Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't "repeat" what you've never done.

The link is right there. Everybody can read it. Several people have already it pointed out to you since then as well.

Are you suggesting that since I wasn't aware that mate selection is now part of survival of the fittest

It's part of natural selection and has always been. As has been explained to you multiple times.

in which I do not believe that my usage of the word "mate selection" is wrong?

It is in the context you were using it.

I can only suggest you look up the words "mate" and "selection'. When you do try to remember that "mate selection" isn't really a force in every species. There is no evidence for instance that a yew tree can exclude any male. I did mention other such examples.

Your posts have devolved into semantical arguments.

No.
When you use the word "fit" differently then when it is mentioned in evolution theory, and when used by every evolutionary biologists out there, and then try to use that warped definition to make a point about it in context of evolution, then all we can do is point out the fallacy.

This is one single word and you want to leverage your belief in the referent for this word into proof I and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong about everything.

As also said already, it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs or opinions and everything to do with the actual science of evolutionary biology and what those terms mean in that context.

Semantics can never define reality. Reality can't even be modeled in words and you want to use them and word games to create the reality you believe exists. Good luck with that. I don't believe in this reality you are trying to create.

Words are used to describe reality. Hence why it is important to no warp the meaning of the words of those descriptions when talking in such context.
If you would lay out your nonsense about evolution to an evolutionary biologist while using your personal definition of "fitness", all you will get is a funny look.

I don't believe you can understand even the double slit experiment without understanding consciousness so I certainly don't believe you can understand change in species without understanding the nature of consciousness.

Random comment is random

Reality is impossibly complex so trying to model it with experiment is exceedingly difficult. Our science is a powerful tool but it's not yet up to the job. Deal with it.

Yeah, science is hard sometimes. That's not a reason to reject it. To do so is just intellectual lazyness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've gone through most of them to show with facts, evidence, logic, and experiment that they are wrong.

Or so you imagine.

Obviously I can't show things like the existence of free will or that everyone always makes sense but I consider such things to be axiomatic. A single sentence can support these things anyway.

I can type a number larger than 8 in this very paragraph; 9.

I not only made sense but exhibited free will. What a feat! Whodda thunk it!

The world is a little different if you take the obvious as being axiomatic. All of a sudden a lot of assumptions start looking like old wives tales.

Uhu, uhu

We've been making these assumptions since the tower of babel despite experiment that shows them to be wrong.

"the tower of babel". lol
Owkay then.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Science changes its conclusions. Here today one aspect, could be gone tomorrow.

At all times, the scientific position is the most parsimonious one that accounts for all of the relevant evidence, which is always tentative and subject to revision when new evidence requires that.

I don't trust many things touted as science.

So which scientific innovations do you distrust? Probably vaccines, but if so, it wouldn't be because they came from science. Microwave ovens also come from science, but I'm guessing that you have and use one.

My best guess is that the reason you have any opinions at all about science is become some of it contradicts your religious beliefs, which is something *I* don't trust.

For me He is doing something to counter what is seen to be happening.

This would be a good example. I don't believe that.

science in the form of evolution is not taught in school as possibly changeable.

That's incorrect. The story of the evolution of the theory contains many tweaks such as the addition of punctuated equilibrium and the addition of modern genetics.

Have you ever had a science class? You must have. They were compulsory for me. If you did, you didn't learn much about evolution and to that we can add how it (and all science) is taught. It's always presented as an evolving story. We went from thinking that the universe was static, deterministic, and contained only one galaxy made only of ordinary matter to a universe full of galaxies to an expanding universe to one containing dark matter and dark energy as well as ordinary matter and in which the physics of the very small and very large scales was very different from the physics of direct experience.

If you missed that, well, sorry, but it's not a reflection on what science is or how it's taught. It's a reflection of what you took with from those classes, assuming you had science classes. In my high school (10-12th grades), the first year was biology, the second chemistry, and the third physics. I learned a lot there, including that science evolves as new discoveries are made. It sounds like your experience was less.

We go back to expert testimony in a trial. If I don't know something for sure, I'm not going to cast a vote on it, and -- I tell the judge that in advance so I don't cause a hung jury.

What you would be asked to do is consider the evidence and arguments that the prosecution and defense offer and decide whether the prosecution has convinced you of guilt.

Of course, if you're pretty sure that you couldn't determine if somebody was guilty no matter the evidence or argument, then you're probably correct to sit the process out, since if there are eleven other people on that jury that could do that, and they were all convnced of guilt, but you were unable to do the same, you would be morally obligated to vote not guilty, and then yes, you would have hung the jury and thwarted the trial process.

I hope you can see how this undermines your judgments about science and your religious beliefs. You're saying that you don't trust your ability to make such judgments when somebody's life or freedom is at stake, so why should others think you do better in other areas? Why do you think that? Why would it be meaningful to others that you have decided that the science is wrong and your religion right when you say that you don't trust your ability to evaluate evidence in a court of law?

 

[cladking]

It's part of natural selection and has always been. As has been explained to you multiple times.

That doesn't mean I've used any of the terms contrary to the dictionary. you said I did. Now you double down and won't say what terms and go so far as to say you've repeated it. You have a semantical argument. You are trying to use word play to prove you are right. I don't believe in your conclusions or even your assumptions and even if I did I am still at liberty to use any definition for any word I choose. You will intentionally parse my words wrong anyway so it doesn't matter.

When you use the word "fit" differently then when it is mentioned in evolution theory, and when used by every evolutionary biologists out there, and then try to use that warped definition to make a point about it in context of evolution, then all we can do is point out the fallacy.

Your lack of agreement with me is irrelevant. You need experiment to create theory not word games or consensus.

If you would lay out your nonsense about evolution to an evolutionary biologist while using your personal definition of "fitness", all you will get is a funny look.

I don't believe in "fitness". i wouldn't use a word like fitness because I believe all individuals are equally fit. it has a null set as a referent. you believe some individuals are blessed with fitness but then you probe no further or even try to define "fitness" except as proof some individuals must have more of it causing evolution!!!!!!!!!

If there is no "fitness" there is no need for the word.

Yeah, science is hard sometimes.

It would certainly be worth any expenditure to learn it what with being able to know everything and everything.

Godspeed to you!

 

[firedragon]

At all times, the scientific position is the most parsimonious one that accounts for all of the relevant evidence, which is always tentative and subject to revision when new evidence requires that.

But science cannot provide or falsify evidence for the metaphysical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But science cannot provide or falsify evidence for the metaphysical.

But it can show that it is not needed.

 

[cladking]

Or so you imagine.

You just dismiss everything. You dismiss my axioms and the experimental support. You dismiss my definitions and then say they are wrong. Even if my intended meaning weren't the first definition in the dictionary words STILL mean what the author says they mean. Everything else is word games. You dismiss my objections to Darwin's assumptions. you dismiss or ignore experiment when you believe it doesn't apply. You see all evidence only in terms of what you believe. You won't argue points with me and instead say that your beliefs are established fact and beyond argument.

There is nothing beyond argument. Science never reaches a conclusion. You won't even acknowledge I say Darwin assumed consciousness was irrelevant much less admit this assumption could be wrong. Over and over believers simply ignore anything, any anomaly, and any argument that shows they might be wrong. it is written off, handwaved, or ignored. You accuse religious people of this but believers in science are the worst offenders and most holy of all thous.

You won't address any of this AGAIN. You will ignore it and then say I've never presented any argument at all. In some ways believers in Evolution are as bad as Egyptologists. The only difference is your arguments are a lot sounder and more logical.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

science cannot provide or falsify evidence for the metaphysical.

Nothing can.

Nor do we need that information to live life (informal science) or do formal science.

Nor could we use that information were it available.

But perhaps we're not referring to the same thing. For me, the metaphysical refers to that which lies outside of experience and serves as the source of conscious phenomena, which reveal the physical world. We can only imagine what lies outside of conscious content, and it doesn't matter if we've got it wrong.

Suppose you learned for a fact that what you consider the world outside of consciousness to be like was radically incorrect. Maybe you learn that you're a brain in a vat. Nevertheless, you continue to experience yourself as having a body and limbs, and to be ambulating through a world that does not look like a vat, but rather, has a sun and stars and sky and mountains that you now know are illusions. You can't use that information. The rules for navigating what you now know to be an illusory reality don't change.

It might take a while for somebody coming to that knowledge to understand that. He still sees his hand and finger and perhaps a burning candle even though he now knows they aren't "real." So, he sticks his imagined finger into the imagined flame, it burns and hurts as it always had before he knew that they weren't "real", he imagines that he quickly withdraws his imagined finger from that imagined flame, and the pain ends. Will he do it again, or just go back to the old rules that always worked before and still work now?

I suggest that it's the latter, and that's why knowing the metaphysical reality underlying experience - what's really on the other side of the theater of conscious phenomena - doesn't matter.

All we really need to know about reality is how we experience it, not what we are actually experiencing. All we need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes like the pain of a burning finger, all occurring within the theater of conscious content.

It's enough to know that if Belief B leads to Action A in pursuit of Desired outcome D, and that makes that outcome occur, then we can consider Belief B useful without knowing why. Reality outside of consciousness functions as a black box for us whatever it is.

 

[firedragon]

Nothing can.

Great. Then you should give up.

 

[Dimi95]

But it can show that it is not needed.

Yes , but for certain things, not for everything.
It can show our metaphysician here how wrong he is.

I agree both with you(but not entirely) and also with @firedragon on what he said

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Life forms are nothing like buildings

Buildings aren't alive!!!

You clearly lack even a basic education

It's embarrassing to watch

"read", it should be "its embarrassing to read"!

Secondly, is not the evolutionary claim that we are a result of the interraction over time of various "chemicals" in a primordial soup? That would suggest that before we "came alive" so to speak, the difference between us and "buildings" is not so great as you seem to think!

Finally, if the above is true, one might believe given enough time, buildings would gain intelligence of their own accord. It seems to me that even for evolutionists, this notion is heresy...which I'd suggest falsifies their own belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes , but for certain things, not for everything.
It can show our metaphysician here how wrong he is.

I agree both with you(but not entirely) and also with @firedragon on what he said

That is true. Not for everything yet. So what? There is a history of such claims being refuted and to date there is no evidence for non-physical events nor are there any good arguments for them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"read", it should be "its embarrassing to read"!

Secondly, is not the evolutionary claim that we are a result of the interraction over time of various "chemicals" in a primordial soup? That would suggest that before we "came alive" so to speak, the difference between us and "buildings" is not so great as you seem to think!

Finally, if the above is true, one might believe given enough time, buildings would gain intelligence of their own accord. It seems to me that even for evolutionists, this notion is heresy...which I'd suggest falsifies their own belief.

Even before there was "life" there would have been self reproducing molecules. Self replicating molecules is only one trait of life. So no, still not like buildings.

 

[YoursTrue]

At all times, the scientific position is the most parsimonious one that accounts for all of the relevant evidence, which is always tentative and subject to revision when new evidence requires that.

So which scientific innovations do you distrust? Probably vaccines, but if so, it wouldn't be because they came from science. Microwave ovens also come from science, but I'm guessing that you have and use one.

My best guess is that the reason you have any opinions at all about science is become some of it contradicts your religious beliefs, which is something *I* don't trust.

This would be a good example. I don't believe that.

That's incorrect. The story of the evolution of the theory contains many tweaks such as the addition of punctuated equilibrium and the addition of modern genetics.

Have you ever had a science class? You must have. They were compulsory for me. If you did, you didn't learn much about evolution and to that we can add how it (and all science) is taught. It's always presented as an evolving story. We went from thinking that the universe was static, deterministic, and contained only one galaxy made only of ordinary matter to a universe full of galaxies to an expanding universe to one containing dark matter and dark energy as well as ordinary matter and in which the physics of the very small and very large scales was very different from the physics of direct experience.

If you missed that, well, sorry, but it's not a reflection on what science is or how it's taught. It's a reflection of what you took with from those classes, assuming you had science classes. In my high school (10-12th grades), the first year was biology, the second chemistry, and the third physics. I learned a lot there, including that science evolves as new discoveries are made. It sounds like your experience was less.

What you would be asked to do is consider the evidence and arguments that the prosecution and defense offer and decide whether the prosecution has convinced you of guilt.

Of course, if you're pretty sure that you couldn't determine if somebody was guilty no matter the evidence or argument, then you're probably correct to sit the process out, since if there are eleven other people on that jury that could do that, and they were all convnced of guilt, but you were unable to do the same, you would be morally obligated to vote not guilty, and then yes, you would have hung the jury and thwarted the trial process.

I hope you can see how this undermines your judgments about science and your religious beliefs. You're saying that you don't trust your ability to make such judgments when somebody's life or freedom is at stake, so why should others think you do better in other areas? Why do you think that? Why would it be meaningful to others that you have decided that the science is wrong and your religion right when you say that you don't trust your ability to evaluate evidence in a court of law?

The Miller Urey experiment is an example of showing that life can be generated from nonliving matter as ascertained by scientists.

 

[YoursTrue]

"read", it should be "its embarrassing to read"!

Secondly, is not the evolutionary claim that we are a result of the interraction over time of various "chemicals" in a primordial soup? That would suggest that before we "came alive" so to speak, the difference between us and "buildings" is not so great as you seem to think!

Finally, if the above is true, one might believe given enough time, buildings would gain intelligence of their own accord. It seems to me that even for evolutionists, this notion is heresy...which I'd suggest falsifies their own belief.

Buildings, on the other hand, are generally constructed by someone.

 

[YoursTrue]

"read", it should be "its embarrassing to read"!

Secondly, is not the evolutionary claim that we are a result of the interraction over time of various "chemicals" in a primordial soup? That would suggest that before we "came alive" so to speak, the difference between us and "buildings" is not so great as you seem to think!

Finally, if the above is true, one might believe given enough time, buildings would gain intelligence of their own accord. It seems to me that even for evolutionists, this notion is heresy...which I'd suggest falsifies their own belief.

"read", it should be "its embarrassing to read"!

Secondly, is not the evolutionary claim that we are a result of the interraction over time of various "chemicals" in a primordial soup? That would suggest that before we "came alive" so to speak, the difference between us and "buildings" is not so great as you seem to think!

Finally, if the above is true, one might believe given enough time, buildings would gain intelligence of their own accord. It seems to me that even for evolutionists, this notion is heresy...which I'd suggest falsifies their own belief.

It could make a good sci-fi story about buildings coming to life. Maybe eventual consciousness too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Miller Urey experiment is an example of showing that life can be generated from nonliving matter as ascertained by scientists.

No. The Miller Urey experiment only showed that amino acids, the building blocks of life, could arise naturally. At the time of the experiment it was thought by many that only life could make such chemicals making abiogenesis impossible. The experiment showed that those making that argument were wrong and opened a pathway to abiogenesis. But it did not prove that life can be generated from nonliving material. It did not go that far. More modern experiments keep answering more and more questions indicating that it is highly probably the source of life, but not all questions have been answered yet.

But let's look at the belief that life was created by a god from non-life. Here is all of the scientific evidence for that belief:













































Nada zip, nothing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Great. Then you should give up.

More verbiage from you that indicates that you didn't understand what you read.

You seem to slip into this simplistic and condescending mode whenever challenged by a post you don't understand or one that intimidates you. I'm not sure which pertains here.

The Miller Urey experiment is an example of showing that life can be generated from nonliving matter as ascertained by scientists.

Same comment to you. Your comment is incorrect (the experiment neither showed not tried to show that) and would be irrelevant even if it were correct.

Let's fix it: "The Miller Urey experiment showed that amino acids can be generated by sparking smaller molecules in solution." It's still irrelevant to my post.

Both of you post in what I call chat mode - a handful words with no thought development, evidence, or argumentation and often unrelated to what you quote.

Why bother? He apparently thinks that I tried to "provide or falsify evidence for the metaphysical" when I argued that the topic was irrelevant, and I have no idea why you thought the Miller-Urey experiment was relevant to you in your response to my words.

But I'm used to that, and it doesn't matter. As I've stated many times before, I write for my own benefit and for that of those who CAN benefit from such words, which is rarely the person I'm answering.

 

[YoursTrue]

More verbiage from you that indicates that you didn't understand what you read.

You seem to slip into this simplistic and condescending mode whenever challenged by a post you don't understand or one that intimidates you. I'm not sure which pertains here.

Same comment to you. Your comment is incorrect (the experiment neither showed not tried to show that) and would be irrelevant even if it were correct.

Let's fix it: "The Miller Urey experiment showed that amino acids can be generated by sparking smaller molecules in solution." It's still irrelevant to my post.

Both of you post in what I call chat mode - a handful words with no thought development, evidence, or argumentation and often unrelated to what you quote.

Why bother? He apparently thinks that I tried to "provide or falsify evidence for the metaphysical" when I argued that the topic was irrelevant, and I have no idea why you thought the Miller-Urey experiment was relevant to you in your response to my words.

But I'm used to that, and it doesn't matter. As I've stated many times before, I write for my own benefit and for that of those who CAN benefit from such words, which is rarely the person I'm answering.

Um...maybe I'm wrong but don't people think the miller urey experiment demonstrated the possibility of abiogenesis?

 

[YoursTrue]

No. The Miller Urey experiment only showed that amino acids, the building blocks of life, could arise naturally. At the time of the experiment it was thought by many that only life could make such chemicals making abiogenesis impossible. The experiment showed that those making that argument were wrong and opened a pathway to abiogenesis. But it did not prove that life can be generated from nonliving material. It did not go that far. More modern experiments keep answering more and more questions indicating that it is highly probably the source of life, but not all questions have been answered yet.

But let's look at the belief that life was created by a god from non-life. Here is all of the scientific evidence for that belief:













































Nada zip, nothing.

Whether you realize it or not it actually supports the idea that life generated from ...God.