Irony of the evolutionary belief

[icehorse]

If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time?

I think that most astrophysicists and cosmologists suspect that there is other life in the universe, and that some of it might be far more intelligent than we are. So far, nothing strange at all.

As for the question of an infinite number of years - the truth is that we do not have a good understanding of time, so scientists would probably say "good question, yet to be answered". But none of that really damages evolutionary theory.

 

[cladking]

You seem proud to be wrong.

Not really but I'd far rather be wrong by myself than wrong even in the best of company.

Why aren't you embarrassed?

It's always at least slightly embarrassing to disagree with experts. So when it occurs I've always asked them what I got wrong. Instead of answers the last several years I get lectures. Instead of probabilities I get musttas.

I could be wrong about the nature of Evolution and life. But it's quite peculiar that experts can't be wrong despite countless centuries and a history of eventually being shown to be wrong. It appears that just like real life science doesn't really evolve at all it changes in fits and starts. It changes at every birth and every death. This similarity is partly organic and partly coincidental. It has everything to do with what sets homo omnisciencis apart from all other individuals; complex language.

Well we can guess what you got wrong.

I'm sure I don't have a clue but I don't know what I got right either.

... but another to have false beliefs about it,...

I believe all belief is superstition and all superstition is deadly. I wager I have far fewer beliefs than 99% of the people who believe in Evolution.



So... ...are individuals in successive generations tending to be faster, smarter, and stronger or not?

 

[F1fan]

Not really but I'd far rather be wrong by myself than wrong even in the best of company.

But your error is that you aren't well educated on matters that you post comments about. That's avoidable.

It's always at least slightly embarrassing to disagree with experts. So when it occurs I've always asked them what I got wrong. Instead of answers the last several years I get lectures. Instead of probabilities I get musttas.

But you keep getting science wrong. If you were really embarrassed you would read up on what you get wrong. You don't. You keep repeating the same erroneous beliefs. How many times do you need to be corrected before it sinks in that you are incorrect? All you have to do is get science right, then form your views.

I could be wrong about the nature of Evolution and life.

Could be? You are. That you still think you might be right is your flaw.

But it's quite peculiar that experts can't be wrong despite countless centuries and a history of eventually being shown to be wrong. It appears that just like real life science doesn't really evolve at all it changes in fits and starts. It changes at every birth and every death. This similarity is partly organic and partly coincidental. It has everything to do with what sets homo omnisciencis apart from all other individuals; complex language.

Experts aren't perfect, but they are experts and they do the work for us. All we have to do is defer to what they report. Many believers seem to see this as a flaw, that science doesn't have absolute answers like religion. That's because science seeks truth and religion offers dogma that doesn't have to be true. Science self-corrects and becomes more accurate over time. Look at a sicence book from the 1950's and you will see a lot that is funny given what we know today.

I'm sure I don't have a clue but I don't know what I got right either.

Knowledge is available for free at your finger tips.

I believe all belief is superstition and all superstition is deadly.

Superstitious belief is superstitious. Belief itself is just a judgment we make. Juries make judgments on the evidence in court, and these aren't superstitious. And no, not all superstition is deadly. Do you think having a lucky charm for good luck is deadly? You seem to have beliefs that are rigid and absolutist.

I wager I have far fewer beliefs than 99% of the people who believe in Evolution.

No one believes in evolution. It is a theory in science that is so well established it is considered a fact. Theories have a minimum standard of accuracy of 99.95%. That's better than your guess of 99% for you huge number of beliefs, which is surely way off.

So... ...are individuals in successive generations tending to be faster, smarter, and stronger or not?

Depends on the environment. Youseem to think it's just genes. But if people live in a country that doesn't have clean water they won't be healthy people. You still don't understand that being faster has to be an advantage to the population due to the pressures of the environment. You should be embarrassed since you obviously have not taken time to read up on this issue, and repeat your same mistake.

 

[cladking]

But if people live in a country that doesn't have clean water they won't be healthy people.

And most animals get very little fluoride.

...Later

 

[Little Dragon]

Now I'm being told a child will look like its parents rather than a random stranger only if that appearance results from selection pressure.

That is not true either. A child will inherit alleles from their parents, not strangers.

Physical appearance is by the way part of the sexual selection process. Which is somewhat different from natural selection.

 

[Little Dragon]

And most animals get very little fluoride.

...Later

Most animals don't need it. Just western humans, because of their high sugar high carbohydrate diets. Which tooth enamel eroding bacteria, enjoy too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The phrase grasping at straws suddenly occurs to me. Believers like a drowning man will look for anything floating.

As I read your post, that phrase comes to mind too. Believers in pseudoscience seem like they are drowning and grasping at anything they can reach. For instance...

Now I'm being told a child will look like its parents rather than a random stranger only if that appearance results from selection pressure.

Literally no one told you this. You brought up the genetics of the progeny as means to avoid addressing questions regarding your claims that you cannot or will not answer. You are pretty consistent when you are struggling to look like you are afloat in the conversation.

In a very real sense every individual results from a sort of highly localized bottleneck.

In no sense does an individual result from anything like a bottleneck. What you keep calling a bottle neck, is selection. You just don't seem to be able bear acknowledging that.

All those straws are not helping you. Belief in pseudoscience is a nonstarter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In my prime I took an 11th grade biology test and got a C+ on it. I doubt I could ever duplicate the feat.

What made it remarkable is that even though I didn't even know my alpha, beta, gammas back in those days the test was in Greek. I'm good at tests and pattern recognition. It mightta been an easy test but I had no means to tell.

Why would you be taking a biology test in Greek? Were you going to school in Greece? Are you Greek? Were you in a fraternity? Did you lose a bet?

I didn't need to know this to know that you have no expertise in biology. What I can't figure out is why someone would be proud of that. Or why they would discuss it as if they know more than experts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My intent was not to obscure my meaning but to highlight the thinking of believers. I've found that anytime I get to a "must have" in my own thinking that what follows tends to be a leap of faith.

I apologize.

"Mustta" means there is only one possibility and in reality there are always an infinite number of possibilities.

So, what are the assumptions of Darwin and why are they wrong? Please be detailed in your explanation.

 

[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.

This is a diversion. The discussion is about fitness. No one has made any claim that children will or will not share genes with their parents more than with random strangers. It is typical of you in my experience. No straws to grasp, so you just make some. Dance a little sidestep.

 

[cladking]

This is a diversion. The discussion is about fitness.

No. The diversion is yours.

I said it is believers in science who believe there is a goal toward faster, smarter, and stronger individuals. It's been a four page diversion as believers don't want to admit they believe in such progress. The irony is they believe in linear human progress though which also doesn't exist because it's always been two steps forward and one to twelve steps back. "Evolution" is not an improvement on Darwin who was essentially correct anyway. Darwin was wrong about everything and Evolution is just mostly wrong. Indeed, I believe the human race is currently on a 4000 year long detour caused by superstition and about to be righted by experimental science.

All individuals are equally fit so "fitness" is irrelevant to life on an individual and a "species" basis. It has almost nothing to do with survival or change in species. Even if it were fundamental, which it is not, it wouldn't matter because it is undefined and unpredictable. To measure "fitness" it would be necessary to understand consciousness and to measure each parameter of each animals abilities. And then you would STILL need to know how such abilities are needed in their changing environment. Darwin put the cart before the horse and used an obvious circular argument because he defined "fitness" only after the fact. If it survives it's fit and its offspring will share its characteristics resulting in ever increasing fitness as the weak and stupid fall by the wayside. All this was imagined without ever testing or considering any individuals or finding out how and what they were thinking about.

These are all simple facts and simple truths so suggesting I'm wrong because I'm not an expert is irrelevant. The king has no clothes and instead of covering up he keeps taking bows.

 

[cladking]

Why would you be taking a biology test in Greek?

A buddy with an extremely high IQ didn't believe me when I told him I could get the right answers on tests without really knowing the questions or the answers. He dug out an old 10 nor 11th grade biology test written in Greek. I got 80% on a 20 question multiple (4) choice test. I was in my mid-20's at the time.

In high school and college I used to grade my own tests before submitting them based on probabilities. These were all in English or Spanish. I certainly don't speak Greek though I enjoyed Principia in Latin which I also don't know.

 

[cladking]

Experts aren't perfect, but they are experts and they do the work for us. All we have to do is defer to what they report.

And herein is the problem with things today. Siri has made everyone a genius. Beliefs are being cast in the concrete.

Do you think having a lucky charm for good luck is deadly? You seem to have beliefs that are rigid and absolutist.

I have no beliefs. My models are rigid but I know they can generate nonsense even when they are good models. It is the nature of our species because we can't experience reality directly.

No one believes in evolution.

Not to put too fine a point on this but when you defer to experts or your models can't turn out relevant argument to "heresy" then you might be a believer. If you understand something you can explain it to a three year old.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. The diversion is yours.

Sigh! No. I have not used the diversionary tactics you employ.

I said it is believers in science who believe there is a goal toward faster, smarter, and stronger individuals.

What believers in science say this? No one on here supporting science is a believer as the term is implied and none have claimed that there is a preconceived goal or target.

Show us. But you won't. You know why. You can't. The claims aren't there.

It's been a four page diversion as believers don't want to admit they believe in such progress.

Believers in pseudoscience always say things like this when their pseudoscience is shown to be what it is.

The irony is they believe in linear human progress though which also doesn't exist because it's always been two steps forward and one to twelve steps back.

Nonsense that you won't support.

"Evolution" is not an improvement on Darwin who was essentially correct anyway.

Darwin formulated a theory of evolution. Did you not know that? Wasn't it taught to you in Greek? Now Darwin is correct? Which way are you going to go next?

Darwin was wrong about everything and Evolution is just mostly wrong.

Now he is wrong again.

A claim you have not ever demonstrated. Refuse to even attempt to demonstrate. Believers in pseudoscience grasp at any straw when they are drowning in the deep lake of confusion.

Indeed, I believe the human race is currently on a 4000 year long detour caused by superstition and about to be righted by experimental science.

I don't believe it or accept it. Don't have to. There is no evidence for this. Sigh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Believers in pseudoscience say a lot of things they can't support.

All individuals are equally fit so "fitness" is irrelevant to life on an individual and a "species" basis.

That's exactly what a believer in pseudoscience would say. I wish that believers would support their claims.

It has almost nothing to do with survival or change in species.

Absolutely. A believer in pseudoscience with no expertise biology would say something like that.

Even if it were fundamental, which it is not, it wouldn't matter because it is undefined and unpredictable.

That is an unsupported and unsustainable claim. Genes that are under selection have been identified. You might know that if you studied even a little bit.

To measure "fitness" it would be necessary to understand consciousness

No.

and to measure each parameter of each animals abilities.

No.

And then you would STILL need to know how such abilities are needed in their changing environment.

And you are convinced that even though, this can be done, it can't be done for no reason other than you don't want to admit it or your entire pseudoscience position of ancient people, ancient science, ancient reality, Darwin was wrong, falls apart.

Darwin put the cart before the horse and used an obvious circular argument because he defined "fitness" only after the fact.

He did not. He based his definition on the evidence. Really, you should read his book. You appear to literally know nothing and are just making wild claims.

If it survives it's fit and its offspring will share its characteristics resulting in ever increasing fitness as the weak and stupid fall by the wayside.

That is totally absurd and has nothing to do with fitness or evolution. You are grasping wildly for straws.

All this was imagined without ever testing or considering any individuals or finding out how and what they were thinking about.

Ridiculous, absurd and wrong. I imagine you expect scientists to ask squirrels what they are thinking and then come up with a theory of evolution based on the squirrel thoughts of trees and acorns. You've cracked the case.

These are all simple facts and simple truths

They are neither facts nor truths. You are proposing a pseudoscience based on what you believe with your admitted lack knowledge of biology, science, theory and whole laundry list of related topics and disciplines.

so suggesting I'm wrong because I'm not an expert is irrelevant.

I didn't suggest you were wrong, because you are not an expert. I said clearly that you preach erroneous information and pseudoscience as if you were more knowledgeable than experts. Get it right and stop making straw men out of all that straw you are grasping.

The king has no clothes and instead of covering up he keeps taking bows.

You have no clothes on by the way. It has been mentioned. Don't strain your back, you have nothing to bow about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A buddy with an extremely high IQ didn't believe me when I told him I could get the right answers on tests without really knowing the questions or the answers. He dug out an old 10 nor 11th grade biology test written in Greek. I got 80% on a 20 question multiple (4) choice test. I was in my mid-20's at the time.

In high school and college I used to grade my own tests before submitting them based on probabilities. These were all in English or Spanish. I certainly don't speak Greek though I enjoyed Principia in Latin which I also don't know.

I don't care. It is only relevant that you claim little or no knowledge of biology and may or may not have gotten a passing grade on a test that may or may not have been in Greek.

What I care about, you avoid speaking on as if it were made out of Plague.

Instead, you dance a little sidestep. Now we see you. Now we don't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And herein is the problem with things today. Siri has made everyone a genius. Beliefs are being cast in the concrete.

You should get Siri then.

I have no beliefs.

You have previously claimed to have beliefs. Which is it? How are we to take you seriously when you say one thing in one post and the opposite in another. Can't you get your story straight?

My models are rigid but I know they can generate nonsense even when they are good models. It is the nature of our species because we can't experience reality directly.

Back to this nonsense again. Sigh!

Not to put too fine a point on this but when you defer to experts or your models can't turn out relevant argument to "heresy" then you might be a believer. If you understand something you can explain it to a three year old.

You can't turn out a relevant argument and you claim you aren't even a novice.

I have yet to see you explain anything. The conclusion then, even by your own words, is that you don't understand science, biology or evolution.

What were Darwin's assumptions--cite references. Why are they wrong? Give detailed explanation.

Provide evidence that all change in all living things is sudden.

Can't do it can you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And herein is the problem with things today. Siri has made everyone a genius. Beliefs are being cast in the concrete.



I have no beliefs. My models are rigid but I know they can generate nonsense even when they are good models. It is the nature of our species because we can't experience reality directly.



Not to put too fine a point on this but when you defer to experts or your models can't turn out relevant argument to "heresy" then you might be a believer. If you understand something you can explain it to a three year old.

Please provide a rational criticism of the Lenski experiment and not just a claim of vague disagreement that falls in three categories or that bulk agar is available from China. Please provide references.

According to you, it should be a piece of cake. After all, you created a new species of fly by killing some. Of course, lately, you seem to be realizing that you didn't, since you've claimed that the offspring are the same species as the parent. You seem to have caught on that killing or removing some members of a population doesn't instantly change the remaining members into a new species.

And, since you are claiming you never run, use logical fallacies or create diversions, I should have a reasonable expectation that this support of your claims will be provided.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please provide a rational criticism of the Lenski experiment and not just a claim of vague disagreement that falls in three categories or that bulk agar is available from China. Please provide references.

According to you, it should be a piece of cake. After all, you created a new species of fly by killing some. Of course, lately, you seem to be realizing that you didn't, since you've claimed that the offspring are the same species as the parent. You seem to have caught on that killing or removing some members of a population doesn't instantly change the remaining members into a new species.

And, since you are claiming you never run, use logical fallacies or create diversions, I should have a reasonable expectation that this support of your claims will be provided.

It looks like I'm not going to see detailed support with explanations for all these claims. Didn't I say I expected that? I did. You did!

 

[F1fan]

And herein is the problem with things today. Siri has made everyone a genius. Beliefs are being cast in the concrete.

Look how you misrepresent what others say, and what they say about valid science. I said educated people defer to what experts report. Siri is irrelevant. And you insult people looking for knowledge. And you diminish knowledge to mere belief, which is your contempt for science and knowledge.

I have no beliefs.

All the things you claimed above are beliefs.

My models are rigid but I know they can generate nonsense even when they are good models.

Wow, what chaos of mind.

It is the nature of our species because we can't experience reality directly.

Try hitting your hand with a hammer and believing it isn't a real experience. Sorry but everything we experience is reality. Even illusions, while the content not real, have real effects on our bodies and mind.

Not to put too fine a point on this but when you defer to experts or your models can't turn out relevant argument to "heresy" then you might be a believer.

False. This illustrates your ignorance of science and the scientific method. The method and ethics in science is why we can trust the results. The work itself is statistically true. YOU are a believer when you reject the expertise of scientists and their results.

If you understand something you can explain it to a three year old.

Like calculus? Good luck.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I said it is believers in science who believe there is a goal toward faster, smarter, and stronger individuals.

No, you are completely misrepresenting science. And people have tried to explain this to you a number of times. What is with you that you can't listen and learn?