So, you don't accept what happens, but you believe in what doesn't happen. Go figure, but not surprising.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
Natural selection has been demonstrated experimentally. Though you have never commented on the studies I have posted and described, I don't believe you don't know I posted them. Others have done this too. Some of us understand more than just the blurbs on the backs of books.
Just meaningless speculation that you "BELEIVE" in, but have no evidence to demonstrate. Some of it has never made sense.
I believe Darwin is considered an easy target, because he is dead and cannot fight back. I also think Darwin is a target, because creationists view him as some sort of science saint or whatever you want to call it.
cladking
Well-Known Member
No. "Maladaptive" here is intended to mean any behavior likely to produce undesirable results. Humans don't need to make sense or produce good results. Therefore bad behavior and bad results are promoted resulting in devolution of the species. It should be remembered that homo omnisciencis is distinct from all other life. In most meaningful ways humans are different because we have complex language and act on beliefs instead of logic.
All individuals are equally fit but a fit toad is completely different than a fit platypus so they are in no way interchangeable.
In humans being dumb can be the best bet and can result in the most offspring. Being unfit, disabled, and weak can be beneficial quite often. This is not true in the real world instead of the dream state in which humans live. Every year we make life simpler for the stupid and ignorant. I can't comprehend many of the symbols used as warnings, direction, and information and they no longer put words with them so my ability to read and understand English is a liability. The peter principle assures the ignorant and incompetent enjoy promotions so now days even once highly regarded institutions as the Army Corps of Engineers is almost wholly incompetent. As the government hands out money based on the number of babies one has as dependents it's hardly surprising every parent is not the ideal. It's been going downhill for 4000 years largely because things are forever being simplified until anyone can use it, understand it, or master it. Every year it's easier and easier to become a doctor. The memory, course work, and work load gets ever easier. Grades are handed out in colleges like candy so even dolts can pass if they can first get in. There's nothing new except the huge acceleration in the loss of standards. One doesn't even need to understand science any longer to get a grant, just agree with the dogma pushed by those who give grants. Now days we even roll over drunks to vote and many of those in prison who can't understand and follow the law can vote for our leaders.
Human behavior is maladaptive and superstitious. As the organs of society get simpler and the processes used to navigate our man made world get simpler the species is, no doubt, getting simpler as well. We have schools that don't teach and leaders who don't lead and voters that don't care.
But humans still control their environment so are in no danger at all of going hungry until reality catches up with us and we go extinct. Such is life in the big city. Everything is fine until it isn't any more. Then the feces is everywhere.
Hmmm. A loss of eyes in fish isolated in caves occurring in just a few generations? That seems rather improbable to me for such a major morphological change. In a population of say ... one thousand individuals with eyes, how do all their 3rd generation decedents end up without eyes? It seems impossible to me.
40,000 year old magic.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Just like assuming that a survivor must be fit is a circular arguments so too is assuming a species that doesn't "evolve" has had no selection pressure because it hasn't changed is a circular argument.
Nobody, no expert, and nobody with enormous visceral knowledge can just look at something and understand it. Our species is not logical so our opinions mean nothing no matter how much education or how many grants we have. Look and see Science is not the same as real science that is necessarily based on experiment.
Visceral knowledge is the only real knowledge but all things affect all other things so nobody has sufficient visceral knowledge to understand anything at all. Reality is very highly complex but our thinking is always very simple. We reduce things to models to understand so models must be founded in experiment.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Can you show an example of this.
Change occurs ONLY when an unusual behavior is selected. A bottleneck alone won't necessarily create much if any change in species. Look at the whooping crane and bison. They were killed based on exhibiting their place so the species underwent little change.
But all you provide is opinion without any basis of evidence. You read the back of the book and saw some key words and have created your own scenario out of that.
Those are examples of straw men, not circular arguments that have been used.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Can you provide an example vis a vis change in species? Data and definitions are a given.
You didn't explain it for him. You gave more examples without explaining how they show circular reasoning. Claims are not explanations.
You show us examples of your claims.
There is no evidence that behavioral change is the mechanism for evolution.
A bottleneck is a widespread reduction in the numerical size of a population that often includes the elimination of variation. It is not involved in speciation. The species that experiences the bottleneck is the same species on either side of the bottleneck event.
I can't address this nonsensical statement. What are are you going on about?
cladking
Well-Known Member
I specifically stated that the loss of eyes in cave dwelling species may be one of the most gradual of changes in species. Individuals would hardly even know they had eyes.
You show me examples and evidence of your claims and maybe we can have a meaningful discussion, but until you provide more than your misinformed opinion all I need to do is point out your errors.
That is the creationist paradigm.
I've provided it numerous times and you have ignored it every time. I don't believe you would look at it or provide any sort of honest assessment this time. As I followed you over the years, I don't have any confidence that you will understand and feel that you intentionally don't want to understand.
You've had your chances. Good grief.
That assumes that fish with functional eyes are aware of what eyes are and that they have them. Are you really suggesting that?
What do you base this conclusions on? What studies and experiments have you conducted to demonstrate that the loss of eyes in some fish is more gradual than other evolutionary change?
Is this another lunch break study? Did you poke the eyes out of some carp over a chicken salad sandwich and some Oreos?
Not all organisms have a brain and for those with brains, the level of awareness or consciousness varies broadly, right? Granted, you admit that this is merely speculation on your part, but I cannot see how mere consciousness of some organisms is the linchpin to understanding all of life, especially in light of the fact that initially, there only existed single celled organisms for the first one to two billion years. Given that mutation and change occurred during this period, I do not see consciousness being an active agent in mutation as you are suggesting here.