Irony of the evolutionary belief

[IndigoChild5559]

I've gone over the basics with others and to an extent in school. It's detailed, and the idea that abiogenesis is taught to be not part of the process of evolution is not something I agree with. I understand the concept. By the way, I have explained that when I went to school and thereafter I believed for a long enough time that evolution as taught in general is true. I no longer do.

If you think the TOE claims that moths become lions, you do NOT know the basics. The only other possibility is that you ARE aware that evolution does not claim moths become lions, but propose it anyhow so that you can manufacturer something out of whole cloth to debate against --IOW, constructing a straw man to knock down.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you think the TOE claims that moths become lions, you do NOT know the basics. The only other possibility is that you ARE aware that evolution does not claim moths become lions, but propose it anyhow so that you can manufacturer something out of whole cloth to debate against --IOW, constructing a straw man to knock down.

Nope, you didn't get the joke, but it's ok by now. Have a good one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've gone over the basics with others and to an extent in school. It's detailed, and the idea that abiogenesis is taught to be not part of the process of evolution is not something I agree with. I understand the concept. By the way, I have explained that when I went to school and thereafter I believed for a long enough time that evolution as taught in general is true. I no longer do.

But you don't understand the concept. Your own arguments demonstrate that you lack an understanding of the topic at all.

 

[gnostic]

Yes it's ideas and speculations. Birds that evolve to larger or smaller beaks still stay birds.

The word “bird” is not the name of species. Birds are listed in the taxonomy as Aves, which is class, not species.

birds are not very specific. And even saying that birds have beaks or bills, as they are not only living species of animals to have beaks, such as platypuses, turtles and tortoises.

Some non-avian dinosaurs have beaks too.

So having beaks don’t really distinguish birds from other animals.

Genesis 1 doesn’t mention anything about beak or bill as part of birds’ anatomy, only that birds have wings, and that they can fly. But even here, we know today that bats have wings too, but they are mammals, not birds. And many numbers of insects have wings (flies, mosquitoes, bees, wasps, etc), even ants (particularly the queen ants). Some birds that have wings are incapable of flying, either due to their bodies being too large or too heavy, or their wings being too small.

As I said having wings doesn't mean birds can fly, and Genesis 1 doesn’t provide enough details about their anatomy.

Powered flight are dependent upon numbers of factors, lighter skeleton, but also how the wings attached to shoulders, and more importantly from shoulders to the breastbone. Birds that have keeled breastbone are the ones that are capable of powered flight, so with the keel-shaped bone and muscles (from the shoulders ) that attached to this bone, then birds like ostriches could not fly, no matter how many times they flap their wings.

but even having keel, like penguins do, they are still not able to fly because their wings are too small for their bodies to lift off from the ground. But the wings still have use for penguins, so they are strong swimmers, underwater.

Not all birds are the same, and just using birds without any other contexts, would render birds as useless for biologists if you can’t tell falcon from duck.

the points is that Genesis lack enormous amount of details, about just every animals...even human anatomy there are no details to distinguish them from other animals.

And calling animals by using the word ”kind” is too vague, that it becomes meaningless to modern biology.

 

[YoursTrue]

The word “bird” is not the name of species. Birds are listed in the taxonomy as Aves, which is class, not species.

birds are not very specific. And even saying that birds have beaks or bills, as they are not only living species of animals to have beaks, such as platypuses, turtles and tortoises.

Some non-avian dinosaurs have beaks too.

So having beaks don’t really distinguish birds from other animals.

Genesis 1 doesn’t mention anything about beak or bill as part of birds’ anatomy, only that birds have wings, and that they can fly. But even here, we know today that bats have wings too, but they are mammals, not birds. And many numbers of insects have wings (flies, mosquitoes, bees, wasps, etc), even ants (particularly the queen ants). Some birds that have wings are incapable of flying, either due to their bodies being too large or too heavy, or their wings being too small.

As I said having wings doesn't mean birds can fly, and Genesis 1 doesn’t provide enough details about their anatomy.

Powered flight are dependent upon numbers of factors, lighter skeleton, but also how the wings attached to shoulders, and more importantly from shoulders to the breastbone. Birds that have keeled breastbone are the ones that are capable of powered flight, so with the keel-shaped bone and muscles (from the shoulders ) that attached to this bone, then birds like ostriches could not fly, no matter how many times they flap their wings.

but even having keel, like penguins do, they are still not able to fly because their wings are too small for their bodies to lift off from the ground. But the wings still have use for penguins, so they are strong swimmers, underwater.

Not all birds are the same, and just using birds without any other contexts, would render birds as useless for biologists if you can’t tell falcon from duck.

the points is that Genesis lack enormous amount of details, about just every animals...even human anatomy there are no details to distinguish them from other animals.

And calling animals by using the word ”kind” is too vague, that it becomes meaningless to modern biology.

It's ok. It no longer makes sense to me in any form. As I said, I used to think (believe) that scientists knew the truth about what they were talking (proposing). I no longer go along with the theory as proposed and taught by scientists.

 

[Dimi95]

Intelligence isn't biology.

How so?

According to GWAS,
Studies have shown that intelligence has a genetic component, but they have not conclusively identified any single genes that have major roles in differences in intelligence.
It is likely that intelligence involves many genes that each make only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence.
Other areas that contribute to intelligence, such as memory and verbal abillity involve additional genetic factors. The genetic influences on intelligence is an ongoing area of research.
Intelligence is also strongly influenced by the environment.
During a child's development, factors that contribute to intelligence include their home environment and parenting, education and availability of learning resources, and healthcare and nutrition. A person’s environment and genes influence each other, and it can be challenging to tease apart the effects of the environment from those of genetics. For example, if a person's level of intelligence is similar to that of their parents, is that similarity due to genetic factors passed down from parent to child, to shared environmental factors, or (most likely) to a combination of both?

It is clear that both environmental and genetic factors play a part in determining intelligence.

 

[Monty]

LOL, that made me laugh. OK, maybe a butterfly did not "evolve" to become a lion -- after all -- a butterfly has wings and a lion does not unless it's in a comic strip, but -- where is the EVIDENCE? OK, can't call it proof that a butterfly did or did not become a lion and, of course, the common excuse (answer) is that it takes a lot of time to have sponges evolve to something else. I do not go along with all that supposition.

But it doesn't take long for a hinny to evolve from a horse, or for triticale to evolve from wheat.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you think the TOE claims that moths become lions, you do NOT know the basics. The only other possibility is that you ARE aware that evolution does not claim moths become lions, but propose it anyhow so that you can manufacturer something out of whole cloth to debate against --IOW, constructing a straw man to knock down.

I think your logic or rather understanding about my post is flawed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The ability of believers to distort reality and perception to fit their preconceptions is absolute when those beliefs are "science".

This is quite a performance. You got shown you were wrong, but as usual, you can't bring yourself to admit that, so we get this.

It seems like the only criteria for earning the title of "believer in science" from you is to show you, you are wrong.

I said nobody can predict which individuals will survive and which will not because humans don't have the ability to make such predictions.

We make predictions like that all the time.

We can only reduce reality to experiment, not predict it. I said all individuals are equally fit as well and common sense should tell anyone reading these words that this doesn't apply to the lane, sick, and dying.

Good grief!

Sigh!

So all individuals for you are not all individuals. And we are supposed to be able to know that. Good grief!

Therefore, all individuals are not equally fit and your continually claiming that makes no sense. Common or otherwise.

It doesn't apply to the old or the very young. It doesn't apply to the mouse playing with a cat or an earthworm stretched out on a road.

Then it makes no sense to say it the way you do. You are misleading people. And you have fought correction long and hard to finally mention this detail that you have heretofore, left out. I assume, it is because it dawned on you how ridiculous your claim has been and this is your way to dig yourself out. Fantastic. See what we have to deal with all the time from you.

But somebody wants to ascribe the ability to predict the future and to identify the less fit to an animal that isn't even conscious!!@!!

It is difficult to say what this means. It looks like gibberish and another irrelevant repetition about consciousness.

Nothing here will be addressed. It will be handwaved, ignored, and strawmen created. I will be insulted and then lectured about the Evolution.

I just addressed it. No need to create straw men. Your claims are so weak and uninformed that what you call arguments fall apart like rippling water in one's hand.

What irony!!!

I agree completely on this. Just not about who is presenting the ironic.

Believers in science are the holiest of all thous.

I think we all get it. When you get shown you are wrong and can't admit it, the person showing you suddenly is elevated from accepting science and using it to correct you to "believer in science". It's not a big deal. It isn't as if it means anything.

You can't see the hand in front of your face if you stare hard enough at your own nose. You can't see anything at all if your beliefs are strong enough.

Now it looks like you are just gilding the lily with some good old fashioned, common projection. Imagine how much you would see if you actually learned science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If a butterfly in China can cause a hurricane in the Atlantic seven days later imagine what it can do in a few million years!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a metaphor. An actual butterfly wasn't observed causing storms on the other side of the World from China.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I regret to say there obviously is. We all do it but some live in stupidville. It is possible to make the same silly and obvious mistake for a lifetime but after you discover it you're supposed to stop.

Science changes one funeral at a time and this is in reference to peers and real scientists dying. The rest of us and almost all believers in science have little impact on science or scientific beliefs.

In the last 50 years stupid has run amok and the last few years are stupid on steroids.

There is a lot I would love to say in response to this, but I'm just not that guy.

 

[Little Dragon]

It's ok. It no longer makes sense to me in any form. As I said, I used to think (believe) that scientists knew the truth about what they were talking (proposing). I no longer go along with the theory as proposed and taught by scientists.

Yet you will have their MRI scans, their antibiotics, their chemical fertilizers, their fission energy, their computers and smart phones...and everything else that was a product of technology and scientific theory. Which includes anything that needs a battery or a plug socket, or gasoline.

 

[gnostic]

It's ok. It no longer makes sense to me in any form. As I said, I used to think (believe) that scientists knew the truth about what they were talking (proposing). I no longer go along with the theory as proposed and taught by scientists.

spoken like typical creationist.

What so sad is that you think you know everything about biology from high school science…as if that all you need to judge Evolution. it is really absurd.

Biology was never my thing in high school...it was physics & chemistry for me, so I didn’t do Years 10, 11 & 12, so all I had was just basic biology (mostly human anatomy) with only basic genetics, but nothing on Evolution. And that was in the late 70s & early 80s.

I did however did a stint with biology of trees, as woods were one of materials used in design and construction (my college days doing civil engineering). It wasn’t until 2003 that I bothered to read up on Evolution, because of another forum I had joined that included Religion section, where people start threads about evolution and creationism.

From 2003 to the present, I am still learning. Not that I am expert, but I do read what interests me…but that included other physics and astronomy subjects. Particularly particle physics, relativity, quantum physics & the Big Bang theory.

I am 57, but I still want to learn more.

what really sad is that people like you, you think you have nothing else to learn as long as you have the Bible.

I have learned as much as I can from the Bible, I am sure there are much to learn here too, however there are not much values in the Bible in this day and age.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you think the TOE claims that moths become lions, you do NOT know the basics.

I can't imagine in this day and age, you would have to tell somebody this.

The only other possibility is that you ARE aware that evolution does not claim moths become lions, but propose it anyhow so that you can manufacturer something out of whole cloth to debate against --IOW, constructing a straw man to knock down.

That I can believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is personal incredulity a valid argument to reject a scientific theory?

Is doing that placing oneself as the criteria for the falsification of theory?

That seems like a rather arrogant position to elevate oneself to.

By that standard, anyone could reject pretty much anything.

Can you even have science with that standard?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

spoken like typical creationist.

What so sad is that you think you know everything about biology from high school science…as if that all you need to judge Evolution. it is really absurd.

Biology was never my thing in high school...it was physics & chemistry for me, so I didn’t do Years 10, 11 & 12, so all I had was just basic biology (mostly human anatomy) with only basic genetics, but nothing on Evolution. And that was in the late 70s & early 80s.

I did however did a stint with biology of trees, as woods were one of materials used in design and construction (my college days doing civil engineering). It wasn’t until 2003 that I bothered to read up on Evolution, because of another forum I had joined that included Religion section, where people start threads about evolution and creationism.

From 2003 to the present, I am still learning. Not that I am expert, but I do read what interests me…but that included other physics and astronomy subjects. Particularly particle physics, relativity, quantum physics & the Big Bang theory.

I am 57, but I still want to learn more.

what really sad is that people like you, you think you have nothing else to learn as long as you have the Bible.

I have learned as much as I can from the Bible, I am sure there are much to learn here too, however there are not much values in the Bible in this day and age.

About the only part I disagree with is your last statement, but it is only my personal opinion and we don't have to agree to it.

I think the problem is the demand that it be interpreted literally and the incredible efforts to rationalize parts of it so that it fits with modern discoveries or drives the rejection of those discoveries without benefit of sound reasoning. That is about people and not so much about the value of the Bible itself.

 

[cladking]

People can believe anything at all. One monster led an entire country to hold millions of its citizens as mere savages who needed to be gassed and baked. Darwin has led people to believe every individual of every species can be ranked from most to least fit and only the most fit breed new species as the weak and lesser individuals fall by the wayside. And how did he know which of these individuals were fit? Simple, he just looked to see which ones survived. Of course he never really got even this close at the reality of nature so sat in his study or on the Beagle and assumed the most fit mustta survived because species change as shown in the fossil record. It's ironic that it was never necessary to predict which would survive before the fact because after the fact it's logical to suppose those naturally selected were therefore most fit. It was all tied up in a neat little package to which objection was unscientific heresy or religious claptrap. There was no means to gauge, measure, or understand consciousness and the means by which every individual survives and this could be factored out anyway with the simple assumption some individuals were more fit to survive, more fit to be naturally selected.

A giant circular argument was begun that continues to this day.

Nature does not create unfit individuals. All individuals are equally fit and equally important to the survival of life. The lame, sick, and defective are accidents. They were not intended by nature. It is only natural that some events and processes would befall individuals which are not fatal. Most of these individuals could procreate and have perfectly normal offspring as fit as any other.

Life is cooperation. Life is maintained through consciousness which is the only thing bestowed by nature to assure survival. The body is the tool which consciousness uses and in species other than homo omnisciencis the "brain" uses natural logic to gain experience and with which compare its senses as it acts solely on knowledge and logic. We are different. Other species each know this. We think therefore we are. We act on what we believe and we can believe anything at all and justify it as we choose. We see what we believe and experience everything in terms of those beliefs.

We are different except in one single thing; we are each equally fit.

 

[cladking]

And the greatest irony, one of Biblical proportions, is that the Bible and ancient writing was more accurate about the nature of change in species than 500 (700) @LIIA years of science. Ancient farmers invented agriculture through application of their Theory of Change in Species which was developed through 40,000 years of natural science based on the same logic that a rabbit uses to survive the tender mercies of every fox.

We sit at the crown of creation as nature's only intelligent and conscious species but we can't even see our own consciousness nor understand the formatting of reality itself because we have nothing but reductionistic science and paradigms of claptrap to understand it. We have no means to understand consciousness but thought which is never logical, always parseable, and necessarily dependent on what we already believe.

We are sleep walkers in the land of the living. And it has been exactly thus since the tower of babel.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Darwin has led people to believe every individual of every species can be ranked from most to least fit and only the most fit breed new species as the weak and lesser individuals fall by the wayside.

SMH at the lack of basic education in evolution so many in here seem to have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

People can believe anything at all. One monster led an entire country to hold millions of its citizens as mere savages who needed to be gassed and baked. Darwin has led people to believe every individual of every species can be ranked from most to least fit and only the most fit breed new species as the weak and lesser individuals fall by the wayside.

You believe this. This is not anything that Darwin has done. His theory has nothing to do with these things. Good grief guy.

Natural selection simply means that those with genes that better allow them to meet environmental selection have a greater chance to reproduce and conserve those genes in the population compared to those without them. Those without them can and do breed. Just not as successfully.

It is not some rallying cry to "get yours" by shafting others.

And how did he know which of these individuals were fit? Simple, he just looked to see which ones survived. Of course he never really got even this close at the reality of nature so sat in his study or on the Beagle and assumed the most fit mustta survived because species change as shown in the fossil record. It's ironic that it was never necessary to predict which would survive before the fact because after the fact it's logical to suppose those naturally selected were therefore most fit. It was all tied up in a neat little package to which objection was unscientific heresy or religious claptrap. There was no means to gauge, measure, or understand consciousness and the means by which every individual survives and this could be factored out anyway with the simple assumption some individuals were more fit to survive, more fit to be naturally selected.

This is your very weak interpretation with conjecture to fill in the vast gaps that you clearly don't have much knowledge of.

You are just lashing out for the fact that what you claim against the theory is rejected as baseless. It is not heresy to point out empty claims, baseless conclusions and conjecture used as fact. You are not some divine source of all knowledge.

A giant circular argument was begun that continues to this day.

Your argument is circular. I don't know how long it has been going on. You see what you want and make it fit the conclusion you started with before you even looked.

Nature does not create unfit individuals.

Yes, it does. Just not the fitness that you are claiming.

All individuals are equally fit

They are not. If that were so, diseases would either do nothing to a population or wipe all members out in a single pass.

and equally important to the survival of life.

Perhaps so, but not by the reasoning you are using. Logical fallacies and erroneous information are not science and they are not knowledge or wisdom.

The lame, sick, and defective are accidents.

Unless you intend to claim divine intervention, the lame, sick and defective are the result of genetics, the environment and a little bit of chance too. Natural selection isn't about wiping out the lame and sick. A sick gazelle means healthy lions. Sick lions mean more gazelles. It is a balance. The theory might be subverted by those of evil intent to justify their evil, but the theory is not about that or intended for it. This emotional appeal is an old, old, old, dead end. But being so remote and out of touch with science, I'm not surprised you are using it.

They were not intended by nature. It is only natural that some events and processes would befall individuals which are not fatal. Most of these individuals could procreate and have perfectly normal offspring as fit as any other.

There are diseases that are passed to the offspring. How do you explain those. Give me your best circular, emotional rationalization free of facts and experimental evidence as is your usual means.

Life is cooperation.

I thought life was consciousness and logic personified or whatever you repeat to no meaningful end.

Living things compete for resources within populations and between them. Cooperation is also observed among living things too. So are many other relationships. Your black and white notion that life is all one thing or all another is not an natural or experimental observation. It is just your belief that is refuted by the facts.

Life is maintained through consciousness

There is no evidence of this and many living things are not conscious. Repeating what you believe does not make it become fact.

which is the only thing bestowed by nature to assure survival.

It is not required for survival. Bacterial do fine without it.

The body is the tool which consciousness uses and in species other than homo omnisciencis

A made up species that does not exist.

the "brain" uses natural logic to gain experience and with which compare its senses as it acts solely on knowledge and logic.

Not all species have brains. Most do not. Plants don't. Bacterial don't. Fungi don't. Protists don't. Those poor brainless things based on your claim they are doomed. It is just a very slow doom considering that many of those groups predate our own by aeons.

We are different.

The one thing you seem to have gotten right out of all of this. We are different. Other living things are different. Where is this going?

Other species each know this.

There is that lack of any evidence that is the hallmark of most of what you claim. And I'm being generous by saying "most".

We think therefore we are. We act on what we believe and we can believe anything at all and justify it as we choose. We see what we believe and experience everything in terms of those beliefs.

I conclude that is what you are doing. You believe something and you spend most of your time trying to justify that belief. You don't seem to go very far, due to the large population of factual errors, logical fallacies and dearth of observational or experimental evidence.

We are different except in one single thing; we are each equally fit.

We are not equally fit. That has been demonstrated by observation and experiment.

If you mean humans are philosophically equal, then that is an argument outside the confines of science and the theory of evolution.