Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

So you're telling me faster rabbits don't have faster offspring?

They might breed with slow rabbits. What you seem to be missing is that for "faster" rabbits to have an advantage there needs to be a predator that preys on slow rabbits. That way the majority of rabbits left to breed are fast, thus more fast rabbits. there will be slow rabbits born, but being slow they will be eliminated until fast rabbits is all that survive. Then the predators will have pressure to be faster themselves, if there are any.

Stronger bulls don't breed stronger offspring and smarter dogs don't have smarter pups.

Not when the pool of animals has a variety of other traits. One trait gets selected in a populating because it offers a natural advantage to the environment.

What would be the point of natural selection if the species just reverted to its starting point?

What does this mean? What starting point?

These are your beliefs and they are not supported by observation or experiment. People don't see anomalies, they see what they expect.

Total strawman overload.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes there is, it's an abstract taxonomic definition. Invented by scientists, to categorize closely related individuals into a single group. Humans are closely related to each other. This group is defined as a species, exclusive to all other life forms. They can all reproduce with each other and produce viable offspring. Therefore collectively, they are a single species.

@cladking is oddly slightly right, depending on what his intent was. In contemporary biology and taxonomy, the boundaries between species and subspecies are not as clear as previously thought. Today evolution takes place in populations with genetic diversity responding to changes in the environment that include subspecies and sometimes what may be called closely related species.

 

[shunyadragon]

No one that accepts the theory of evolution "believes" in a goal.

This is one of your fundamental misconceptions that you refuse to evaluate and learn from. You just keep repeating this erroneous claim as if it were a fact. It isn't.

This may be as close to correct as you have ever been, but I suppose randomly shooting in every direction, you are bound to hit a target on accident. Or at least come close.

A dead clock is right once every twelve hours.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not even trying. I'm aware I reason in circles, don't know everything, and want confirmation for my beliefs.

I don't believe you. I think you believe you have all the answers and have to educate the rest of us that you consider to know nothing. We don't believe in some unevidenced ancient science or made up names for the human species, or a litany of other claims you have made.

Like every member of the species you think you are the exception.

I see this as more projection. I believe that you believe you are incredibly exceptional as the only one that sees the truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you're telling me faster rabbits don't have faster offspring? Stronger bulls don't breed stronger offspring and smarter dogs don't have smarter pups.

What would be the point of natural selection if the species just reverted to its starting point?

These are your beliefs and they are not supported by observation or experiment. People don't see anomalies, they see what they expect.

As if anything you have claimed is supported by observation or experiment. Here's a hint. None of what you claim has any visible means of support. Those poor claims. Hung out there with nothing.

Whatever you see, you haven't been able to show it to anyone else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A dead clock is right once every twelve hours.

LOL!

 

[cladking]

They might breed with slow rabbits. What you seem to be missing is that for "faster" rabbits to have an advantage there needs to be a predator that preys on slow rabbits. That way the majority of rabbits left to breed are fast, thus more fast rabbits. there will be slow rabbits born, but being slow they will be eliminated until fast rabbits is all that survive. Then the predators will have pressure to be faster themselves, if there are any.

Not when the pool of animals has a variety of other traits. One trait gets selected in a populating because it offers a natural advantage to the environment.

What does this mean? What starting point?

Total strawman overload.

Every individual is the same species as its parents and no more fit than its grandparents!!!!!!!!

This is illogic of the greatest degree. People believe fitness breed success but the off spring are no more fit and always the same species!!!!!!

Of course no experiment can show this and nobody can predict which individuals will succeed because this is all so illogical.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Every individual is the same species as its parents and no more fit than its grandparents!!!!!!!!

Demonstrate the fitness claim with evidence and experiment.

I find it amusing that you make that claim about parent and progeny when your claim of "all change in all living things is sudden" which precludes that conclusion.

This is illogic of the greatest degree. People believe fitness breed success but the off spring are no more fit and always the same species!!!!!!

You are on a new tactic of being wrong about this. Bravo!

Fitness is the measure of reproductive success in light of traits that support that success under applicable selection by the environment. It isn't magic like you want it to be. It isn't a moral judgement like you want it to be. It is a conclusion supported by the evidence of observation and experiment.

Of course no experiment can show this and nobody can predict which individuals will succeed because this is all so illogical.

Lots of experiments show this. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that none do and YOU NEVER DO.

 

[John53]

Every individual is the same species as its parents and no more fit than its grandparents!!!!!!!!

Yes to the same species as its parents. You are confusing survival of the fittest with physical fitness.

This is illogic of the greatest degree. People believe fitness breed success but the off spring are no more fit and always the same species!!!!!!

No they don't. Once again you are confusing survival of the fittest with physical fitness.

Of course no experiment can show this and nobody can predict which individuals will succeed because this is all so illogical.

No idea what you're talking about.

 

[cladking]

I don't believe you. I think you believe you have all the answers and have to educate the rest of us that you consider to know nothing.

Just like every homo omnisciencis I have all the answers and reasoned in circles to get here. In my case however, I am fully aware that reality is so complex that all I have is its formatting. I can't predict which rabbit will survive by any metric and I have no idea how any species is going to change and only very limited understanding of how a very few species came to be (think agriculture). I don't know how gravity works or what time is. I have some guesses but there is no way to test them.

Actually when it comes to knowledge there are a few science believers around here who know more than I. There are several scientific people who know more than I. I really don't know very much of anything at all because I've spent many years building models rather than learning details. First I got a good basic understanding of science in terms of metaphysics and then I built models. I know very little especially in terms of what there is to know.

I believe I am the first person with two metaphysics. Neither implies knowledge though. It's just logic and experiment.

I see this as more projection. I believe that you believe you are incredibly exceptional as the only one that sees the truth.

Not really. But like everyone I believe I can see the big picture. I just believe that the big picture looks different than it does to everyone else.

I see reality in terms of my beliefs which I chose and then I reasoned circularly back to those beliefs just like everyone. The only difference between me and most people is I started with the assumption that everyone always makes sense in terms of their premises.

It's ironic that I know far less about change in species than lots of people but I believe that Evolution is obviously wrong. It is illogical and not supported metaphysically.

 

[cladking]

As if anything you have claimed is supported by observation or experiment. Here's a hint. None of what you claim has any visible means of support. Those poor claims. Hung out there with nothing.

I thought all Evolutionists believed in genes.

 

[John53]

Just like every homo omnisciencis I have all the answers and reasoned in circles to get here. In my case however, I am fully aware that reality is so complex that all I have is its formatting. I can't predict which rabbit will survive by any metric and I have no idea how any species is going to change and only very limited understanding of how a very few species came to be (think agriculture). I don't know how gravity works or what time is. I have some guesses but there is no way to test them.

Actually when it comes to knowledge there are a few science believers around here who know more than I. There are several scientific people who know more than I. I really don't know very much of anything at all because I've spent many years building models rather than learning details. First I got a good basic understanding of science in terms of metaphysics and then I built models. I know very little especially in terms of what there is to know.

I believe I am the first person with two metaphysics. Neither implies knowledge though. It's just logic and experiment.


Not really. But like everyone I believe I can see the big picture. I just believe that the big picture looks different than it does to everyone else.

I see reality in terms of my beliefs which I chose and then I reasoned circularly back to those beliefs just like everyone. The only difference between me and most people is I started with the assumption that everyone always makes sense in terms of their premises.

It's ironic that I know far less about change in species than lots of people but I believe that Evolution is obviously wrong. It is illogical and not supported metaphysically.

That seems to be a long winded way of you saying you're wrong.

 

[cladking]

Fitness is the measure of reproductive success in light of traits that support that success under applicable selection by the environment.

Is it or is it not true that all else being equal progeny are far more likely to share traits with their parents than with random individuals?

Kids often look like their parents and less often like some stranger in another city.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just like every homo omnisciencis I have all the answers and reasoned in circles to get here. In my case however, I am fully aware that reality is so complex that all I have is its formatting. I can't predict which rabbit will survive by any metric and I have no idea how any species is going to change and only very limited understanding of how a very few species came to be (think agriculture). I don't know how gravity works or what time is. I have some guesses but there is no way to test them.

Actually when it comes to knowledge there are a few science believers around here who know more than I. There are several scientific people who know more than I. I really don't know very much of anything at all because I've spent many years building models rather than learning details. First I got a good basic understanding of science in terms of metaphysics and then I built models. I know very little especially in terms of what there is to know.

I believe I am the first person with two metaphysics. Neither implies knowledge though. It's just logic and experiment.


Not really. But like everyone I believe I can see the big picture. I just believe that the big picture looks different than it does to everyone else.

I see reality in terms of my beliefs which I chose and then I reasoned circularly back to those beliefs just like everyone. The only difference between me and most people is I started with the assumption that everyone always makes sense in terms of their premises.

It's ironic that I know far less about change in species than lots of people but I believe that Evolution is obviously wrong. It is illogical and not supported metaphysically.

You make a lot of claims that have no basis in fact. No evidence. No experiment.

You have not demonstrated anything.

Trying to make yourself a martyr is not going to make your claims valid by default.

The theory of evolution is the most well-supported theory in science and nothing you have posted has had any impact on that validity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is it or is it not true that all else being equal progeny are far more likely to share traits with their parents than with random individuals?

Oh, the sound of goal posts moving is so delightful. It means that the person cannot support their claims as much as if they just admitted that fact.

I have never claimed that progeny wouldn't be more similar to the parents than a random individual.

It makes no sense to bring that up.

Kids often look like their parents and less often like some stranger in another city.

So what. That isn't addressing your claim that they would be equally as fit as their grandparents nor does it address anything said here by anyone else.

Just admit that you have no clue about the theory or the details and stop trying to force your claims into reality with logical fallacies and repetition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I thought all Evolutionists believed in genes.

What is an evolutionist? I'm not an evolutionist.

I accept the existence of genes. What twisted thing are you trying to say now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I thought all Evolutionists believed in genes.

What does this have to do with supporting your claim? I notice you start to play this game when you are pressed and can't seem to find any place to run to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is it or is it not true that all else being equal progeny are far more likely to share traits with their parents than with random individuals?

Kids often look like their parents and less often like some stranger in another city.

If you have any evidence or any experiment that falsifies the theory of evolution--that doesn't involve references to made up species or ancient whatever--then show it.

Post the assumption Darwin used and demonstrate they are wrong.

Hint: Stable populations is not an assumption of Darwin.

Stop going on and on about nothing. Stop martyring yourself. Just do what you claim you can do.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dan From Smithville Yes well sorry that I can't read everything but something you said in a post caught my interest. You said you are not an evolutionist, and I've seen that remonstration from a couple. So may I ask what you mean when you say you are not an evolutionist? I looked the word up, you may or may not agree, but here's what one website says about this question: "What is an Evolutionist? There are two types of evolutionists -- naturalistic and theistic. The naturalistic evolutionist believes that the universe began about 14 billion years ago. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life began, probably as bacteria deep in rocks and has been evolving ever since." What Is An Evolutionist.
If you agree or not, can you please say why you say you're not an evolutionist? thank you.

 

[cladking]

Everyone keeps telling me that the fit survive but each generation isn't fitter than the last and that each generation is the same species as its parents.

Come on... ...anyone should see how illogical and impossible this is.

Nothing about Evolution makes sense. It sounds OK if you ignore all the evidence and the fossil record. But it's not OK in any way. Just because we know species change it doesn't mean they mustta changed gradually by survival of the fittest.