Irony of the evolutionary belief

[cladking]

So survival of the fittest has a 50:50 chance of breeding less fit individuals?

Anticipating a non answer I'd suggest that if survival of the fittest doesn't lead to fitter and more selectable off spring then there's no point in it. There's no benefit to the species, no effect, and it can not be the cause of speciation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. The believers in a "goal" are darwinists who believe every species is striving to become faster, stronger, and smarter.

It is strange that you say this while I distinctly remember correcting this very mistake of yours on multiple occasions. Primarily in context of your misrepresentation of what biologists mean by "fitness".


Count on science-deniers to double down on their strawmen and intellectual dishonesty....

All any species or individuals "strives" to do is survive and reproduce.

Yes.
And sometimes "faster, stronger and smarter" will be beneficial for that.
At other times not.
It all depends on environmental pressures.

There is no such thing as "species" so "strives" is in quotations.

I can only facepalm in response to such lunacy

 

[cladking]

The ToE is illogical, non sequitur, and based on false assumptions. There are no experiments or evidence to support it because all experiment and evidence can be interpreted in terms of other paradigms. Incredibly even religious paradigms!!!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Goalposts are moving.

You are not talking about inheritance of traits.
Previously you were talking about how supposedly evolution is like a ladder towards "stronger, faster, smarter". That was the strawman.

Please, double down more on intellectual dishonesty.

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

More strawmen. Nobody said this. That's all you once again

These are your beliefs

They are not and nowhere did (s)he express anything remotely like it.

 

[cladking]

It is strange that you say this while I distinctly remember correcting this very mistake of yours on multiple occasions. Primarily in context of your misrepresentation of what biologists mean by "fitness".


Count on science-deniers to double down on their strawmen and intellectual dishonesty....



Yes.
And sometimes "faster, stronger and smarter" will be beneficial for that.
At other times not.
It all depends on environmental pressures.





I can only facepalm in response to such lunacy

Anticipating a non answer...

You were right on cue. When you're on the ropes just claim your opponent has already been knocked clear of the ring.

 

[cladking]

You are not talking about inheritance of traits.

The hell I'm not. Faster rabbits breed faster rabbits. This is common sense, common experiment, and common knowledge. Just like floppier eared rabbits breed floppier ears. This is reality.

More strawmen. Nobody said this. That's all you once again

No. You just repeated the same beliefs that faster rabbits don't breed faster rabbits. Which is it?

They are not and nowhere did (s)he express anything remotely like it.

It was implied by the words.

 

[MikeF]

So survival of the fittest has a 50:50 chance of breeding less fit individuals?

Um, you do not seem to grasp the big picture. Its not any kind of fixed chance. If the ecosystems of the earth are continually changing but in no fixed way or rate, then it is simply about each generation being adequately suited to survive current condition. They either are, or they are not. Simple as that. You also have to see all of "Life" as the organism, not simply one species or particular line. Variation is built in with sexual reproduction. Add to that the probability of some percentage of mutation errors and the we see that this organism "Life" simply throws out continually altered generations to see what sticks. There is no intended form or endgame other than that the organism "Life" continues to exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no such thing as "species" so "strives" is in quotations.

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

No further comment.
As always, "debating" with you is like a walk in the park.
Just let you talk and you inevitably end up refuting and contradicting yourself

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The hell I'm not. Faster rabbits breed faster rabbits. This is common sense, common experiment, and common knowledge. Just like floppier eared rabbits breed floppier ears. This is reality.

You are not paying attention.
You moved the goalposts. This wasn't what you were talking about.

No. You just repeated the same beliefs that faster rabbits don't breed faster rabbits. Which is it?

Doubling down on the moving goalposts. And adding more strawman sauce on top.

It was implied by the words.

Only in your imagination

 

[MikeF]

The hell I'm not. Faster rabbits breed faster rabbits.

Faster rabbits do not necessarily breed faster rabbits. Two fast rabbits can produce a slower rabbit, or a rabbit with a lame leg, or a rabbit with off-coloring such that it is more visible to predators. It is predators who put selective pressure on the population, concentrating the percentage that are fast by catching the slow ones before they breed. In a non-predatory environment, I would suspect top speeds among individuals would begin to broaden over time as speed would not be required for survival.

 

[metis]

Let me put my feeling on this in some detail: things change and always have changed, thus "evolution".

Sorry for being so wordy.

 

[cladking]

If the ecosystems of the earth are continually changing but in no fixed way or rate, then it is simply about each generation being adequately suited to survive current condition.

How do fit parents prevent their offspring from being fit?
Do niches evolve so fast that birds and rabbits are whipsawed by the environment that makes being faster, stronger, or smarter useless?
If survival of the fittest is a random walk then why do species change? How does a random walk lead to speciation?
Isn't every individual pretty much stuck with the genes from his parent? How does an individual adapt?

They either are, or they are not.

Yes! Exactly. Every individual is equally fit. Some are simply more adaptable to the environment in which they find themselves. The others are no less fit; they arose from bottlenecks that simply don't aid in their current environment.

Add to that the probability of some percentage of mutation errors and the we see that this organism "Life" simply throws out continually altered generations to see what sticks.

Mutation is irrelevant to the discussion because it is the chief means by which species change outside of bottlenecks. This has been stipulated and is irrelevant to the belief in survival of the fittest.

There is no intended form or endgame other than that the organism "Life" continues to exist.

This is the point here and it is illogical.

All genes breed true. All individuals are similar to their parents. Therefore each generation is by definition more fit than the previous if Darwin were right. If species change through survival of the fittest then there is a continuing improvement in every species until they change one by one. It is irrelevant that this is not a straight line process, it would still exist if survival of the fittest drove speciation.

 

[cladking]

Let me put my feeling on this in some detail: things change and always have changed, thus "evolution".

Sorry for being so wordy.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Every individual is equally fit. Some are simply more adaptable to the environment in which they find themselves.

It's absolutely HILARIOUS to see how you consistently are your own worst enemy.
Once again, you refute yourself.

Mutation is irrelevant to the discussion because it is the chief means by which species change outside of bottlenecks.

Bottlenecks don't change species. They only eliminate variations. At the end of the bottleneck there is nothing that didn't exist prior to the bottleneck.

It's like you can't get anything correct.

This has been stipulated and is irrelevant to the belief in survival of the fittest.

You once again demonstrate that you don't understand what "fit" means in evolutionary biology.

Therefore each generation is by definition more fit than the previous if Darwin were right.

Hilariously false.
More demonstration that you don't understand what "fit" means in evolutionary biology.

 

[cladking]

You once again demonstrate that you don't understand what "fit" means in evolutionary biology.

I know one thing with "certainty" because it is supported by experiment; if fitness exists it breeds true.

The rest is mere claptrap that is illogical and non sequitur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another whole page deflecting from a simple question about a minor point!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is what passes for "discussion" among believers. I've answered all of those questions at least a dozen times and a few of them far more. Maybe the question needs to be in a larger font and another color to get a response.

If the fit survive and breed fitter individuals then why isn't each generation fitter than the last?

Because environments are always changing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So survival of the fittest has a 50:50 chance of breeding less fit individuals?

Why do creationists think that science can be refuted by using very very poor "logic".

 

[cladking]

Why do creationists think that science can be refuted by using very very poor "logic".

This is very simple. I know you can follow it.

It is established fact that faster, stronger, and smarter individuals have like offspring.

Even the dumbest bacteria give rise to more poison resistant offspring if you give them ever increasing amounts of poison in their environments. It doesn't require parents to be smart. It's a natural progression as species adapt to change. Therefore it simply follows that each generation is more fit than the previous. This is why people want to commit genocide and kill the less fit. Like that survival of the fittest drives Evolution it is a belief with no justification in experiment.

The reality is successive generations are not more fit. They are each a new "species" but the differences are usually too subtle to define as a new species. This changes primarily when a species emerges from a bottleneck with dramatic new traits. Species change suddenly because of the eradication of many genes that drive a behavior that defines the species. A catastrophe that kills every dam building beaver might suddenly lead to a dramatically different sort of "beaver" that is a new species. Alternatively the species would go extinct. Nature provides species a wide array and variety of genes in order to create new species that can fill new niches. Nature doesn't protect individuals by "fitness" or because she likes them. She provides every single individual a consciousness so it can protect itself. Nature doesn't care if every beaver dies but new species are critical to maintaining the cooperation that is life and its every niche. Without humans there wouldn't be thousands of square miles of wheat. There wouldn't be much life in Antarctica. There would be millions of deep holes all over the planet brewing up some new strange form of life. There wouldn't be oil seeping off the continental shelf with a new bacteria eating it. We wouldn't have dogs and agriculture.

Stop me when you've heard this before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is very simple. I know you can follow it.

It is established fact that faster, stronger, and smarter individuals have like offspring.

Even the dumbest bacteria give rise to more poison resistant offspring if you give them ever increasing amounts of poison in their environments. It doesn't require parents to be smart. It's a natural progression as species adapt to change. Therefore it simply follows that each generation is more fit than the previous. This is why people want to commit genocide and kill the less fit. Like that survival of the fittest drives Evolution it is a belief with no justification in experiment.

Okay, I have to interrupt here. You are assuming that changes can only go one way. Natural antibiotics may be lower in a new environment. That allows for all sorts of new traits to evolve. But let's say that the next change was in the temperature. And then after that the change could be in how much water was available or its quality. All of these changes, which can go either way, will cause organisms to react and they will naturally change as those that are best suited for this most recent environment do better. It has nothing to do with intelligence. And since bacteria have none that is a good thing. Variation will always exist. Natural selection will always exist. If a species is well adapted for its current environment and there are minimal changes we do not see much in the way of evolution. That is why some fish species appear to have not evolved. There were very well adapted for the seas and they tend to be more stable than land environments.

The reality is successive generations are not more fit. They are each a new "species" but the differences are usually too subtle to define as a new species. This changes primarily when a species emerges from a bottleneck with dramatic new traits. Species change suddenly because of the eradication of many genes that drive a behavior that defines the species. A catastrophe that kills every dam building beaver might suddenly lead to a dramatically different sort of "beaver" that is a new species. Alternatively the species would go extinct. Nature provides species a wide array and variety of genes in order to create new species that can fill new niches. Nature doesn't protect individuals by "fitness" or because she likes them. She provides every single individual a consciousness so it can protect itself. Nature doesn't care if every beaver dies but new species are critical to maintaining the cooperation that is life and its every niche. Without humans there wouldn't be thousands of square miles of wheat. There wouldn't be much life in Antarctica. There would be millions of deep holes all over the planet brewing up some new strange form of life. There wouldn't be oil seeping off the continental shelf with a new bacteria eating it. We wouldn't have dogs and agriculture.

Stop me when you've heard this before.

Yes, I have heard that and it is wrong because it is based upon poor assumptions about environments. You ignore the fact that environments change and then wonder why species evolve. You have been surely corrected on this before, but you just tend to ignore it.

Also your variation of evolution is simply incorrect. Yes, there are changes when the environment changes, but not radical ones. We can still trace the line of descent. You keep making strawmen and we keep knocking them down.

 

[cladking]

Nature doesn't protect individuals by "fitness" or because she likes them.

Nature didn't give a damn about Charles Darwin or any of his beliefs. Nature doesn't care whether theory is based on "evidence" or experiment either. Nature does what it does independently of natural law, theory, or unsupported beliefs in Evolution. Nature is not beholden to any beliefs whatsoever. It is beholden only to initial conditions and cause and effect. Humans are mere observers and NEVER control reality. It is a mirage that we know what nature is doing created by our circular reasoning. We never know because we are never the cause and always necessarily the effect. It's the way we think which results from beliefs. We see logic where none can exist because every thought is parsed.

If nature cared about Darwin He'd still be alive having progeny. He was merely a man and he was simply wrong like every one of us. He has been enshrined and his beliefs elevated to gospel. Despite a century and a half of what is often REAL science contradicting Him, He is still held as some sort of unerring God.