Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Subduction Zone]

Care to quote my alleged error? no you can't so stop making things up

Oh dude! You cannot make false claims about others and demand an explanation of what is obvious.

Your own method of posting tells us that you know that you are wrong. If you want to make demands you have to debate properly.

 

[cladking]

I am not surprised that you are still using the outdated sociological concept “survival of the fittest” invented by a sociologist Herbert Spencer.

Natural Selection is the evolutionary mechanism, not “survival of the fittest”.

Modern Natural Selection don’t use “survival of the fittest” as much today as ignorant creationists, because creationists, such as yourself, haven’t had original thought.

Worse still, you are still using the Tower of Babel myth to validate your nonsensical claim of 40,000 years old metaphysical language & ancient science.

You don’t see the hypocrisy & irony of arguing against modern biology for using 19th century theory - which isn’t true, as modern theory includes modern genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, monophyletic taxonomy, etc, that have updated Natural Selection - you seemed to wanted to accept your outrageous concept biology together with the (nonexistent) 40,000 year old science.

This whole post is just a word game to not address the fact that there is no "survivability quotient" by any name at all. It's like saying I'm wrong about change in species because I think Darwin went by "Chuck" instead of "Charles". Let's see your "electability quotient" then and not more clouds of obfuscation and smoke and mirrors.

You have nothing but word games.

 

[metis]

There are fossils said to be transitional forms, but that's about it. No videos were taken and the original items are not known bu rather conjectured.

"videos"?

 

[cladking]

I don't see how it's even possible to make the mistake you made. You took a five-word, simple, declarative sentence - "Your education is your responsibility" - and changed it to something different.

I'm looking to see where the "survivability quotient" is. Where is the experiment that proves gradual change in species through survival of the fittest? You have nothing and you want me to think all I have to do is study thew literature to understand. You can't make an argument for Evolution other than the irrelevant and illogical one you've already tried to foist off in lieu of experiment.

Responsive replies:
I agree.
OK, but I'd like some help.
Not just mine. It takes a village
Could you explain better what you mean by education

I've studied "Evolution" extensively for nearly 70 years. I don't believe in it.

I believe Darwin and you are wrong and neither want to discuss it.

Unresponsive replies:
Your argument is your responsibility.
Your car is your responsibility.
Your rent is your responsibility.
I like cheese.
One is the loneliest number.
How about those Dodgers?

Telling me all the answers are recorded by Darwin and today's scientists now know everything is unresponsive because... ...drumroll please... ...I think you are wrong. If I got a doctorate in the field I would probably still think you are wrong.

This is what heretics have always met. First they are lectured and then they are insulted. Eventually if the rack and thumbscrews don't work they are met with word games and told they are insane, ignorant, stupid, thick, and unwilling to learn. Instead of listening almost all people are thinking of their response.

That is incorrect. For starters, the future is at least partly predictable, but that's not relevant here.

No!!! It never is. Take it from one the the great prognosticators the future is never ever visible in whole or in part. Even if the only forces acting on things were natural forces there are always multiple possible outcomes. Throw life into the mix and it is a wildcard. You remember what life is don't you. I defined it for you enough times you should. Life is consciousness, pattern recognition, free will etc etc etc. Life affects the outcome of everything around it. Roll a ball toward the edge of the table and predict it will fall off but if fate doesn't stop it maybe someone's hand will. The trick to seeing the future is to know it can't be seen and to expect to be wrong a lot. I wager my record can stand up against almost anyone because not knowing and expecting to be wrong are my wheelhouse.

It is relevant because defining fitness as those which reproduce the most is begging the question. They only reproduced the most because they reproduced the most. It doesn't mean they are less defective than others. If you can't predict what fitness is than it can't exist in the real world or perhaps more accurately it is an irrelevancy.

If consciousness is relevant to change in species then the whole "Theory of Evolution" break down because it looks not at individuals but at species. Your theory becomes meaningless except to the highly limited degree it is backed by actual experiment. You remember, experiment, the very thing you are hiding behind smoke and mirrors while telling me the only problem with Darwin is my own ignorance.

 

[cladking]

Smart educated people and even most not so smart ones know for starters that evolutionary fitness is a population attribute and is not predictable or even calculable at the individual level.

I've been catching hell for saying this. Thank you.

-snip- ...furthermore the concept of heresy does not apply to evolution or the theory that describes it.

Of course it does. If you don't believe in a "theory" lacking experimental support then it follows you are a heretic because the only reason for such a "theory" to exist is "belief". Belief creates dogma and a single way to interpret evidence. We read fossils like tea leaves until we are convinced there is only a single interpretation.

That is because we also know that evolution is a random walk with for example 120 steps since our parents in each of us.

Maybe this is a start toward a discussion.

I am suggesting this random walk if it could be represented by any given species (it can't) would be in four dimensions. Two steps to the left, four steps back, then three steps up...

Problem is the complexity since each individual is doing this across generations and every generation requires an influx of brand new genes.

You are trying to simplify something that is impossible to reduce or dismantle. You are elevating the abstraction "species" to reality despite the fact species can'6t exist any more than any other abstraction. You are dropping 'life" out of both sides of the equation so your results don't apply to living thigs but only to abstractions and only to the degree they are supported by relevant experiment. Hence we have a "Theory of Evolution" that doesn't even apply to living things with hardly even a definition for "living". Let me provide one "a viable conscious individual with a genome". An acorn with a worm in it is not alive but a slime mold is.


It is simply not possible to study change in species without a definition for life. Life, every living thing, exists but species do not.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm looking to see where the "survivability quotient" is.

Good luck. I gave you some suggestions on getting your questions answered. I'm guessing that you haven't tried either.

I believe Darwin and you are wrong and neither want to discuss it.

I told you my requirements for discussion. You were apparently uninterested.

You'll need to contact Darwin to find out why he won't discuss this with you.

the future is never ever visible in whole or in part.

Most people make accurate predictions regularly. I predict that within a half hour, I will be leaving with my wife to accompany her on her medical appointment, then stopping for Chinese food coming home. I'll bet I'm right.

It is relevant because defining fitness as those which reproduce the most is begging the question.

What question? I told you it's a definition, but not surprisingly, you failed to address that either by agreeing or attempting to falsify whatever you call incorrect. As I explained to you, that is the end of dialectic, the end of the "volley," and the end of the discussion.

They only reproduced the most because they reproduced the most.

That's why they are called the fittest, although most fecund is more accurate.

 

[Valjean]

The point is that in principle through convergent evolution our descendents could develope something like a gill, scales swimming habilites and other traits that we commonly associated with fish.

Hence humans can evolve in to something that we would call fish


You obviously agree with this point but you won't admit it. But rather you will make a strawman and refute that strawman

Yes. Organisms evolve traits facilitating their environmental fit. Fish models -- and these vary quite a bit -- fit well. A non-fish moving into their environmental niches would be expected to evolve some of their features and capabilities.

But mammals returning to the sea would be starting from a different place than the progenitors of fish. They could not retrace the path that produced fish. They would be starting with a different anatomy and physiology.
Remember, evolution works with what already exists. It tweaks existing structures and biochemistry to deal with novel environmental situations. It cannot start from scratch to engineer an ideal fit. Organisms are Jerry-rigged.

Gills? What structure would be altered to produce gills? True, lungs can "breathe" hyperoxygenated water for a short time, but not easily or permanently, and major problems arise.
No existing air-breathing mammal or bird that's returned to the water has developed this capacity. They remain air breathers who've tweaked their A&P to facilitate breath-holding, surface air-gulping, and efficient oxygen utilization. In fact, fish altering swim bladders to utilize air for gas exchange have been more successful at developing "lungs" than any mammal has developing gills.

Scales? Why would a water-dweller need scales? Not all fish have scales. Scales developed from protective denticles or plates, not to directly facilitate water-dwelling.

Swimming abilities? Not a problem. Mammals and birds easily alter existing extremities to facilitate swimming all the time.

A mammal would adapt to an aquatic environment as a swimming mammal, not in the ways fish have evolved their fit.

 

[Valjean]

Yes according to a modern definition from this century (different from the original) .... Birds are dinosaurs... So what ? .... My point is that this just semantics..... Scientist could have used any other word to describe birds and their ancestors....or could have defined dinosaur in some other way ... It is just semantics

The genealogy came first, then the word.
"Dinosaur" is just the term that denotes a bird's hereditary lineage, just like a "John Smith's" progeny will always be Smiths.

 

[Eli G]

..."electability quotient" ...

... where the "survivability quotient" is. Where is the experiment that proves gradual change in species through survival of the fittest? ...

Exactly.

What criteria do evolutionists use to determine which organisms are considered "the fittest" compared to those deemed unfit?

With countless purported links between species having vanished, leaving no archaeological trace of their existence, how do scientists conclude that these species were unfit?

And, if they were indeed unfit, how could they have been regarded as the "fittest" outcomes of their alleged predecessors in the "evolutionary chain"?

How reliable are the concepts and definitions employed by evolutionists to depict "facts" that exist solely inside a theoretical box?

... It is simply not possible to study change in species without a definition for life. Life, every living thing, exists but species do not.

I would add the concept of "conscious life."

From a biblical perspective, humans are considered the most advanced life form on Earth, created "in the image and likeness of God." If a hypothetical "species" were to evolve from humans, would it truly "surpass" the humans as we know them?

The future of any theory that lacks concrete definitions to describe observable phenomena and build viable theories is uncertain. This leads me to believe that evolutionary theory is not scientific, as it cannot make predictions based on its principles or explain past events using scientific foundations.

 

[Valjean]

Why would they predic to find tikalik in in 375 million year old layers if we know that tetrapods evolved long before that ?

It was more than just the tetrapody that distinguished Tiktaalik as a link between marine tetrapods and terrestrial quadrupeds.

 

[Eli G]

It was more than just the tetrapody that distinguished Tiktaalik as a link between marine tetrapods and terrestrial quadrupeds.

What is this assumption based on?

 

[Valjean]

Your comment was that my argument is my responsibility after you failed to make any argument. I have repeatedly provided facts and logic and it is not addressed as your counterargument is "I have already shown experiment". Over and over; you claim you have experiment showing gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest but you can't say what that was, where to find it, nor even summarize it.

You have no argument except Darwin and centuries of support for him that includes no experiment. Whether you understand why or not the fact is science, all science, is based in experiment and a scientific perspective, while admirable, is hardly sufficient to establish theory.

I could literally make a better case for Evolution than I'm seeing here.

I don't believe in Evolution. I believe in using experiment and data to create hypothesis and then supporting this hypothesis through logic and facts until experiment is devised to support it.

You want to short circuit science and dialog altogether and promote the existing paradigm because you believe that it must be correct.

Please don't resort to word games in support of your beliefs.

But the ToE rests solidly on experimentation and observation of existing processes. It's a scientific theory, not a religious doctrine. Science follows evidence. It experiments and tests. Scientific tests are attempts to falsify its own hypotheses.

There have been lots of "experiments" demonstrating evolution. They're done in schools all over the country. They're done in the lab and in the field. Farmers have been doing them for millennia.

"You want to short circuit science and dialog altogether and promote the existing paradigm because you believe that it must be correct."

No. We believe the existing paradigm is correct because it's been demonstrated correct. Our belief follows the evidence, it doesn't precede it. Science is not like religious doctrine.

 

[Eli G]

A caveman believing the sky to be a vast ocean due to its uniform blue color and white wave-like clouds is as superstitious as a contemporary person thinking that cows and whales are connected simply because they both nurse their offspring.

 

[Valjean]

I still can't believe anyone would even say that scientists can predict which individuals will live because they have have invented a "survivability quotient" to apply to each@!!! Just incredible! Fitness exists because someone claims they can predict the fastest rabbit or the stupidest fox.

The future is unpredictable which all by itself lays waste to the concept of "survival of the fittest".

Evolution doesn't follow predictions. It adapts to current conditions, whatever they may be. Unanticipated environmental changes account for the fact that almost every species that's ever existed has become extinct.

Fitness exists because unplanned, unpredicted, chance variations are sorted and cherry-picked by unpredicted, chance environmental conditions.

 

[Eli G]

Based on the recent posts advocating for the theory of evolution, it's clear they've come to understand that it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory due to unmet criteria.

This marks an advancement.

 

[Valjean]

This whole post is just a word game to not address the fact that there is no "survivability quotient" by any name at all. It's like saying I'm wrong about change in species because I think Darwin went by "Chuck" instead of "Charles". Let's see your "electability quotient" then and not more clouds of obfuscation and smoke and mirrors.

You have nothing but word games.

Huh???

 

[YoursTrue]

Mythology.

Thank you for your honest answer regarding your belief about Mary conceiving Jesus.

 

[Valjean]

Exactly.

What criteria do evolutionists use to determine which organisms are considered "the fittest" compared to those deemed unfit?

Survival and reproductive success

With countless purported links between species having vanished, leaving no archaeological trace of their existence, how do scientists conclude that these species were unfit?

Scientist don't necessarily conclude that. A species that existed obviously fit some environment at some point or their population wouldn't have existed. The fact that they no longer exist is evidence of the fact that at some point they could not keep up with changes going on around them. They no longer 'fit'.

And, if they were indeed unfit, how could they have been regarded as the "fittest" outcomes of their alleged predecessors in the "evolutionary chain"?

What are you talking about? They existed because they fit in. If they died out it was because they failed to change/evolve fast or sufficiently enough to keep up with the changes around them
Some species stay the same -- when the environment they fit in also stays the same, or when their 'design' is generalized enough to cope with environmental changes.
Some species change or evolve into new species, as a changing environment cherry-picks (naturally selects) the fittest of their reproductive variants over multiple generations.
Some species become extinct, when environmental changes happen too fast or become too much for them to adapt to.

How reliable are the concepts and definitions employed by evolutionists to depict "facts" that exist solely inside a theoretical box?

The "facts" are actual observations. Past events are evidenced by fossils, dating, genetics, and other techniques, as well as observing the same things occurring in real time with actual populations. It's not guesswork

The future of any theory that lacks concrete definitions to describe observable phenomena and build viable theories is uncertain. This leads me to believe that evolutionary theory is not scientific, as it cannot make predictions based on its principles or explain past events using scientific foundations.

Why would you think the terms used in biology are insufficient? Why do you think the tenets of evolution theory are not well evidenced?

 

[Valjean]

A caveman believing the sky to be a vast ocean due to its uniform blue color and white wave-like clouds is as superstitious as a contemporary person thinking that cows and whales are connected simply because they both nurse their offspring.

Where do you see an analogy, here? Do you think biology -- or any science -- is simple, untested speculation, like a caveman's assessment of the sky?

 

[Valjean]

Based on the recent posts advocating for the theory of evolution, it's clear they've come to understand that it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory due to unmet criteria.

This marks an advancement.

OK... What criteria?