Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.

What you wrote about it actually shows that you don't even understand what PE is actually about.
So at best, you are disagreeing with a strawman.

Why can't you understand this and address any of my points?

Because your points are based on falsehoods and strawmen.
I corrected those falsehoods and strawmen. There is no need to go in on points that are based on a misunderstanding of the subject you are hellbend on arguing against.

It would be like arguing about the "taste of purple". There is no point in that. All one can do in reply to such argument is point out that "taste" isn't a thing that applies to colors.

You believe every rabbit is exactly alike

No, I don't.... how did you manage to draw such a crazy conclusion?

except some are fitter than others even though you can't define, measure, or predict "fitness".

I already did. It's the quantitative representation of reproductive success.

Rabbits are not exactly alike.

Nobody ever said they were. So I have no clue why you are engaged in the state-the-obvious contest.

Every rabbit is an individual with its own individual consciousness and experience.

And fitness.

You can't see this because to you "rabbits" are nothing but a species.

Actually "rabbit" is a family (Leporidae). There are a couple dozen of species within that family.
And a species is a population made up of individuals of that species.
Some of those individuals are more successful then others in survival and reproduction.

You can't accept that each has free will so you can't imagine they are equally fit.

That makes no sense at all when you understand that fitness has nothing to do with free will and everything with reproductive success.

Many scientists don't even believe humans have free will even though consciousness which nature provides so every individual can succeed can nearly be defined as free will.
Now just say "No" and "word salad" because you can't be bothered to argue any point at all.

Your points are all rooted in (willful?) ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.



I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.


This is called the distributive property.

Another thing you can distribute to all of your comments is they had nothing to do with any of my points.

Lectures, semantical games, naysaying, and saying the words are salad is not addressing the points.

I think it's funny you only reply to the short posts where all that is written is pointing out that you are wrong / misrepresenting things, but don't reply to longer posts where actual explanations are given.

Very telling.

It's almost as if you ignore the points made and explanations given. Almost.

 

[blü 2]

I don't agree with you, PE, or biology.

That tells me it's most likely you don't understand either of them.

Assuming you believe in informing yourself from credible sources ─ and if you don't, I apologize for interrupting whatever it is you're otherwise doing ─ you might try reading this ─ >Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia<

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You guys amaze me. You know and believe whatever science says about evolution.

Did you miss the part where I explained that this phenomenon is also seen in GA's and that I actually worked with those?

This is not "just what science says". This is very demonstrable.

 

[gnostic]

I agree that biology is not the same as paleontology. That does not mean that Tiktaaliks evolved to anything. In the long, eventual run.

I never claimed to be an expert in biology, gnostic. What I did say is that I was an honor student, got scholarships based on merit. I learned (accepted) what I was taught in school and thereafter about evolution. Science was not my interest at the time, but I learned what they taught me and -- believed it. Biology is a different field, although many do connect it with evolution, as if biology proves the theory true.

YoursTrue.

Paleontology is a specialised multi-discipline field, meaning it required not only knowledge in biology and knowledge in some geological fields, that would include stratigraphy.

So most universities around the world don’t offer paleontology as a course.

Honour student in high school or not, if majority of universities don’t teach paleontology, then most certainly they wouldn’t teach you anything about fossils in your local high school you attended.

If you did do biology in high school, you would only be to study extant species of animals or plants, not any extinct organisms. I would highly doubt your high school biology teacher(s) would mention extinct Tiktaalik to you, YoursTrue.

So what make you so sure that you even know what a fossil of a Tiktaalik would look like, let alone the Tiktaalik evolutionary history? Have you ever compared Tiktaalik fossils against fossils of ancestor species or of descendant species?

You are claiming to be “expert” in paleontology, especially if you are making positive claim - “That does not mean that Tiktaaliks evolved to anything.” By making positive claim that there are no evolution of Tiktaalik, then the burden of proof falls upon you, to support your claim (A) by either offering evidence or (B) by citing scientific sources that debunked there are no evolutionary history of the Tiktaalik.

 

[cladking]

I think it's funny you only reply to the short posts where all that is written is pointing out that you are wrong / misrepresenting things, but don't reply to longer posts where actual explanations are given.

If there's anything in your post I didn't respond to it's because I have many times before.

Meanwhile you've never responded to my points except to gainsay them (if that).

Every observation says that species change suddenly and no experiment shows gradual change in species caused by fitness.

You've started saying fitness is quantifiable but haven't shown a fitness score for any individual of any species at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If there's anything in your post I didn't respond to

No, you simply completely ignored the post I'm talking about.
It's not that you aren't responding to certain statements in post you are responding to.
It's rather that you completely ignore posts.

Every observation says that species change suddenly and no experiment shows gradual change in species caused by fitness.

No. Addressed countless times already.

You've started saying fitness is quantifiable but haven't shown a fitness score for any individual of any species at all.

I've explained this in detail several times also already.

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

I would again ask you to read post 1526 (link), from @TagliatelliMonster, where he has explained in more clearer details on Punctuated Equilibrium, and would suggest that you respond to that.

In this post, TagliatelliMonster went out of his ways, to provide accurate descriptions to Punctuated Equilibrium in relation to the Genetic Algorithm and to Natural Selection itself.

What you have described in the past posts including other threads, are not Punctuated Equilibrium at all, particularly your claims to “sudden” speciations. Not only it is flawed and inaccurate on PE, it also downright incorrect & dishonest.

It is dishonest because you keep repeating mistakes & misinformation, even when you have been corrected. Ignoring whatever clarification people have patiently given you, as if they have provided you with co information, that’s intentional intellectual dishonesty.

Again I would ask you again to read post 1526, as it is linked to that post, so you don’t have to search for it. Don’t just read it - understand what he is explaining to you.

I am saying this, so that hopefully in future thread that you won’t repeat the same mistakes again, because of your incorrect version of Punctuated Equilibrium, and inaccurate version of Natural Selection.

Of course, my cynical side, tells me you won’t acknowledged your own errors, nor acknowledge when some ones have patiently given you the correct information. I am guessing it is ego that’s your biggest problem.

 

[cladking]

I've explained this in detail several times also already.

Why don't you humor me and tell me the Survival Quotient of any living thing?

If you can't quantify then quit suggesting you can.

Now you'll ignore this and the next time I challenge you you'll say you've already done it.

Saying you addressed the argument is not the same thing as actually addressing it. I've had to repeat myself hundreds of times but apparently you can't do it once.

 

[cladking]

I would again ask you to read post 1526 (link), from @TagliatelliMonster, where he has explained in more clearer details on Punctuated Equilibrium, and would suggest that you respond to that.

You caught me. i didn't really read it the first time and i didn't read it now.

If you were paying attention you'd have seen I specifically stated numerous times I don't believe in PE. I still don't believe in PE. I never in my entire life have said I support, believe in, or think things evolve through PE.

I believe consciousness is fundamental to life and ALL of its changes. Not PE. Not Darwinism, And certainly not survivalability.

 

[cladking]

Of course, my cynical side, tells me you won’t acknowledged your own errors, nor acknowledge when some ones have patiently given you the correct information.

On the basis of WHAT experiment are you concluding I was given the correct information?

 

[cladking]

I've had to repeat myself hundreds of times but apparently you can't do it once.

Should I list all of Darwin's erroneous assumptions again or tell you how I define "consciousness", "metaphysics", or "abstraction"? Thousands of times I am forced to repeat the same things ad nauseum while you can not possibly provide an answer that even looks familiar because I've never seen it before (unless you hid it in something about PE).

Why not address my argument. What have you got to lose? I understand your opinion is different but you don't seem to understand that everything that you believe supports "Evolution" can be interpreted in other ways. I might be wrong about something I said about beavers or PE but these do not affect the argument. Facts don't go away when anyone misspeaks or makes errors of fact.

 

[gnostic]

You caught me. i didn't really read it the first time and i didn't read it now.

If you were paying attention you'd have seen I specifically stated numerous times I don't believe in PE. I still don't believe in PE. I never in my entire life have said I support, believe in, or think things evolve through PE.

I believe consciousness is fundamental to life and ALL of its changes. Not PE. Not Darwinism, And certainly not survivalability.

No, perhaps you don’t, But you used often to exploit it, doing the flip-flop or moving the goalpost, you would use to argue against Natural Selection, then say you don’t believe or accept it, when someone challenged you upon the issues.

And btw, consciousness don’t exist among all life. You seem to forget or ignore that plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea are not conscious organisms.

you do this dance, where you change your tunes, especially when you were being corrected, you would avoid it. You won’t acknowledge any errors you have made, so you dance around it.


Like when you used to say in old threads about beavers built natural dam, “to farm fishes”. Farming implied growing food sources. When pointed out that what were you think is a dam, is actually their habitat, their lairs that provide them with some protection from predators, and they don’t eat fishes, as beavers are naturally herbivores, hence don’t eat fishes. More recently, when you do mention building dam, you would avoid mentioning fish farming, hence moving the goalpost.

You have based your claim on beavers “farming fish”, on popular urban legend, not on actual study of beavers.

Not once, you have acknowledge this error you have made, and not once you would ever acknowledge that you were given correct information to any members.

i have told You countless times, that not all living organisms have consciousness. Only animals with nervous systems - sensory nervous systems & central nervous systems have consciousness, while others have sensory systems and nerve nets would have limited consciousness. You won’t acknowledge that too.

it is your ego, your pride, when you refuse to acknowledge errors or being given correct information.

This is why many people don’t like debating with you, when you don’t acknowledge your errors, nor when you don’t learn from them.

 

[leroy]

You've been here seven years and routinely involved in discussions about evolution and the theory of evolution. I know, since I was involved in them as well. You say you have understood the theory since you were in high school. You read articles and books about it. I'm not sure why you need these answers or another thread.

What do you hope to gain by endlessly rolling the dice going over the same ground that you have covered so many times before?

I suppose someone else may want to go through all of this with you one more time, but I don't see any reason to.

Good luck.

That (how genes evolve) is a very good question that has no answer in the scientific community ……….only fanatic evolutionists from this forum seem to have an answer but none is willing to share the secret.


1 Some scientist claim they evolve *mainly through* random mutation + natural selection

2 Some claim mutations + natural selection

3 Some say random mutations + genetic drift

4 Some say non random mutation + genetic drif

5 Some (most) make no strong claims and simply say I don’t know

No single scientist claims to know beyond reasonable doubt

 

[leroy]

Why not address my argument.

I just entered in the conversation……………would you make a small summery on what your argument is?

 

[leroy]

Why not address my argument.

I just entered in the conversation……………would you make a small summery on what your argument is?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That (how genes evolve) is a very good question that has no answer in the scientific community ……….only fanatic evolutionists from this forum seem to have an answer but none is willing to share the secret.


1 Some scientist claim they evolve *mainly through* random mutation + natural selection

2 Some claim mutations + natural selection

3 Some say random mutations + genetic drift

4 Some say non random mutation + genetic drif

5 Some (most) make no strong claims and simply say I don’t know

No single scientist claims to know beyond reasonable doubt

Don't care. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[cladking]

No, perhaps you don’t, But you used often to exploit it, doing the flip-flop or moving the goalpost, you would use to argue against Natural Selection, then say you don’t believe or accept it, when someone challenged you upon the issues.

And btw, consciousness don’t exist among all life. You seem to forget or ignore that plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea are not conscious organisms.

you do this dance, where you change your tunes, especially when you were being corrected, you would avoid it. You won’t acknowledge any errors you have made, so you dance around it.


Like when you used to say in old threads about beavers built natural dam, “to farm fishes”. Farming implied growing food sources. When pointed out that what were you think is a dam, is actually their habitat, their lairs that provide them with some protection from predators, and they don’t eat fishes, as beavers are naturally herbivores, hence don’t eat fishes. More recently, when you do mention building dam, you would avoid mentioning fish farming, hence moving the goalpost.

You have based your claim on beavers “farming fish”, on popular urban legend, not on actual study of beavers.

Not once, you have acknowledge this error you have made, and not once you would ever acknowledge that you were given correct information to any members.

i have told You countless times, that not all living organisms have consciousness. Only animals with nervous systems - sensory nervous systems & central nervous systems have consciousness, while others have sensory systems and nerve nets would have limited consciousness. You won’t acknowledge that too.

it is your ego, your pride, when you refuse to acknowledge errors or being given correct information.

This is why many people don’t like debating with you, when you don’t acknowledge your errors, nor when you don’t learn from them.

You can't even see posts that you disagree with. You mine them for soundbites.

Yes, I believe ALL life is individual and I believe ALL life is conscious. Consciousness is the tool that nature provides to succeed. No not for species to succeed because "species" is an abstraction. It is a tool for individuals. Trees don't need as much ability to recognize patterns or exercise free will as a whale.

 

[cladking]

I just entered in the conversation……………would you make a small summery on what your argument is?

Essentially I believe that most change is species is the result of mutation. Most of the rest occurs when populations drop to extremely low levels caused by an event that selects for behavior. Since behavior is the result of the wiring of the brain and experience it is in a very large part derived from genetics. Individuals with unusual behavior have unusual genes that lead to the creation of a new species. For instance 9if only beavers that ate a significant amount of meat survived the resulting beavers born from these very unusual individuals would be a new beaver-like species.

I believe this is what every experiment and observation confirms. All individuals are equally fit to the degree they are equally conscious. Individuals which are physically, behaviorally, or "mentally" defective are at such a severe disadvantage to the "species" that they are irrelevant to how species change. Even characteristics that can't be selected naturally such as resistance to CO2 poisoning are simply irrelevant to fitness. For every practical purpose there is no such thing as fitness because the niches in which every "species" exists changes in a random walk. If one thing is selected in one generation then five generations later the opposite is selected.

"Survival of the fittest" is just something in which people WANT to believe but it has never been shown to exist with any significant species. It s a mirage. Individuals are all different but they are equally fit and each has the ability to survive under ideal conditions. These conditions always prevailed at some point in the past or they wouldn't have the genes they do.

 

[YoursTrue]

YoursTrue.

Paleontology is a specialised multi-discipline field, meaning it required not only knowledge in biology and knowledge in some geological fields, that would include stratigraphy.

So most universities around the world don’t offer paleontology as a course.

Honour student in high school or not, if majority of universities don’t teach paleontology, then most certainly they wouldn’t teach you anything about fossils in your local high school you attended.

If you did do biology in high school, you would only be to study extant species of animals or plants, not any extinct organisms. I would highly doubt your high school biology teacher(s) would mention extinct Tiktaalik to you, YoursTrue.

So what make you so sure that you even know what a fossil of a Tiktaalik would look like, let alone the Tiktaalik evolutionary history? Have you ever compared Tiktaalik fossils against fossils of ancestor species or of descendant species?

You are claiming to be “expert” in paleontology, especially if you are making positive claim - “That does not mean that Tiktaaliks evolved to anything.” By making positive claim that there are no evolution of Tiktaalik, then the burden of proof falls upon you, to support your claim (A) by either offering evidence or (B) by citing scientific sources that debunked there are no evolutionary history of the Tiktaalik.

Oh? lol, I don't think that statement makes me an "expert.: I am just going by what the experts are saying, more or less. They were happy, happy, happy they discovered that fossil because it proved to THEM that there was a real transference somehow because of those appendages from water bound to earth bound organisms. Even though it only proved there was a water-bound fish that developed somehow four appendages. Anyway, bye for now and have a real good night...