varieties with the wildtype genepool. So, all that conscious effort hasn't lead to a new species in our food plants.