Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

I keep seeing a bunch of words. They look like dead words because they have no meaning. In one breath I'm told the fit survive preferentially and in the next I'm told their offspring are just like average.

No you aren't. That is what you want to see.

This is impossible and flies in the face of everything we actually know about life as determined from experiment.

What is it that prevents you from detailing what you consider "we know". You speak it. You claim it. You never post it.

I'm wondering if it's some kind of doublethink or indoctrination.

I think so. But not from the direction you mean.

It is not only contradictory to known science but it is also non sequitur. If the offspring are normal how do species change?

Asked and answered times too numerous to count. Your rejection is standard operating procedure, but not evidence that what is rejected is wrong or wasn't comprehensible.

Unfortunately nobody will answer direct questions so if I want to know these beliefs I'll have to investigate.

So far, everyone but you has answered questions directly.

There is no evidence you investigate. The evidence indicates that you think it, therefore it is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is correct. They answer no questions. They lecture and won't even answer questions if they are phrased in their own terms. Instead of answering questions they tell me how I have to ask them.

I disagree. You don't like the answers and won't provide any of your own to questions you get.

If you want the conclusion to change, that is up to you and your actions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Back to word games. Can't have too many word games.

Go ahead without me. I don't play any word games.

That's a laugh.

When asked to show evidence that all change in all living things is sudden, your answer was to compare biological change to the time it takes for galaxies to form. That was a huge word game you created. And you provided no evidence once again.

When asked what your objections to the Lenski experiment are, you claimed you had objections in three categories without any explanation of what those objections are. Another of your many word games.

The classic is your reference to the price of bulk agar from China as a reason to reject the Lenski experiment. Word games.

You established this pattern as what you do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Agreed. So do Dawkins and Little Dragon. You're probably familiar with the concept of alternation of generations, which is generally applied to non-animal life, but it applies to sexually reproducing animals as well including humans, where haploid gametes generate diploid organisms which then generate a haploid generation.

Alternation of generations | Definition & Examples

You and I have discussed this before. I made no impact. For starters, I don't remember any questions from you except perhaps rhetorical questions, which are not questions seeking answers. And I guess you don't see how your comment applies to you. You "lecture," but don't answer questions. You ignored this question and comment:

"How does the science actually label the relationship between parent and offspring? Not with those words. Paraphrasing costs you, because your words don't mean the same thing as what you read. As an exercise, see if you can't find the words that you read that reported as "I'm told their offspring are just like average" and quote them verbatim here. Let's look at what you actually read."

You also failed to address the comment preceding it, so I assume that you will repeat the behavior

You shouldn't expect to make progress with such habits. You should expect to remain stuck right where you are. To make progress, we need dialectic. We need to each engage the other like meshing gears, where the movement of one leads to an analogous response in the other. That's not what happens here.

Regarding "how I have to ask [questions]," you're being told how to do so more effectively. You need to define your terms clearly. I have no idea what normal or average meant to you regarding offspring, and I don't expect to ever, because you simply won't engage. You just keep posting vague and outrageous comments (was it you who wrote that there is no such thing as intelligence?).

If you want to see different results, you'll need to modify your posting habits. If you're content with the status quo - and your comment above suggests that you aren't - you'll need to change something. I've told you what. What will you do with that advice? Will you consider it? Will you try to understand how it might be right? Or will you continue to flit from one vague and outrageous statement to the next bemoaning not being understood? It's your call.

How about trying something new? How about giving me what I'm asking for to see how it works out? Go ahead and find one of those questions you say you ask but nobody will answer. How about addressing my italicized comment above to you and complying with my request? Or an answer why you think it's a bad idea. THAT'S engaging. That's dialectic. Anything less is just spinning wheels.

I predict that he will not try what you suggest. Or, at best, will twist it and provide an non-answer answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I keep seeing a bunch of words. They look like dead words because they have no meaning. In one breath I'm told the fit survive preferentially and in the next I'm told their offspring are just like average.

This is impossible and flies in the face of everything we actually know about life as determined from experiment.

I'm wondering if it's some kind of doublethink or indoctrination.

It is not only contradictory to known science but it is also non sequitur. If the offspring are normal how do species change?

Unfortunately nobody will answer direct questions so if I want to know these beliefs I'll have to investigate.

You never seem to review the literature or at least you never present any or point to it. All your objections stem from your personal opinions. It isn't as if the information addressing the area of your claims isn't available. It is. Others have presented it. Why do you think this disparity exists where you reference nothing but yourself and others reference what they have learned and sources that learning comes from.

Why do you think that difference exists?

I believe it is for the fact that deep down you realize you don't know that much about these subjects, but have a lot of beliefs about them and don't want those beliefs challenged, because, as evidenced here, they don't hold up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is correct. They answer no questions. They lecture and won't even answer questions if they are phrased in their own terms. Instead of answering questions they tell me how I have to ask them.

By all indications, this describes YOU to a tee. You don't answer questions. You offer lectures. Meaningless lectures, but lectures. You offer sermons without evidence. You offer rambling emotional appeals and misplaced, moralistic judgements and accusations of theory.

Maybe you should listen to that advice. Have ever once considered that you are wrong, really don't understand the subjects or have any familiarity with the literature and that you don't communicate very well? Have you ever examined any conclusion you have come up with and realized it was faulty?

I see a syncretic belief system with you as the sole believer, but it isn't science and doesn't answer questions.

 

[cladking]

...but you keep going back to your own use of language with words like average and normal...

The simple fact is every individual is different. You want to get away from this obvious truism by considering all members of species to be nothing more than a member of the species. You don't want to consider things like consciousness and differences because Darin nor science pays any attention to such things. Darwin considered only humans to be wholly conscious that other species were lesser and less intelligent.

But individuals are different and are unique. You can't predict which will survive so belief in survival of the fittest is a circular thought. Even if it's true, especially if it's true, that the fit survive then it is necessarily true that their offspring are far far more likely to share this fitness than other members of the species. Indeed, if they don't share this characteristic then it might not even be a trait that can be naturally selected.

All of your arguments are illogical and nonsequitur so direct questions are ignored. Nobody can admit that Darwin even had any assumptions much less that they could each and every single one be wrong. And still these assumptions underlie the ToE.

I had never realized the state of disarray that exists in the thinking.

 

[cladking]

..."I'm told their offspring are just like average" and quote them verbatim here. Let's look at what you actually read.

I don't have a problem here because I believe all individuals are equally fit. It's not the fit that survive, it's the lucky, the prepared, fast, and alert. The strong survive and whatever characteristics these individuals have are passed down to their offspring through genetics. If these characteristics prove helpful to the offspring they spread through the entire population but they usually are not helpful, at least not very helpful, because as I said a million times, all individuals are equally fit. Only when a niche changes are specific characteristics likely to spread through the population and eventually apply to every equally fit individual.

This is not complicated. It is very simple so why don't people understand. Ironically it's because they believe in something else. They believe is species that can't change because every baby is the same species as the parent and survival characteristics don't breed true unless they are also PC. They believe that it's OK to kill off the weak who are dying anyway. Apropos of nothing in particular I hear tell that drug addicts are now allowed to seek assisted suicide. This is killing a whole flock with a single stone. Why not get rid of the weak and nonproductive members of society while improving the commonweal and the species? It keeps doctors busy, saves work for coroners, and helps keep the streets and hospitals free. nothing evil about forcing old people is agony to live while clearing the welfare rolls of young people.

We live in a sick society caused by the doublethink of believers.

 

[cladking]

You never seem to review the literature or at least you never present any or point to it. All your objections stem from your personal opinions. It isn't as if the information addressing the area of your claims isn't available. It is. Others have presented it. Why do you think this disparity exists where you reference nothing but yourself and others reference what they have learned and sources that learning comes from.

I studied evolution and biology back at the age one used to study such things in the old days. Since then all I've done is keep up with the research as warranted by my most limited expertise. There is still no experiment showing survival of the fittest or the nature of consciousness.

 

[cladking]

Your overwhelming ignorance of evolution if abundantly apparent..

Perhaps you are mistaking disagreement for ignorance.

 

[cladking]

What is it that prevents you from detailing what you consider "we know". You speak it. You claim it. You never post it.

Are you really planning to gainsay the fact that we know many traits will be inherited by offspring!!!?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The simple fact is every individual is different.

What does this mean. Moral, spiritual, physical, experiential, genetic...??????????????? What significance if any does this apply to natural selection and fitness.

How do you account for them being different and be equally fit which implies no difference?

You want to get away from this obvious truism by considering all members of species to be nothing more than a member of the species.

This doesn't make any sense. I am a unique individual and a member of the species Homo sapiens. I have fitness that can be measured. The same applies to you. I have no idea where you are going with this confusing statement.

You don't want to consider things like consciousness and differences because Darin nor science pays any attention to such things.

That isn't true. There is just no evidence for your claims about those things. And again, you claim that individuals are different and the same. It can't be both. Stop picking on Darin.

Darwin considered only humans to be wholly conscious that other species were lesser and less intelligent.

You don't believe intelligence exists. Show us where Darwin stated this and that it has any significance to the theory of evolution. I guess I'll have to write it in color and larger font. YOU WON'T DO THIS. YOU NEVER DO THIS. YOU JUST REPEAT YOUR CLAIMS. USE WORD GAMES AND CLAIMS YOU PROVIDED THE ANSWERS WITHOUT PROVIDING THEM.

But individuals are different and are unique.

A statement you claim and deny all at once. Which is it?

You can't predict which will survive so belief in survival of the fittest is a circular thought.

It is not. Natural selection and fitness have been described and supported by the evidence of experiments. Links to those have been provided many times. YOU HAVE IGNORED THOSE AT EVERY TURN, EXCEPT TO CLAIM YOUR UNSPECIFIED DISAGREEMENT FALLS INTO SOME CATEGORIES AND AGAR FROM CHINA IS CHEAP IN BULK.

Even if it's true, especially if it's true, that the fit survive then it is necessarily true that their offspring are far far more likely to share this fitness than other members of the species.

No one has claimed that the fitness of offspring is more likely to be on average lower than the fitness of the parents. It could be. There are reasons why that have been told to you.

Indeed, if they don't share this characteristic then it might not even be a trait that can be naturally selected.

That traits that the environment act on are selected and those with traits that are favored by selection have a greater propensity to get their genes into the next generation. This does not mean the less fit don't, but just have a lower probability of doing so.

Fitness is a propensity and not a specific trait.

All of your arguments are illogical and nonsequitur so direct questions are ignored.

That is all you give us and you repeat them constantly to ensure they cannot be ignored.

Nobody can admit that Darwin even had any assumptions

I've done this many times. I have listed them. What has not been admitted comes from you. I have asked you many times to list those assumptions and show us they are wrong. The best you could do what claim Darwin assumed stable populations. A claim that has been shredded to dust and shown to be illogical.

much less that they could each and every single one be wrong.

No one has shown them to be wrong. I remind you that under repeated requests to list them, you have ignored that consistently and still do.

And still these assumptions underlie the ToE.

I have listed Darwin's assumptions and the assumptions of the theory as it stands now. The assumptions have been demonstrated to be sound. You certainly have done nothing to call them into question with your repeated, unsupported claims.

How do you not understand what you are doing and that your effort continually fails?

I had never realized the state of disarray that exists in the thinking.

Your thinking, as evidenced, is rambling, syncretic, unsupported belief.

 

[cladking]

When asked to show evidence that all change in all living things is sudden, your answer was to compare biological change to the time it takes for galaxies to form. That was a huge word game you created. And you provided no evidence once again.

I am merely providing an alternative to the discredited belief that traits are not passed to offspring and every baby is the same species as its parents. These are so nonsensical I should not have had to show they are nonsensical.

I have also pointed at the fossil record and all observation which agree that all change in all life at all levels is sudden. Gainsaying this is irrelevant. It is on you to show a conflicting fact.

Perspective is everything though from the perspective of omniscience this is invisible.

I believe it is for the fact that deep down you realize you don't know that much about these subjects, but have a lot of beliefs about them and don't want those beliefs challenged, because, as evidenced here, they don't hold up.

Being an expert in bad science is not a requirement for seeing it is bad science nor for trying to create good science. i admit having little better than a 12th grade understanding of Evolution. But my ignorance of the subject hardly proves it must be correct. I have still shown it is wrong, illogical and non sequitur. There is no reason that survival of the fittest must be the way that species evolve and no evidence that species change gradually.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps you are mistaking disagreement for ignorance.

I think we are clear it is both. Disagreement based on ignorance and unsupported personal belief.

 

[Little Dragon]

Fitness is a propensity and not a specific trait.

Again.

FITNESS IS A PROPENSITY NOT A SPECIFIC TRAIT.

I finally went allcaps. It's happened. I am done now.

 

[cladking]

What does this mean. Moral, spiritual, physical, experiential, genetic...??????????????? What significance if any does this apply to natural selection and fitness.

There are no two identical things in reality. Even two apples from the exact same tree can have vastly different textures, tastes, and viability.

Reductionistic science has people believing a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit and that only the fit survive. Nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you really planning to gainsay the fact that we know many traits will be inherited by offspring!!!?

Are you really moving the goal posts to some off topic claim that has no basis to be presented?

I don't disagree that offspring inherit traits from their parents. I've never claimed that.

What is it that prevents you from detailing what you consider "we know". You speak it. You claim it. You never post it.

I can write it bigger, bolder and in color if that helps.

What is it that prevents you from detailing what you consider "we know". You speak it. You claim it. You never post it.

Or follow your lead and repeat it.

What is it that prevents you from detailing what you consider "we know". You speak it. You claim it. You never post it.

 

[Little Dragon]

Even two apples from the exact same tree can have vastly different textures, tastes, and viability.

Yeah that's called grafting, my father's gardeners used to do that. Graft different apple varieties onto other apple trees.

 

[Little Dragon]

Reductionistic science has people believing a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit and that only the fit survive. Nonsense

Yes it is, because the fittest organisms in an ecosystem, are more likely to survive. Not only going to survive.

 

[cladking]

I have fitness that can be measured.

If you can measure it then you can measure it in your offspring and see that they share very similar fitness. Then you should be able to predict your and their success.

Show us where Darwin stated this and that it has any significance to the theory of evolution.

It is fundamental to human belief and shows up throughout Darwin's work and almost everyone else's. You can't see it because you know you're smart and that lesser species aren't even conscious. It's a simple fact. And these were simple facts to Darwin.

A statement you claim and deny all at once. Which is it?

I don't understand your objections. All things that are unique are also different than others by definition.

No one has claimed that the fitness of offspring is more likely to be on average lower than the fitness of the parents. It could be. There are reasons why that have been told to you.

You are evading. I said "on average" the fitness of the off spring is necessarily greater. This isn't about stillborn. It's about on average.

That traits that the environment act on are selected and those with traits that are favored by selection have a greater propensity to get their genes into the next generation. This does not mean the less fit don't, but just have a lower probability of doing so.

Fitness is a propensity and not a specific trait.

Then you agree that each generation is on average superior to the previous one.

This is exactly where Darwin went wrong. He went wrong in many places but whether he said this or not it still isn't true and it is a necessary conclusion from what he did say. If the fit survive then each generation is an improvement and everything else is a mere smokescreen.