Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Valjean]

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 being silly and you know it. Do you know what a straw man is? You're completely misrepresenting natural selection.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Huh???

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.

You keep making this claim. It's unfounded.

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.

No. As long as a species can maintain a stable population, they are fit enough. With no selective pressure, species can remain essentially unchanged for long periods.

Selection, not perfection

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please, don't try to pretend that the creationists here are any sort of martyrs here. That won't fly.. Yes, they are rather ignorant and uneducated. But people have quite often offered to help them to learn, but they never try to learn on their own and they never take anyone up on their offers. The ignorance and lack of education is their fault. And when they are repeatedly shown to be wrong it is arrogance to act as if they are some sort of victim.

If people claim they don't have education and expertise, calling that a reason that they are wrong isn't out of order. Clearly, there are a number of deniers on here that don't know that much biology or science in general.

The other thing I've seen among creationists is the hypocrisy of letting others get away with much worse without a peep simply, because they are also science deniers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Another whole page deflecting from a simple question about a minor point!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is not true. Your words were addressed directly and your diversions pointed out rightly.

This is what passes for "discussion" among believers.

No. It what those knowledgeable of science have to deal with. Uninformed and out of touch deniers of science.

I've answered all of those questions at least a dozen times and a few of them far more.

No you have not. I've watched. You have responded many times, but it was not with answers.

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 fitness varies in a population along with selection of the environment and each generation is not a carbon copy clone of the previous generation.

I find it amusing that people educated in science are wrong, because they won't spend the time providing deniers with a four year college degree so that they can understand only to have deniers wave the information away to the corn field.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Believers can't see such inconsistencies.

I am fairly certain many of us are aware of your inconsistencies, empty claims and errors of fact and logic.

Believers don't see evidence that contradict their models and beliefs because they interpret everything only in terms of them.

Deniers of science do not provide evidence. Asking a meaningless question is not evidence.

It's the nature of our species and how and why we reason in circles.

Irrelevant claim without evidence.

It is caused by abstract language that has been used for 4000 years.

More irrelevant nonsense unsupported by evidence.

Nothing can break it except experiment and experiment does not support Darwin or the ToE.

An erroneous claim on its face.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, for the Siri geniuses I even asked the AI (artificial idiocy) program;

"This is a great question! The answer is that evolution is not a linear process. While it is true that the fittest individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation, it does not necessarily mean that each generation will be fitter than the last. This is because evolution is driven by random mutations in the genetic code, which can lead to genetic drift and bottlenecks in populations. These factors can cause a loss of genetic diversity and result in the emergence of less fit individuals over time 1. Additionally, environmental factors such as climate change, habitat destruction, and pollution can also have a significant impact on the fitness of a population 1. Therefore, while natural selection does favor the fittest individuals, it does not guarantee that each generation will be fitter than the last."

Of course this is highly illogical so if anyone wants to present this idiocy as the answer I'll happily rip it a one.

Irrelevant trash talking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

No.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Incorrect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The ToE is illogical, non sequitur, and based on false assumptions.

Repetition of empty claims does not spontaneously provide support. You are wrong.

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!!!!

Irrelevant nonsense. There is evidence for fitness. It can be quantified.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Explain how natural selection is wrong.

Explain why creationists are so obsessed with Darwin.
Physicians aren't obsessed with Hippocrates or Galen. Astronomers aren't obsessed with Galileo. Mathematicians aren't obsessed with Pythagoras. Why all the fuss over Darwin?

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.

Maladaptive = reproductively unsuccessful
Please explain "devolution." Evolution is not a ladder; it's not a string of increasing complexity. Sometimes decreased complexity is adaptive and selected for. Evolution can both increase and decrease complexity

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.

Please explain what you mean by circular reasoning, and how this is an example of it.
And what do apex species have to do with any of this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?



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.



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.



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.

Every individual is not equally fit. That makes no sense at all.
Mutation is not irrelevant to a discussion of fitness. It is central to it. Mutations are the primary source of novel diversity.

Change in species does not occur because of, at or as a result of bottlenecks. The species on one side of a bottleneck is the same as the species on the other side. Don't know how many times this has to be repeated, but it apparently is in heavy denial.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Irrelevant trash talk.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

More irrelevant venting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

A change in environment doesn't have to be extraordinary to be a change that might impact fitness. Expecting the forest to suddenly be blown off the face of the Earth and that it didn't happen doesn't mean the environment hasn't changed.

The things you say as if they are some well-established fact. Good grief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. Darwin is the one who assumed niches don't change.

Not something that Darwin claimed or assumed.

He specifically stated that populations tend to be stable.

Sigh! No. He did not state that. Read his book.

It's nonsense but it underlies his beliefs.

It is nonsense and it does underlie your beliefs.

I believe that with every birth and every death that species change just as modern science changes. Indeed, species change SUDDENLY when all typical behavior is eradicated. [is this thing on]should I define metaphysics again[/is this thing on]

Purely nonsense, unsupported by any evidence or experiment.

What you believe is irrelevant to the discussion.

Incredible!

I find all of these empty claims wished into fact to be incredible too. Not the claims so much as the wishing part.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Around here squirrels have already evolved to run straight across roads. They tend to always wait for the cars to pass as well.

This is simple adaptation. It is neither evolution nor survival of the fittest.

It's always a pleasure talking to you.

It would be a trait that produces a fitness benefit. If is a valid observation, the squirrels that practice it would tend to have a higher fitness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Fitness is a not a genetic trait.

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

Don't be so hard on your ideas.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's like you read the back cover of a book on evolution and then just imagined what the other 1000 pages said.

Thank you! That describes my impression of the state of things here to a tee.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I do not agree. All obsereved change in all life of all types and all categories is sudden.

No it is not. Sorry, you can keep repeating it to the grave and it will not magically become a fact.

All observed change in all species is also sudden and always occurs at bottlenecks.

Sigh!!!! Completely wrong.

There are NO KNOWN exceptions.

There are all sorts of exceptions that are actually the RULE.

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.

Nonsense. Nothing you have demonstrated. You can't do it. All you got is trash talk and repetition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

This is so disconnected and out of touch it doesn't warrant further comment.