Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Pogo]

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

Just a reminder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology

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.

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...

That is three dimensions but not relevant, you have taken an average of 120 steps in 120 different directions just in the mutations not present in either parent and that is before we get to recombination effects. Most of those don't have any phenotypical effect and none were fatal since you are here but there are differences and they are effectively random with respect to phenotype.

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

NO, it is complex, but you don't need new genes for everything, changes in the ones you have is more than adequate. New genes are a rarity and except for things like horizontal gene transfer and the like they are usually the result of modification of already existing DNA.

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.

This is just word salad, species exist, common definition is interfertility between individuals. They don't come with name tags and they can be defined in different ways, but that doesn't make them an abstraction. Go to a zoo and you will find several species of apes, the most populous one will be homo Sapiens but there will be several others that even your average 5 year old can differentiate without trouble. I don't know what this business about life is, biological evolution only applies to living things though exactly what constitutes life at the margins is murky, alive or not alive is fairly simple for the majority of organisms.

Life, "a viable conscious individual with a genome". Now who is creating unnecessary complexity. You are just creating weird personal definitions. Acorns cease to be alive if they have worms, is that due to some abstraction you call consciousness that has migrated to the slime mold on the oak leaf.
Please show us this entity consciousness?

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

Organisms that metabolize and reproduce works well enough for most purposes in biology.

 

[Eli G]

Survival and reproductive success...

Does this imply that contemporary humans who choose not to reproduce are considered unfit according to evolutionary theory?

 

[Eli G]

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?

Biological similarities often back many assumptions found in evolutionary theory. While a similarity doesn't always clarify a connection, within evolutionary theory, this idea appears to be the sole foundation for linking various species. Is this method grounded in science, or does it lean so heavily on subjectivity that it borders on being classified as superstitious?

 

[Eli G]

OK... What criteria?

I'd mention the lack of precise definitions, lack of predictability, and further clarifications throughout the topic and other forum discussions.

 

[Pogo]

Does this imply that contemporary humans who choose not to reproduce are considered unfit according to evolutionary theory?

Fitness (biology) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fitness (often denoted w

or ω in population genetics models) is a quantitative representation of individual reproductive success. It is also equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation, made by the same individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype.

So you can read this and answer your own question,
Note this is a biological term not to be confused with the colloquial definitions.

 

[Eli G]

As I see it, "fitness" is an evolutionary idea suggesting a requirement for evolution to take place.

However, in reality, this concept doesn't fully align with how life is observed. Illnesses and congenital disorders from millennia past continue to be part of the global landscape today.

 

[cladking]

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.

But no experiment shows gradual change in species resulting from survival of the fittest.

No one can even show natural selection on an individual basis. I believe it's all in your head.

No. We believe the existing paradigm is correct because it's been demonstrated correct.

Then why not respond to other arguments rather than lecture? Why not trot out the support for your theory?

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.

But it's impossible to show even one of these. There's rampant speculation about things like whale ancestors returning to the sea but no evidence, no experiment, and no logic... ...just speculation.

Huh???

This is someone else's word game. Are you going to play too?

 

[Valjean]

What is this assumption based on?

The changes observed in the sequence of previous and subsequent fossil and genetic exemplars in the evolutionary chain.

 

[Pogo]

I'd mention the lack of precise definitions, lack of predictability, and further clarifications throughout the topic and other forum discussions.

In other words it doesn't live up to your undefined desires, your opinion is dismissed due to lack of knowledge of the subject.

 

[Pogo]

But no experiment shows gradual change in species resulting from survival of the fittest.

No one can even show natural selection on an individual basis. I believe it's all in your head.

Again, because fitness is a population function not an individual one even if an individual is representative in some way

Then why not respond to other arguments rather than lecture? Why not trot out the support for your theory?

It has been presented and as with the last question, you just go right back to misrepresenting it and so we repeat the lecture.

But it's impossible to show even one of these. There's rampant speculation about things like whale ancestors returning to the sea but no evidence, no experiment, and no logic... ...just speculation.

Another person who can't read the literature and doesn't know what an experiment is.

This is someone else's word game. Are you going to play too?

Word games don't work when one player has completely different definitions than all the other players.

 

[cladking]

Exactly.

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

Yes. It's not just the inability to define fitness in individuals but in species as well.

Why is the fact that species and species that came from them virtually non-existent? It is not logical to assume every proto-whale died but whales still exist. Not only with whales but "every" species. Why did every homo erectus and neanderthal die? Coincidence? If homo omnicsciencis killed them all off or mated them to death then what happened to land dwelling whales?

Darwin's theory is illogical and so too is the belief in "fitness".

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

People mistake words for reality and induction as logic. If consciousness is fundamental to life then any theory that purports to explain change in life must account for consciousness and individuality. Darwin can't. He induced the survival of the fittest and gradual change. No experiment confirms it.

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?

I believe the Bible is right but it is mangled by the change in language at the tower of babel. Man wasn't made in "God's" image but rather the "gods" were made in the image of man. Ancient Language reveals that what we call the "gods" were actually scientific theory. The Bible hence is based on real science but the Theory of Evolution is not. This is important because ancient sources suggest the ancient "theory of change in species" is very very different than Darwin and it was used to invent agriculture so it does work. We have no means of knowing what God looks like if the Bible is being misinterpreted.

I know this is a lot to wrap your head around but this might just be the reality.

Our species has infinite capability of deluding ourselves. Only homo omnisciencis does this and we have ruled the earth since the tower of babel.

 

[Eli G]

The changes observed in the sequence of previous and subsequent fossil and genetic exemplars in the evolutionary chain.

A change is a process that is observed between an original condition that is transformed into a final condition.

It is like a segment of real numbers. If we mark the number 1 as the start and 3 as the end, we must first go from 1 to 1.00001 and then to 1.0002, then to 1. 0003 and so on until we reach 3. We could find all the intermediate numbers on the number line. So the continuum (which would be the change) from 1 to 3 is supported by reality.

What evidence are those that you speak of, where from one species we go to a different species?

 

[cladking]

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.

Exactly!

 

[Pogo]

As I see it, "fitness" is an evolutionary idea suggesting a requirement for evolution to take place.

However, in reality, this concept doesn't fully align with how life is observed. Illnesses and congenital disorders from millennia past continue to be part of the global landscape today.

Why on earth would you expect them to go away, the causes haven't. There is no benevolent sky daddy to make them go away.
In fact they are good examples of evolution in action if you can get past a belief in magic.
Take Covid, it has evolved to be more successful in the human environment, that is evolution.

 

[Pogo]

Exactly!

The definitions are plenty concrete and useful, they are just not in your made up language.

 

[Pogo]

A change is a process that is observed between an original condition that is transformed into a final condition.

It is like a segment of real numbers. If we mark the number 1 as the start and 3 as the end, we must first go from 1 to 1.00001 and then to 1.0002, then to 1. 0003 and so on until we reach 3. We could find all the intermediate numbers on the number line. So the continuum (which would be the change) from 1 to 3 is supported by reality.

What evidence are those that you speak of, where from one species we go to a different species?

And Jesus didn't exist because you can't show me every ancestor back to Adam. Bad arguments only make you look bad.

 

[Valjean]

Does this imply that contemporary humans who choose not to reproduce are considered unfit according to evolutionary theory?

Good question.

No. Populations evolve, not individuals. The evolutionary "fitness" of individuals is relevant only inasmuch as it affects the fitness -- ie: reproductive success -- of the population. A non-reproductive individual may still contribute to the welfare of the larger population. Grandparents and homosexuals, for example, still contribute to the success of human societies,

 

[cladking]

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.

If I'm right cavemen weren't confused or superstitious at all. Indeed, they were already sophisticated scientists and metaphysicians 40,000 years ago and wrote the same things in caves all over the world. Just like animals they could only see what they knew and understood but they had a complex language to pass learning through the generations so they could see far more than animals. Their brain were completely logical as was their language and this allowed science based on observation and logic to work. We can't do this because we see what we believe. We must use experiment or we just confirm our beliefs with every observation. Cavemen were mostly scientists and cavewomen were mostly metaphysicians and every one of them was probably more logical, more knowledgeable, and more correct than Charles Darwin. All of them were better scientists than Darwin.

How else could such primitive people been able to survive and proper?

We've been sold a bill of goods by anthropology, Egyptology, archaeology et al. We've been told that everyone working together is more powerful than the individual. We'vew been told that superstition is a constructive force. We've been told that all experts need to do is to look and they can see reality.

It's all nonsense. Language is the basis of success, not intelligence and not superstition. They deluded themselves.

 

[Eli G]

The term "evolution" inherently refers to gradual change. Claiming that we can observe the transformation of one species into another over just a few years is utterly absurd.

Microevolution does not serve as evidence for species evolution; instead, it highlights the inherent ability of a species to exhibit natural internal variation within its family since its inception. These variations result in the genetic diversity observed in flowers, dogs, fish, and more.

A knowledgeable evolutionist would never mistake microevolution for the evolution of species.

 

[Eli G]

Good question.

No. Populations evolve, not individuals. The evolutionary "fitness" of individuals is relevant only inasmuch as it affects the fitness -- ie: reproductive success -- of the population. A non-reproductive individual may still contribute to the welfare of the larger population. Grandparents and homosexuals, for example, still contribute to the success of human societies,

A very interesting theory.

Now tell us how that would be demonstrated in a currently living human population.