Irony of the evolutionary belief

[cladking]

This is such a collection of bs that I don't even know where to begin.

I stand corrected. Nature does care about Charles Darwin. I bet she lies awake every worrying whether or not she's killed enough unfit that day or too many of the most fit. It's a grave responsibility killing just the right individuals on a tight schedule.

 

[cladking]

Nature IS natural law. It's the product of natural law.

This is your belief. Modern cosmology has certainly cast doubt on this. Indeed, some believe in an infinite number of ramps built an an infinite number of pyramids and no pyramid was built without ramps. We live in the most fascinating multiverse on earth. It's one where whole universes can blink into existence without such much as a by your leave or a wishful thought. It's the wondrous imagination of man and the ability to believe anything at all.

 

[cladking]

Certainly. Mixing of the pool of genes in a given species means that in the very short timespan of one generation, parent to offspring, statistically their will not be dramatic changes in environment or conditions, and therefore offspring, statistically, will be sufficient to also survive and reproduce. But that is an insignificant time interval when speaking about evolution of species. Wouldn't you agree?

No. I do not agree. All obsereved change in all life of all types and all categories is sudden. All observed change in all species is also sudden and always occurs at bottlenecks. There are NO KNOWN exceptions. Gradual change in species is a belief caused by believing in steady populations and that one can understand life with no understanding whatsoever of consciousness. It is caused also by the belief in survival of the fittest which illogical, circular, and contradicted by evidence.

 

[cladking]

More importantly, however, you are fixated on differences between parents and offspring, the difference over one generation.

More accurately I am fixated on the SMILARITIES of parents and their offspring. If either were more fit then the other likely is as well. It follows that species must necessarily get increasingly fit if survival of the fittest were real. IT IS NOT REAL.

 

[cladking]

Nature IS natural law. It's the product of natural law.

No experiment supports this. All experiment supports the idea that nature is logical. It's really magical thinking to imagine that nature obeys laws. It's just another anthropomorphization like humans have been doing for 4000 years. Nature consists solely of initial conditions and cause and effect. Any similarity to law is coincidental and caused by the fact that mathematics also is logical.

 

[cladking]

With the exception of selective breeding or genetic engineering, nobody's claiming that nature is controlled by human theories or desires. The theory describes; it doesn't compel.

So by what theory did ancient man compel nature to produce agriculture?

This will simply be ignored. We compel nature to make test tube babies but somehow termites can't compel nature to provide food. beavers can't compel nature to make water plants, and bees can't compell nature (other bees) to find flowers.

Belief is a wondrous thing that creates everything from voodoo to the ToE.

 

[Valjean]

Most squirrels are born in about the exact same environment as their great great great great grandparents. Some years they eat more berries and fewer acorns but many environments don't change much from century to century. In such an environment each successive generation should be more fit than the last since weaker, dumber, and slower squirrels are being picked off by predators. Indeed, almost everywhere even including changing environment this must necessarily tend to be true.

It makes no sense to dispute this.

Sometimes weak, dumb, or slow is adaptive, it benefits the organism.
And many populations don't change much from century to century. But most environments do change, sometimes slowly, sometimes faster. Climate changes, biota mixes change, and living things adapt. Accumulated adaptations eventually produce new species.

A blind cave fish is more fit than a sighted cave fish. A legless reptile or marine animal is sometimes more fit than a quadrupedal one. A flightless bird is more fit, within its niche, than a flying bird.

Some of the most successful, best adapted, most fit "designs;" designs that have been around unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, are exceptionally slow, dumb, and weak. Think sponges, jellyfish, snails, turtles, &c.
It seems like it's the "high performance" creatures that are always dying out.

 

[cladking]

It's creationists who are always bringing up Darwin,

Darwin was wrong first and his "theory" is as wrong today as it was when he still sat on the Beagle. Nothing has stopped being wrong. Just because science is moving away from his errors doesn't make them right. Just because a religious person says something or it's in the Bible doesn't make it wrong. Only Congress can always be wrong. I'm old enough to remember when this was just a joke but it's not funny any longer.

 

[cladking]

Sometimes weak, dumb, or slow is adaptive, it benefits the organism.

Only in humans is this common. It's why we are devolving. It is normally highly maladaptive in the real world where every other individual lives.

 

[MikeF]

No. I do not agree. All obsereved change in all life of all types and all categories is sudden. All observed change in all species is also sudden and always occurs at bottlenecks. There are NO KNOWN exceptions. Gradual change in species is a belief caused by believing in steady populations and that one can understand life with no understanding whatsoever of consciousness. It is caused also by the belief in survival of the fittest which illogical, circular, and contradicted by evidence.

What does "sudden" mean to you? One generation? I'm just curious.

Also, I'm not sure what consciousness, whatever you mean by that term, has to do with understanding life.

 

[cladking]

A blind cave fish is more fit than a sighted cave fish. A legless reptile or marine animal is sometimes more fit than a quadrupedal one.

This is probably true. I lack the depth of knowledge to have a very strong opinion but it's possible that errors in genetic replication of vision simply lead to its loss. Nature has a tendency to eliminate any features of species that are not necessary. This may be one of the slowest ways in which species can change. Most change is apparently quite sudden.

Some of the most successful, best adapted, most fit "designs;" designs that have been around unchanged for hundreds of millions of years, are exceptionally slow, dumb, and weak. Think sponges, jellyfish, snails, turtles, &c.

This may be irrelevant but in case I'm misthinking your point I'll just mention that this is circular reasoning. I doubt cockroaches are the apex species on the planet.

 

[cladking]

What does "sudden" mean to you? One generation? I'm just curious.

Most of the real change is in a single generation. However, generations interbreed and many of the most dramatic changes in appearance (like loss of eyes in cave fish) are going to show up over at least a few more generations. While parent and offspring will usually appear to be quite similar the biggest difference are often invisible and won't show up until the grand babies, or great grandbabies arise. What causes the change is that all the individuals which exhibited typical behavior for the species were wiped out at a bottleneck. The survivors by definition have unusual genes and these genes give rise to a new species quite suddenly. This is why every fossil IS a missing link.

All individuals are fit. Life is determined by consciousness which reflects the logic of nature. Consciousness is life and is logic. Species change when oddballs survive a bottleneck. This is what logic, evidence, and experiment all show. Darwin's paradigm is wrong.

 

[cladking]

Also, I'm not sure what consciousness, whatever you mean by that term, has to do with understanding life.

This is most highly complex. It is probably far more complex than anything I can imagine. But in a nutshell consciousness as determined by logical genetics and the logical wiring of the brain drives behavior and behavior is selected by nature and not "fitness". The ToE is a mirage caused by bad assumptions and bad interpretations which follow from bad definitions. Bad Darwin.

I have to suspect that the role of consciousness in the direction of species is just as complex and unpredictable as its role in the direction of individuals. It might (probably) even have a role in the incidence of mutation which is the largest cause of change in species. Because every individual adapts to fit his niche through consciousness and other means it is likely that this adaptation can cause mutations which make offspring more readily adaptable.

Who knows? Until we begin to study reality in the proper format such things are unknowable and only the subject of speculation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I stand corrected. Nature does care about Charles Darwin. I bet she lies awake every worrying whether or not she's killed enough unfit that day or too many of the most fit. It's a grave responsibility killing just the right individuals on a tight schedule.

You're just piling on man

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only in humans is this common. It's why we are devolving. It is normally highly maladaptive in the real world where every other individual lives.

More evidence you don't understand what "fit" means in evolutionary biology.
You insist on the opposite, but your posts keep demonstrating otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is most highly complex. It is probably far more complex than anything I can imagine. But in a nutshell consciousness as determined by logical genetics and the logical wiring of the brain drives behavior and behavior is selected by nature and not "fitness". The ToE is a mirage caused by bad assumptions and bad interpretations which follow from bad definitions. Bad Darwin.

I have to suspect that the role of consciousness in the direction of species is just as complex and unpredictable as its role in the direction of individuals. It might (probably) even have a role in the incidence of mutation which is the largest cause of change in species. Because every individual adapts to fit his niche through consciousness and other means it is likely that this adaptation can cause mutations which make offspring more readily adaptable.

Who knows?

Who knows? Clearly not you

 

[Valjean]

No, it is not random chance. If the egg and sperm are from the fastest two rabbits on earth the offspro9ing is far far more likely to be fast than any other individual.

The mating of two fast rabbits is random chance.
The speed might or might not be passed on. The speed might or might not be adaptive/beneficial.

It sounds like you agree with me then that all individuals (except accidents) are equally fit. All individuals have their own individual consciousness and their own individual genes which makes them different and best suited to someone different environments. If their parents exist in a given environment then there's a very high probability each equally fit off spring will also survive there even if some few are born such that they can't survive anywhere.

And some species are extremely stable, particularly when the environment is also stable. But it only takes a small variation and a statistically minute reproductive advantage to eventually become the dominant variation within a population.
Sometimes a chance variation confers a large advantage, and fairly quickly becomes the norm.
And natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution.

If Evolution were driven by mere "adequacy" as is now maintained then we should say not "survival of the fittest" or "naturally selected (for life) but rather death of the least fit and naturally selected for death is what drives Evolution. Neither of these is true since every individual is equally fit and nature doesn't care how fit a rabbit is or isn't as it's being eaten by a fox.

Not every individual is equally reproductively successful. Natural selection usually operates on statistically minute variation.

It's remarkable people imagine survival of the fittest but are oblivious to the simple truism that all off spring are more similar to their parents than ANY other individuals. Even before a rabbit is born to the fastest two rabbits on earth it is a virtual certainty that it will be faster than most rabbits.

That's not how genetics works. The speed of one parent might be due to a different, non-additive genetic configuration or trait than the speed of the other parent. Maybe a strong freeze reaction of a sibling, or more frequent directional changes during flight, or better stamina, or better camouflage, or lower resting metabolism and energy conservation, or more robust telomeres will be statistically more advantageous than speed.

This is the way reality works. Survival of the fittest sprang from Darwin's beliefs. I'm talking obvious facts and you're speculating on how selection might apply despite these obvious facts.

The "obvious" is sometimes found to be outright wrong. Common sense and common knowledge are overrated. That's why science's skepticism and insistence on testing is so successful.

Please explain why you find natural selection problematic. It's obvious, commonsense and tested.

 

[Valjean]

No experiment supports this. All experiment supports the idea that nature is logical. It's really magical thinking to imagine that nature obeys laws. It's just another anthropomorphization like humans have been doing for 4000 years. Nature consists solely of initial conditions and cause and effect. Any similarity to law is coincidental and caused by the fact that mathematics also is logical.

Logical? Nature is a validity assessment mechanism? Do you mean orderly, or functional?

Nature does obey laws. I've never floated off into the air, or dropped through the floor, or had a bowling ball turn into a cantaloupe.
Objects fall at a fixed, predictable rate. Actions have predictable reactions. liquids freeze and solids melt at predictable points. Chemicals interact and bond predictably. Radioactive materials decay at predictable rates, into predictable daughter isotopes. Nature follows laws.

 

[Valjean]

So by what theory did ancient man compel nature to produce agriculture?

Huh? Not following. "Produce agriculture?" Plants grow by themselves, and have been doing so long before man appeared.
Put a seed in the ground and you have agriculture. Mimic natural selection with intentional selection and you can produce all sorts of variation, just like nature does.

This will simply be ignored. We compel nature to make test tube babies but somehow termites can't compel nature to provide food. beavers can't compel nature to make water plants, and bees can't compell nature (other bees) to find flowers.

Belief is a wondrous thing that creates everything from voodoo to the ToE.

Sorry, but I'm completely missing your point. Explain, please?

 

[John53]

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?

That's not an answer. You've asked a question. Maybe you should start with the basics of the English language the you might be able to communicate your ideas.