Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Valjean]

Not really. I'm just looking at it from another angle. One starts with the assumption that the fit survive preferentially to the weak and then sees it in the survival of the fittest.

...later

"The fit" is not the opposite of the weak.
Science starts with the hypothesis that the better adapted are more reproductively successful, then tries to disprove it experimentally. That's how science works. There is a great deal of objective evidence that the well adapted are more reproductively successful. No assumptions necessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 83795

 

[cladking]

So you can show us that fitness originated this way. You must be able to, since you keep claiming it is so.

I don't know but someone suggested the concept existed in Plato's Republic. But whether it came from Darwin or before the invention of science is irrelevant because no experiment supports it.

 

[cladking]

"The fit" is not the opposite of the weak.

OK, the unfit then.

Science starts with the hypothesis that the better adapted are more reproductively successful, then tries to disprove it experimentally. That's how science works. There is a great deal of objective evidence that the well adapted are more reproductively successful. No assumptions necessary.

No such experiment existed when Darwin invented the concept (or borrowed it from Plato).

There is still no such experiment showing individuals who are weaker, slower, or score lower on standardized tests are less likely to survive or more likely to perish. It is still just "common sense" that the weak die and the strong survive. ONLY EXPERIMENT CAN SHOW COMMON SENSE IS CORRECT BECAUSE THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

Evolution is based on Darwin's Look and See Science and common sense. This is the greatest insult that can be hurled at "theory" but most will see it as irrelevant because they don't understand metaphysics.

 

[cladking]

S

Why aren't you embarrassed? You seem proud to be wrong.

Ironically I'm often asked why I'm not embarrassed to disagree with experts. I remember when I first started studying the pyramids I found a big discrepancy in Egyptological beliefs as they applied to reality. In those days I was embarrassed to disagree so I just fired a little warning shot across their bow to get their attention. But Egyptology's ship of state is impervious to outside influence and they refer to real scientists as "amateurs". When an engineering "anomaly" arose a decade ago that I had predicted, they didn't ask engineers (or me!) what might have caused it. They didn't ask physicists or metaphysicians. They put out an urgent call to Egyptologists!!!!

Since my warning shot got no response of any sort I then put a salvo through their rigging just to get their attention. There was no effect so I loosed a broadside into their hull. Still nothing. I started pumping cannon shot below the waterline and they took on water. I've turned all the floating debris into splinters and then collected and burned them. Now I'm dredging up anything that sank for proper disposal. It's like a scene out a Fantasia where destruction doesn't kill but makes ever tinier and more numerous antagonists.

The only response I ever received was when my theory was referred to as "other unscientific theories on the net" back in 2010.

If they aren't embarrassed to be destroyed and parade about naked then I try not to be embarrassed about sticking my neck out by disagreeing with experts. I've not believed in Evolution since I heard of it when I was still tiny. It didn't ring true then and it still doesn't. There is ample reason to use a different paradigm. As I interpret ancient science they just happen to agree with me and curiously even the birds and the bees appear to agree. A bee's waggle dance is representational not symbolic. There must be some theory by which pre-darwinists invented agriculture. They did not employ test tubes or experiment.

Yes, I'm fully aware that Egyptologists are easy to destroy because there is no real science in the field and obviously biology is supported by a great deal of real science, real experiment, and lots and lots of real and relevant research. I didn't know years ago that Egyptology employed no science. But I still learned just how much all conclusions are dependent on assumption and that assumptions (axioms) are almost never investigated in any subject. In biology "survival of the fittest" is axiomatic. It is a mirage.

Just because I seem to be the only person in the world who believes he might be wrong and should be embarrassed does not make me wrong. And the embarrassment is fading somewhat because all the naked kings are not embarrassed. Homo omniscience is composed chiefly of naked kings and serfs who don't notice it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know but someone suggested the concept existed in Plato's Republic.

So you do have some sort of syncretic belief system based on half-remembered blurbs from the back cover of books, etc. No wonder.

But whether it came from Darwin or before the invention of science is irrelevant because no experiment supports it.

You can run around with blinders on all the way to the end mumbling, "There's no place like home. There's no place like home" all you want. Your wishful thinking wont materialize out of nothing. Natural selection and fitness have the support of evidence and experiment. You've just made it so pointless to try and reach you that it is more of a game now than a real interest to discuss anything with you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, the unfit then.



No such experiment existed when Darwin invented the concept (or borrowed it from Plato).

There is still no such experiment showing individuals who are weaker, slower, or score lower on standardized tests are less likely to survive or more likely to perish. It is still just "common sense" that the weak die and the strong survive. ONLY EXPERIMENT CAN SHOW COMMON SENSE IS CORRECT BECAUSE THIS IS HOW SCIENCE WORKS.

Evolution is based on Darwin's Look and See Science and common sense. This is the greatest insult that can be hurled at "theory" but most will see it as irrelevant because they don't understand metaphysics.

It is interesting watching the evolution of your denial. Now you claim it is a concept of Plato. Of course, you never quote the proper passages, explain it or anything like that. Just a naked, shivering claim out there as if it were fact all mighty.

You don't have experiment. You never do. All you have is doo.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

S


Ironically I'm often asked why I'm not embarrassed to disagree with experts. I remember when I first started studying the pyramids I found a big discrepancy in Egyptological beliefs as they applied to reality. In those days I was embarrassed to disagree so I just fired a little warning shot across their bow to get their attention. But Egyptology's ship of state is impervious to outside influence and they refer to real scientists as "amateurs". When an engineering "anomaly" arose a decade ago that I had predicted, they didn't ask engineers (or me!) what might have caused it. They didn't ask physicists or metaphysicians. They put out an urgent call to Egyptologists!!!!

Since my warning shot got no response of any sort I then put a salvo through their rigging just to get their attention. There was no effect so I loosed a broadside into their hull. Still nothing. I started pumping cannon shot below the waterline and they took on water. I've turned all the floating debris into splinters and then collected and burned them. Now I'm dredging up anything that sank for proper disposal. It's like a scene out a Fantasia where destruction doesn't kill but makes ever tinier and more numerous antagonists.

The only response I ever received was when my theory was referred to as "other unscientific theories on the net" back in 2010.

If they aren't embarrassed to be destroyed and parade about naked then I try not to be embarrassed about sticking my neck out by disagreeing with experts. I've not believed in Evolution since I heard of it when I was still tiny. It didn't ring true then and it still doesn't. There is ample reason to use a different paradigm. As I interpret ancient science they just happen to agree with me and curiously even the birds and the bees appear to agree. A bee's waggle dance is representational not symbolic. There must be some theory by which pre-darwinists invented agriculture. They did not employ test tubes or experiment.

Yes, I'm fully aware that Egyptologists are easy to destroy because there is no real science in the field and obviously biology is supported by a great deal of real science, real experiment, and lots and lots of real and relevant research. I didn't know years ago that Egyptology employed no science. But I still learned just how much all conclusions are dependent on assumption and that assumptions (axioms) are almost never investigated in any subject. In biology "survival of the fittest" is axiomatic. It is a mirage.

Just because I seem to be the only person in the world who believes he might be wrong and should be embarrassed does not make me wrong. And the embarrassment is fading somewhat because all the naked kings are not embarrassed. Homo omniscience is composed chiefly of naked kings and serfs who don't notice it.

You DO NOT BELIEVE YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING. You believe you are right about it all and everyone else, armed with actual knowledge, experience and experiment are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know but someone suggested the concept existed in Plato's Republic. But whether it came from Darwin or before the invention of science is irrelevant because no experiment supports it.

Who suggested it? Where in the Republic? What does it actually say in there if anything?

Come on. We need more than just your say so.

 

[cladking]

You DO NOT BELIEVE YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING. You believe you are right about it all and everyone else, armed with actual knowledge, experience and experiment are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

In a sense you are about half right. I believe there is a 75% chance I am essentially correct about the pyramids and a 50% chance there is in reality more sudden change in species at bottlenecks than there is gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. I can estimate the odds based on visceral knowledge but I can't really be wrong. My formatting for reality is much more axiomatic than it is theory. I believe that definitions and the big picture will fall into place if science is performed from this formatting. I can misestimate the odds but I can't really be "wrong" per se.

I never have held an opinion contrary to experiment to my knowledge.

If I prove to be right people will ask why I wasn't more sure but there's a simple enough answer; our species reasons in circles and I am no different. Even if my premises are correct there is no certainty that the conclusions will also be correct. And, of course, it's embarrassing going against so many experts in many sciences (and every pseudo-science). "I might be wrong about anything at all" isn't just a signature line, it's a way of life; a way of human life.

 

[cladking]

Who suggested it? Where in the Republic? What does it actually say in there if anything?

Come on. We need more than just your say so.

I read other peoples' posts all the time. It was in one of them just in the last several days. It might have been this very thread.

I believe people always make sense so i figured it was probably true. I don't know and didn't consider it important enough to investigate deeply.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In a sense you are about half right. I believe there is a 75% chance I am essentially correct about the pyramids and a 50% chance there is in reality more sudden change in species at bottlenecks than there is gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. I can estimate the odds based on visceral knowledge but I can't really be wrong. My formatting for reality is much more axiomatic than it is theory. I believe that definitions and the big picture will fall into place if science is performed from this formatting. I can misestimate the odds but I can't really be "wrong" per se.

See. You believe you are the person that is right and you base this on the results of imagined statistical analysis that oddly favor your being correct. You can't be wrong for no real reason you can support. Got it. So no reason for you to learn anything. Just imagine you are correct and everyone else is wrong. Got it.

I never have held an opinion contrary to experiment to my knowledge.

All I see from you are opinions contrary to experiment, logic, reason, evidence...

If I prove to be right people will ask why I wasn't more sure but there's a simple enough answer; our species reasons in circles and I am no different. Even if my premises are correct there is no certainty that the conclusions will also be correct. And, of course, it's embarrassing going against so many experts in many sciences (and every pseudo-science). "I might be wrong about anything at all" isn't just a signature line, it's a way of life; a way of human life.

I see no reason you should feel concerned about being proven right.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I read other peoples' posts all the time. It was in one of them just in the last several days. It might have been this very thread.

So based on a partially remembered post that may or may not exist, that even you can't point to you have suddenly rolled out Plato as evidence for your claims about fitness. And you consider yourself to be some sort of fortress of all knowledge too. Wow!

I believe people always make sense so i figured it was probably true. I don't know and didn't consider it important enough to investigate deeply.

Figured it was true?@!?! Awesome! That's really encouraging.

You don't know and don't consider it important. Yet here you are posting and bringing it to prominence. Incredible!

Mole hill, meet the mountain maker.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

like assuming that a survivor must be fit is a circular argument

It's not an argument at all. It's a definition. Creationists like to call it tautology. The fact that some phenotypes outcompete others for generating offspring and thus have their alleles assume a more dominant role in the gene pool (more copies) has a name - an unfortunate one: survival of the fittest. Natural selection is also defined that way. Proliferation of the most fecund would be better. And as I said, it's not an argument or a theory or a hypothesis. It's a definition. It's one set of words understood to mean the same as the other.

Likewise with genetic variation. It's not a hypothesis or theory, either. It's the name for the fact that the genomes of offspring of sexually reproducing species differ from that of their parents.

The argument is that the two of them in concert led to the tree of life evolving from a last universal common ancestor.

Our species is not logical so our opinions mean nothing

To you, perhaps. I find meaning in many of the opinions I hold including this one, and have put them to good use.

Look and see Science is not the same as real science that is necessarily based on experiment.

"Look and see" = observe evidence. Science (and all other empiricism) is the interplay between observation ("look and see") and induction ("think"). Laboratory experimentation is also "look and see," but combined with an active component: "arrange then look and see."

I believe "consciousness" is largely a matter of on or off.

You can't name the precise moment yours came on upon awakening today. It's like day and night. One evolves into the other gradually and continuously. But I still don't know what consciousness is to you, since you've said all life is conscious.

 

[Little Dragon]

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?

The ego is a mindkiller...

 

[cladking]

The ego is a mindkiller...

ItAin'tNecessarilySo just said survival of the fittest is true by definition so continuous improvement in species is likewise true by definition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ItAin'tNecessarilySo just said survival of the fittest is true by definition so continuous improvement in species is likewise true by definition.

@It Aint Necessarily So didn't say that. Reading things like a novel or just scanning and declaring meaning from a trivial review isn't a good means to learn.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ItAin'tNecessarilySo just said survival of the fittest is true by definition so continuous improvement in species is likewise true by definition.

Do you think that plant breeders just select from their pool of starting material with no reason or intent. According to you all individuals are equally fit, so their would be no reason for a breeder to select or even for breeding as a profession. Anyone could be a plant breeder. Just toss out some seed and harvest the next generation of seed at random. Except the results would be all over the place and not be very successful breeding program that would have as good a chance of missing useful varieties as finding some.

Plant and animal breeding is evidence that not all things are equally fit. Darwin saw this (observation). He used that evidence frequently in his book.

 

[cladking]

It's not an argument at all. It's a definition. Creationists like to call it tautology. The fact that some phenotypes outcompete others for generating offspring and thus have their alleles assume a more dominant role in the gene pool (more copies) has a name - an unfortunate one. Natural selection is also defined that way. Proliferation of the most fecund would be better. And as I said, it's not an argument or a theory or a hypothesis. It's a definition. It's one set of words understood to mean the same as the other.

Likewise with genetic variation. It's not a hypothesis or theory, either. It's the name for the fact that the genomes of offspring of sexually reproducing species differ from that of their parents.

If "survival of the fittest" doesn't conform to the way species really change then it's a very very poor definition.

To you, perhaps. I find meaning in many of the opinions I hold including this one, and have put them to good use.

Your "opinions" often resonate with reality because they are founded on the logic of nature as expressed in experiment. Of course opinion is often valuable. Everyone lives their life by it.

You can't name the precise moment yours came on upon awakening today. It's like day and night. One evolves into the other gradually and continuously.

That's odd you say this today. I usually wake up very quickly (in less than 1 second I know I won't be fully awake until I've had my second cup of coffee). It has always taken me between ten and twenty seconds to fall asleep. Today, however, I realized I was dreaming and waking up 2 or 3 seconds before I actually woke up at 8:05.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ItAin'tNecessarilySo just said survival of the fittest is true by definition so continuous improvement in species is likewise true by definition.

I've noticed the pattern--I'm fairly I am not alone--that you like to throw out some claims or vague references and then continue on even when asked about them.

Indulge us a little with some detail and support for what you claim. And please, beyond what you imagine it to be.