Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

I know that most things that lead to success are inheritable because most traits are inheritable.

If you do, you have been keeping that to yourself. You don't seem to understand more than a superficial awareness without any details or depth.

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.

You don't understand the rules to be able to determine exceptions based on what you have provided.

Humans, as a species, appear to have a high average fitness supported by our ability to overcome fitness barriers of the environment.

 

[Little Dragon]

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?

"Recent work has shown that some parts of the fossil record are astonishingly complete and well documented, and patterns of lineage splitting can be examined in detail. Marine plankton appear to show gradual speciation, with subsequent morphological differentiation of lineages taking up to 500 000 years to occur. Marine invertebrates and vertebrates more commonly show punctuated patterns, with periods of rapid speciation followed by long-term stasis of species lineages"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534701021498

Yes and yes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

It is certainly a fairly common creationist belief as we see demonstrated here.

 

[cladking]

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

Again. This is an assumption and it is foundational to the belief in Evolution. For most practical purposes the belief in Evolution is the belief in Survival of the Fittest.

If you can't predict IN ADVANCE which individuals will survive of what practical use is the assumption? If you can't predict then how do you even know that the most fit survived? It is not science, it is an opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again. This is an assumption and it is foundational to the belief in Evolution. For most practical purposes the belief in Evolution is the belief in Survival of the Fittest.

If you can't predict IN ADVANCE which individuals will survive of what practical use is the assumption? If you can't predict then how do you even know that the most fit survived? It is not science, it is an opinion.

Newsflash: the "fittest" can die in an accident, get struck by lightning, be surprised by a flash flood, get killed by ending up under a falling tree, die from an infection,...

Furthermore, his mate can miscarry. His off spring might die, etc
Before a trait achieves fixation, it needs to spread to the rest of the population. That takes MANY generations. Any number of things can happen to that bloodline that puts a halt to it.


Populations evolve, not individuals. The propagation of the "fittest" genes is a matter of statistical probability, not a guarantee.

You should really educate yourself a bit.

 

[cladking]

"Recent work has shown that some parts of the fossil record are astonishingly complete and well documented, and patterns of lineage splitting can be examined in detail. Marine plankton appear to show gradual speciation, with subsequent morphological differentiation of lineages taking up to 500 000 years to occur. Marine invertebrates and vertebrates more commonly show punctuated patterns, with periods of rapid speciation followed by long-term stasis of species lineages"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534701021498

Yes and yes.

Thank you very much. But I've said many times that simple lifeforms, unicellular, and species for which it's impossible to make any inferences about their consciousness have little or no bearing on my theory. I believe consciousness is fundamental and single cells have so little consciousness that their changes are too difficult to even guess at causation. I'll look at the links a little when I have time but they hold little interest to me whether they support me or not. Species like e coli are too simple for consciousness to play a significant role, probably.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

You can try to give evolution a pre-ordained destination all you like, but the evidence is against you. There is no advance of superiority to some goal. In a stable environment, even if the offspring possess novel traits from their parents, they are not likely to increase fitness over the previous generation.

The problem of your ignorance of this and so many other subjects keeps showing it face, because you want conclusions based on your ignorance to be the accepted conclusions even where they go against observation, evidence and experiment.

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

The traits that support those things could be passed on. They are likely polygenic though and the expression will vary.

Do you have access to any data showing a gradual change in species apparently resulting from such minor changes?

The fossil record. The genome. Breeding programs. ...

Do you understand that to show a gradual change you need to show fossils that can actually be dated and have small differences?

Your point?

I've asked for this hundreds of times and gotten nothing except walking whales with no small changes visible or no dating possible.

You've made claims about it 100's of times and ignored the answers because they are not the answers you want.

This is why I call it a belief; the lack of evidence to support it.

There is evidence and it goes against your beliefs.

 

[Little Dragon]

If you can't predict IN ADVANCE which individuals will survive of what practical use is the assumption?

Statistical analysis of genomic (genotypal and phenotypal expression) data involves populations, not individuals.

Let us start at the beginning.

Evolution via natural selection, is the change in frequency of alleles (genes) in a population group.

We cannot know which individuals will survive in an ecosystem, we can only know which traits, (caused by genetic mutation) will help or hinder the organism, in it's habitat. Therefore, any and all traits which help an organism, live long enough to reach maturity and breed, in its environment, will slowly spread among the population in time, it is then said to be evolving. It is adapting to its environment.

 

[cladking]

They have stated this in response to your claims that speciation is sudden and the next generation is a different species.

I don't even believe in "species". Every individual is different and you can't step into the same river twice. For all practical purposes every species changes similarly to science; one funeral and one birth at a time.

 

[Little Dragon]

Thank you very much. But I've said many times that simple lifeforms, unicellular, and species for which it's impossible to make any inferences about their consciousness have little or no bearing on my theory.

What about the marine vertebrates and invertebrates mentioned?

If plankton isnt good enough for you.

 

[Little Dragon]

I don't even believe in "species".

So why cant my cat and my dog have babies?

 

[cladking]

Reaching sexual maturity. Of course!

Life expectancy in every species exceeds sexual maturity. Perhaps this should be clarified by adding that this hardly applies to tiny things or to any species that reproduces in extremely large numbers. I mean it to apply to major species and to individuals that survive their first year.

Obviously individuals must reach maturity or stage required to reproduce to have their genes passed on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't even believe in "species".

It is your belief system. And you can believe whatever you like without having any understanding of it.

Every individual is different and you can't step into the same river twice.

Yes, you've repeated that mantra many times as if it tells something. You can step in the same river repeatedly, it is just not the same water with same stuff floating in it.

For all practical purposes every species changes similarly to science;

This makes no sense.

Species change based on the selection from the environment.

You haven't shown it is anything that you believe about that drives change or shows it doesn't happen. You haven't even shown the assumptions of the theory, let alone shown them wrong. The list of things you claim compared to the list you have demonstrated shows the latter list doesn't exist.

one funeral and one birth at a time.

There you go. Repeat mantras when all else fails.

 

[Little Dragon]

Life expectancy in every species exceeds sexual maturity.

You just proved the theory of evolution via natural selection.

If an organism's life expectancy falls below the age of sexual maturity it's species will go extinct.

As you say we dont see that with any living species not severely endangered for other reasons.

That's ironic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again. This is an assumption and it is foundational to the belief in Evolution. For most practical purposes the belief in Evolution is the belief in Survival of the Fittest.

It isn't a belief. It is the acceptance of conclusions based on supporting evidence.

Just because your approach to science is belief-based, doesn't mean everyone's is.

If you can't predict IN ADVANCE which individuals will survive of what practical use is the assumption?

Are you under the impression that assumptions can't be tested or determined to be manifest from evidence? Is this more of the belief-basis of your position?

If you can't predict then how do you even know that the most fit survived? It is not science, it is an opinion.

Fitness is a demonstrable propensity that has been demonstrated. That is science. Your denial is belief-based and the basis is syncretic and pretty strange my opinion.

 

[cladking]

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.

Very impressive.

Life is very complex and trying to reduce it to some simple thing like survival of the fittest is almost always impossible.

You haven't read Darwin's work, so how can you know what is in it.

I've been exposed to his beliefs since I was small. He was a product of his time and place and I'm very familiar with these products.

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.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN LINEAR PROGRESS OR EVOLUTION. I believe all individuals are equally fit and that there is exactly as much deevolution as evolution. I don't believe our species (especially) gets better every day in every way. Remember Canada is now killing young people and a couple years back we endangered an entire generation of children for the sake of hospital staffs and old people. Remember?

Your concept of fitness is so flawed that you don't understand that your claim makes no sense.

By saying I don't believe any individual is any more fit than another is the exact same thing as saying I don't believe in fitness. It is a mirage created by bad assumptions. Bad Darwin.

 

[cladking]

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

I think you have your finger on the pulse of the problem. Go with it!

 

[Little Dragon]

Your denial is belief-based and the basis is syncretic and pretty strange my opinion.

Illogical. Stubborn.

 

[cladking]

You just proved the theory of evolution via natural selection.

If an organism's life expectancy falls below the age of sexual maturity it's species will go extinct.

As you say we dont see that with any living species not severely endangered for other reasons.

That's ironic.

I don't think your assumption is true. I would bet that most species that have gone extinct had members that were sexually7 mature but the death rate exceeded the birth rate until nothing was left.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't even believe in "species". Every individual is different and you can't step into the same river twice. For all practical purposes every species changes similarly to science; one funeral and one birth at a time.

Way to avoid questions about your belief that all change in all living things is sudden.

The evidence indicates that species change in a variable rate, but stepwise requiring time. There is gradual change and punctuated equilibrium. But that change can be effected by the environment and the availability of unoccupied niches. The the rapid speciation of the cichlid superflock of Lake Victoria is an excellent example of rapid speciation. It happened over 15,000 years, sudden in a geological context, but not a human context. Of course, you don't really put it into context except to compare it to cosmological events that you think proves your position. It doesn't.