Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

Uhu.
Willful ignorance.

This is why I have no reason to take you seriously.
So you don't believe science you willingly are ignorant of.

Watch me care.

There is zero reason to seriously engage a mind like that.

You are still assuming the textbooks are right. Even though you don't understand metaphysics it would never occur to you that you might not understand all the things you know. Even though science regularly gets caught with no pants it would never occur to you that this will happen again and again in the future.

You don't need to know how science works if already know everything.

 

[cladking]

We don't even need to listen to other people because they are salad tossing worms until they agree with us for the same reasons to every decimal point.

...And any decimal point that might exist in the future.

We just want to be sure that if our beliefs "Evolve" that those who don't toss salad evolve exactly the same.

We want togetherness more than we want to be right and we already know everything anyway.

 

[wellwisher]

So you say.

I want to see an experiment that shows gradual change in species caused by survivalof the fittest.

Of course you have nothing so I'll settle on a scientific definition of "survival of the fittest". I want you to show me EXACTLY what makes an individual more likely to be naturally selected and then show your definition actually works.

Of course you can't do this either because the real world is too complex. You merely believe all the factors affecting fitness cancel out in a population but this is illogical and flies in the face of observation.

An interesting set of behavior are abortion and trans gender. If we do the math, these behavior go the opposite of evolution and natural selection, since this part of the population is taking breeding and offspring off the table. Evolution is usually a positive thing based on fitness plus procreation so the fitness genes can go forward. But these behavior, by bottlenecking breeding, are detached from evolution. Even if fit in culture, lack of breeding, does not pass their genes forward for evolution.

Does nature also cause some to leave the gene pool, so the direction of evolution can detoured? We have whales beaching themselves, essentially taking themselves out of the breeding cycle of natural selection. Does this mean, since the DNC, which is big on abortion and transgender, by departing procreation, are going the opposite way of natural selection; natural de-selection? Does this mean the DNC, itself, is heading toward extinction, by deselecting from natural selection?

Trump and the RNC, conceptually go along with evolution; fitness and breeding. Therefore is the RNC the new natural future of natural selection? Could we make a prediction? A vote for Trump, is a vote of natural selection, breeding and evolution. Ironically, most religions, tell the faithful to have babies and therefore are religions like an arm of modern evolution? Those who de-select, good luck. Do the math based on the parameters of the existing theory. I am an applied scientist doing the math.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I fear to ask but what colloquial definition is that.

Read @leroy 's post to find out.

As I've explained many times every individual is different

Yes

Nature sometimes generates defective individuals through happenstance and these aren't really relevant

"defective" ha? As in, they will have a hard time surviving and reproducing, ha?
Another way to say that, in biological terms, is that they have a low fitness score.

Of those who are not defective each is more likely to survive under different conditions and different sets of events. But defining this difference as "fitness" is simply ignoring the fact that they are each capable of surviving and procreating in the real world or they wouldn't have the genes they do.

And some are more capable then others. Those have a higher fitness score.
Many (not all) are capable, sure. But with the group that are capable, are gradients. Some are more capable then others.

I'm sorry if this is so hard for you to comprehend.

Toads don't act like birds and if they tried they'd be eaten almost immediately; very very efficiently.

Random statement is random.

It's very easy to predict which toads will act like birds because none will but it's wholly impossible to predict which toad will prosper in any given environment and it's impossible to predict what traits will be passed down by toad-kind. The cart is placed before the horse.

I already explained why it is hard to predict. Too many variables.

Reproductive success is just as unpredictable as which traits will facilitate it and all those toads that are off spring from the most successful are still just toads and the exact same species as their parents.

Were you under the impression that toads would produce none-toads if there is such a thing as biological fitness?
Another random meaningless statement.

At least they would be the same species if there were such a thing so it's better to think of them as individuals who are as different from their parents as they are from one another.

They aren't. All individuals are more like their parents then other random unrelated (or rather, further related) individuals.
Have you never learned how DNA works?

Speciation actually occurs when toads that act a lot like frogs are the only individuals that survive a bottleneck.

No.

They act this way because of consciousness and peculiar genes that underlie it. All these "toad-frogs" get together and voila in a short time what ya' got is a brand new species.

No species is "brand new". Every "new" species is always a subspecies of their ancestral species.

Nature is always experimenting (unlike Evolutionists) and comes up with mutations, hybrids, and whatnot. Some of these, like Adam's ability to consciously manipulate language proved highly beneficial in a social species that already succeeded through cooperation.

"adam"?
What are you on about now?

Peoples ability to believe they know everything has been absolute since the "tower of babel".

That tower is a myth.

Homo omnisciencis. Our species has been lecturing anyone who will listen for 4000 years.

Homo Sapiens evolved at least 150k years ago.

We don't even need to listen to other people because they are salad tossing worms until they agree with us for the same reasons to every decimal point.

You certainly don't listen to other people, that much is clear.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are still assuming the textbooks are right.

Sorry, I give more value to evidence and experts in evolutionary biology then to rando's on the internet who proudly acknowledge willful ignorance, refuse to learn anything and nevertheless are hell-bend on arguing against the scientific theories they are willingly ignorant about.

Even though you don't understand metaphysics it would never occur to you that you might not understand all the things you know.

Says the guy who refuses to learn what PE is all about but proudly states it is wrong and doesn't believe it.
lol

Even though science regularly gets caught with no pants

You call it "caught with no pants". Scientists call it "progress".

it would never occur to you that this will happen again and again in the future.

Call me when that happens to evolutionary biology.
I won't be holding my breath.

You don't need to know how science works if already know everything.

Are you talking about yourself?
Because you demonstrated time and again you have no clue how science works.
Your attempt at defining what the words evidence, hypothesis and theory mean in context of science were laughable at best.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An interesting set of behavior are abortion and trans gender. If we do the math, these behavior go the opposite of evolution and natural selection, since this part of the population is taking breeding and offspring off the table. Evolution is usually a positive thing based on fitness plus procreation so the fitness genes can go forward. But these behavior, by bottlenecking breeding, are detached from evolution. Even if fit in culture, lack of breeding, does not pass their genes forward for evolution.

Ow great.... another one who hasn't got a clue and who thinks he's making some kind of clever point.

Does nature also cause some to leave the gene pool, so the direction of evolution can detoured? We have whales beaching themselves, essentially taking themselves out of the breeding cycle of natural selection. Does this mean, since the DNC, which is big on abortion and transgender, by departing procreation, are going the opposite way of natural selection; natural de-selection? Does this mean the DNC, itself, is heading toward extinction, by deselecting from natural selection?

"no" to all those stupid ignorant questions.

Trump and the RNC, conceptually go along with evolution; fitness and breeding. Therefore is the RNC the new natural future of natural selection? Could we make a prediction? A vote for Trump, is a vote of natural selection, breeding and evolution. Ironically, most religions, tell the faithful to have babies and therefore are religions like an arm of modern evolution? Those who de-select, good luck.

"no" again to all those equally stupid and ignorant questions

Do the math based on the parameters of the existing theory. I am an applied scientist doing the math.

Lol, no you aren't.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody has ever said such.

They surely have. If you and others don't think it's possible for humans to evolve to fish, what are your reasons for saying that? Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, I give more value to evidence and experts in evolutionary biology then to rando's on the internet who proudly acknowledge willful ignorance, refuse to learn anything and nevertheless are hell-bend on arguing against the scientific theories they are willingly ignorant about.



Says the guy who refuses to learn what PE is all about but proudly states it is wrong and doesn't believe it.
lol


You call it "caught with no pants". Scientists call it "progress".

Call me when that happens to evolutionary biology.
I won't be holding my breath.



Are you talking about yourself?
Because you demonstrated time and again you have no clue how science works.
Your attempt at defining what the words evidence, hypothesis and theory mean in context of science were laughable at best.

I have found then, when asking people like yourself, they believe everything an "expert" may say. You personally don't understand it but believe what those you consider experts to say. Have a good day bye for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, I give more value to evidence and experts in evolutionary biology then to rando's on the internet who proudly acknowledge willful ignorance, refuse to learn anything and nevertheless are hell-bend on arguing against the scientific theories they are willingly ignorant about.



Says the guy who refuses to learn what PE is all about but proudly states it is wrong and doesn't believe it.
lol


You call it "caught with no pants". Scientists call it "progress".

Call me when that happens to evolutionary biology.
I won't be holding my breath.



Are you talking about yourself?
Because you demonstrated time and again you have no clue how science works.
Your attempt at defining what the words evidence, hypothesis and theory mean in context of science were laughable at best.

Read @leroy 's post to find out.



Yes



"defective" ha? As in, they will have a hard time surviving and reproducing, ha?
Another way to say that, in biological terms, is that they have a low fitness score.



And some are more capable then others. Those have a higher fitness score.
Many (not all) are capable, sure. But with the group that are capable, are gradients. Some are more capable then others.

I'm sorry if this is so hard for you to comprehend.




Random statement is random.



I already explained why it is hard to predict. Too many variables.





Were you under the impression that toads would produce none-toads if there is such a thing as biological fitness?
Another random meaningless statement.



They aren't. All individuals are more like their parents then other random unrelated (or rather, further related) individuals.
Have you never learned how DNA works?



No.



No species is "brand new". Every "new" species is always a subspecies of their ancestral species.



"adam"?
What are you on about now?



That tower is a myth.



Homo Sapiens evolved at least 150k years ago.


You certainly don't listen to other people, that much is clear.

Unlike yourself and those like you (no insult intended) you demonstrate a remarkable lack of cognitive ability. Nothing personal and I hope things improve in your perceptions.

 

[leroy]

I realize that, so thank you. Yet some apparently believe humans could possibly evolve to fish.

If they (some) already belive that the universe came from nothing………. Humans evolving in to fish most look like a walk in the park for them

 

[leroy]

Nobody has ever suggested that "fitness" in context of biology means anything close to the colloquial definition. Except perhaps @cladking.

Fitness in biology: quantitative representation of reproductive success.

It's not hard. I have no idea why this is apparently so controversial.

As far as I can see, it is not controversial and nobody in tis forum disagrees

 

[leroy]

"there is no such thing as fitness"

Yes if he ever made that claim, then he would be wrong

 

[leroy]

Nobody has ever said such.

If there is selective pressure + time +good luck, why, wouldn’t humans evolve in to a swimming creature with lungs and scales (something that would be called a “fish”)?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If they (some) already believe that the universe came from nothing………. Humans evolving in to fish most look like a walk in the park for them

But the universe did Not come from nothing - God used His spirit - Psalm 104:30 - to create the invisible and visible realm of creation
Thus, God supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create both the what we see and can't see

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.....................................................................................................................
That tower is a myth.

Why do you say Nimrod is a myth ______________________
Mankind can trace its 'religious family tree' back to its base with Nimrod and the Tower of Babel
As the people migrated away from there they took with them their religious practices and ideas and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great
That is why we see so many similar or overlapping religious ideas and practices spread world wide throughout today's religious world

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the universe did Not come from nothing - God used His spirit - Psalm 104:30 - to create the invisible and visible realm of creation
Thus, God supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create both the what we see and can't see

Do you have any reliable evidence for that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you say Nimrod is a myth ______________________
Mankind can trace its 'religious family tree' back to its base with Nimrod and the Tower of Babel
As the people migrated away from there they took with them their religious practices and ideas and spread them world wide into a greater religious Babylon or Babylon the Great
That is why we see so many similar or overlapping religious ideas and practices spread world wide throughout today's religious world

We understand how new languages arise and that there was no Flood of Noah. There always were multiple languages on Earth. They start to develop any time that a population splits into two or more groups.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

....... and that population split started at the Tower of Babel - Genesis 11:1

 

[Subduction Zone]

....... and that population split started at the Tower of Babel - Genesis 11:1

No, we know that those splits occurred long before that. The various indigenous tribes have been in the New World for at least 12,000 years and they were cut off once sea level rose after the last glaciation. A worldwide flood would have killed them and the continents would not have had any human life. Or any large mammal or reptilian life for that matter.

 

[YoursTrue]

If they (some) already belive that the universe came from nothing………. Humans evolving in to fish most look like a walk in the park for them

I would say so. But they can't figure out if the universe really came from zilch. And then they have to really figure what nothing means. Food for really fin-ite minds. Let them enjoy the plate.