Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

This was your belief and has been for some time. No one else has made a claim like this. They have stated this in response to your claims that speciation is sudden and the next generation is a different species.

You are aware that these forums are searchable right?

Not that it matters. I predict you would deny your own words if they are presented to you. Or some word game.

These are so nonsensical I should not have had to show they are nonsensical.

They are your words and they are nonsensical. Comparing biological change to the time taken for galaxies to form to support your claim that all change in all living things is sudden is an exercise in nonsense.

I have also pointed at the fossil record and all observation which agree that all change in all life at all levels is sudden.

You haven't. It doesn't. You don't have the knowledge to interpret the fossil record and don't appear to want it, since that would show your syncretic beliefs are not science or fact.

Gainsaying this is irrelevant. It is on you to show a conflicting fact.

You love the mantra/incantation gainsaying. It is simply denial and not magic that will make your claims suddenly have the support of evidence.

All change in all living things is not sudden and this is supported by evidence and observation and experiment.

It is futile and illogical to claim otherwise, but you will. I have no doubt of that.

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

Now you are claiming you can't see things because you are omniscient I suppose. That doesn't make any sense. You can't see everything and not see everything. Which is it?

Being an expert in bad science is not a requirement for seeing it is bad science nor for trying to create good science.

I stipulate that you are not an expert in science, good or bad. I don't have any evidence that you have tried to create sound science. Quite the opposite by all accounts of these threads.

Again, you are aware these threads are searchable right?

i admit having little better than a 12th grade understanding of Evolution.

Then stop posting as if you are an expert.

But my ignorance of the subject hardly proves it must be correct.

It doesn't show anything except that you admit you don't have the skill and knowledge to make the claims you do.

I have still shown it is wrong, illogical and non sequitur.

No you haven't. You haven't really done anything except give us a rambling agenda and an outline for what can best be described as a syncretic belief system drawing from a superficial awareness of numerous subjects of science, religion, history, culture,...

There is no reason that survival of the fittest must be the way that species evolve and no evidence that species change gradually.

That is what the evidence supports despite you wish that it not. Sorry.

 

[cladking]

Again.

FITNESS IS A PROPENSITY NOT A SPECIFIC TRAIT.

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

Propensity for what exactly??? Is it speed? Is it strength.

Almost every possible propensity is inheritable except the most important, for pure blind luck. Am I to believe that "luck" is part of the ToE? Tghis is magical thinking on steroids.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

That is the erroneous direction I figured you would take this random claim that tells us nothing and goes against your own claim that every living thing is the same.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Propensity for what exactly??? Is it speed? Is it strength.

Shaking my head. Sigh!!!!!! Good grief.

A propensity to reproduce genes into the next generation?

Is this mike even on?

Almost every possible propensity is inheritable except the most important, for pure blind luck.

But you admit that you don't have the skill and knowledge to know this or show this. Are you claiming to be geneticist now?

How do you know luck isn't inheritable? Your Nobel prizing-winning research?

Am I to believe that "luck" is part of the ToE? Tghis is magical thinking on steroids.

More rambling agenda for you denial of theory based on things no one has claimed.

 

[Little Dragon]

Propensity for what exactly??? Is it speed? Is it strength.

In the desert, a propensity for water retention, in the seas, a streamlined form, in the tundra, lots of blubber and fat, in the forests, having binocular vision, on the islands and archipelagos, being smaller than everyone else...

Whatever is the path of least resistance for that organism to thrive in that environment, whatever offers the slightest edge, since in nature, a tiny edge is the difference between death and seeing another dawn.

 

[cladking]

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

No. It is individual differences. Apples that grow in the sun on the sunny side of the tree are not the same as those that grow on the north side in the interior. No two of anything in existence are alike. If there ever were two identical things (it will never happen) they STILL won't be in the same place at the same time (except for me and my 100% conjoined twin). (this isn't funny if you believe it)

You can count snowflakes until you're blue in the face but each is unique and Eskimos have dozens of different words for types of snow. You can not reduce consciousness to an experiment or factor it out of any experiment including the double slit. Reality is not what we take it for. Everything in reality affects all other unique things and all of our beliefs affect all of our perceptions. [is this thing even on?]

 

[cladking]

Is this mike even on?

Lol. Now that's a coincidence, Not funny ha ha but funny coincidence!

 

[Little Dragon]

You can count snowflakes until you're blue in the face but each is unique

Every particle of dust is unique, and that is what lies at the center of every snowflake. Every organism is unique, even identical twins will have differences in their very similar genomes, not many mind! That does not detract from the theory of evolution though.

 

[cladking]

A propensity to reproduce genes into the next generation?

What exactly makes one more likely to have offspring?

 

[cladking]

But you admit that you don't have the skill and knowledge to know this or show this. Are you claiming to be geneticist now?

I know that most things that lead to success are inheritable because most traits are inheritable. This goes many times over when we are talking about reproductive success. Please confine your answers to species other than ours since I believe we are the exception in many ways.

 

[Little Dragon]

What exactly makes one more likely to have offspring?

Reaching sexual maturity. Of course!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

They haven't reproduced, but my 6X great grandfather is the most prolific signer of the Declaration of Independence, so my fitness should be pretty good. But that isn't set in stone. My mates genome is involved. There are mutations. There is zygosity.

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.

Sorry, I've lost track of what you are rambling about now. You haven't read Darwin's work, so how can you know what is in it.

I am intelligent and I have the knowledge of biology from a lengthy education and even lengthier work experience that you don't posses by you own words. I don't have any evidence of consciousness in every living thing, but some things seem to possess a level of consciousness. Your claims are not right for that or by default.

You have never supported your claims outside of the rambling reference to your syncretic belief system.

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

It is a meaningless diversion that no one has claim to deny.

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.

You haven't said anything useful about the subject at all. Your claims have now done a reverse, where once you claimed speciation occurred from one generation to the next.

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

Your concept of fitness is so flawed that you don't understand that your claim makes no sense. Examples have not helped to show you the error of your beliefs in your own words as sacrosanct. You are not a prophet of revealed truth. You are someone with a faulty, incomplete and often erroneous understanding that you take as a perfect understanding for no reason anyone else can see.

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.

You haven't shown Darwin went wrong here or anywhere. You just make a vacuous claim he went wrong without explaining the how, why and where at all.

There is no pre-ordained direction to evolution that has ever been demonstrated. The next generation could be as fit for their environment or no longer fit for a changed environment and some individuals could be unfit in the same or changed environment. Fitness is not a testimonial that you give lions to show they are brave. You can click your heels together as often as you like, but you aren't going home, aren't going to Kansas and aren't going to be suddenly the only correct voice in this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol. Now that's a coincidence, Not funny ha ha but funny coincidence!

What? That someone recognize that it is you that doesn't listen or learn.

That has become a truism here and not a coincidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. It is individual differences. Apples that grow in the sun on the sunny side of the tree are not the same as those that grow on the north side in the interior. No two of anything in existence are alike. If there ever were two identical things (it will never happen) they STILL won't be in the same place at the same time (except for me and my 100% conjoined twin). (this isn't funny if you believe it)

I wish it were true and you let him do the driving.

Anyway, you do recognize that there is a difference due to the environment and some apples are in a better position in the environment.

I do so enjoy the self-refuting creationist position.

You can count snowflakes until you're blue in the face but each is unique and Eskimos have dozens of different words for types of snow. You can not reduce consciousness to an experiment or factor it out of any experiment including the double slit. Reality is not what we take it for. Everything in reality affects all other unique things and all of our beliefs affect all of our perceptions. [is this thing even on?]

Was this series of posts inspired by something anyone claimed? Did someone claim that individuals are all the same? Like they are all equally fit for instance?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't understand what "fit" means in context of evolutionary biology.

Fit / unfit isn't synonymous with respectively strong / weak.

But I understand how someone who isn't educated in the even only the basics of evolutionary biology would think so.

 

[cladking]

In the desert, a propensity for water retention, in the seas, a streamlined form, in the tundra, lots of blubber and fat, in the forests, having binocular vision, on the islands and archipelagos, being smaller than everyone else...

While numerous things can lead an individual to store, use, or need more or less water most of these things are inheritable. All these things will tend to be passed on to successive generations. So you agree each generation will tend to be superior to the last?

Do you think it's possible that something like a good attitude or greater knowledge might be passed on?

Do you have access to any data showing a gradual change in species apparently resulting from such minor changes? Do you understand that to show a gradual change you need to show fossils that can actually be dated and have small differences? I've asked for this hundreds of times and gotten nothing except walking whales with no small changes visible or no dating possible. This is why I call it a belief; the lack of evidence to support it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What exactly makes one more likely to have offspring?

Like many of your questions, there is no clear reason for them and no clear reason what you are trying to find out.

Do you not understand what the word propensity means or are you going to go into numerous posts about parsing and other nonsense?

 

[cladking]

That does not detract from the theory of evolution though.

You are correct. What detracts from the ToE is the lack of evidence, the lack of prediction, and the lack of the recognition of consciousness. This includes the many other problems previously delineated.

 

[cladking]

Fit / unfit isn't synonymous with respectively strong / weak.

I said most characteristics that are key to the survival of individuals are inheritable. I NEVER said they all are.

Because many are inheritable and even those that are not are by definition "improvements" that every generation is by definition superior to the last if you believe in Evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because many are inheritable and even those that are not are by definition "improvements" that every generation is by definition superior to the last if you believe in Evolution.

If that were true, no species would ever go extinct.