Irony of the evolutionary belief

[cladking]

I'm skipping over some posters because I don't want to call them dumb...so just to let y'know in case I'm not getting into a knock the yuk yuk quackie duck down fight.

I've been putting people on ignore. It's great not even knowing when they post.

There are lots of smart upbeat people who make sense. Why should I get mad about people who refuse to listen and resist any understanding?

 

[cladking]

All this is a big SO WHAT.

It was a weak post.

But the point remains that even if I weren't somewhat familiar with some of Darwin's writing and beliefs I could still well predict what they were.

Remember I believe everybody, every single homo omnisciencis since the tower of babel is a product of his beliefs. Darwin was no different.

 

[McBell]

I've been putting people on ignore. It's great not even knowing when they post.

There are lots of smart upbeat people who make sense. Why should I get mad about people who refuse to listen and resist any understanding?

And here I thought they were taking to heart the age old adage "it is better to let people think you are a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hardly.

No. Exactly. You have convinced me that you believe you are fully knowledgeable of pretty much everything including biology, Egyptology, etc., etc. I've seen your work on other forums. You do realize that stuff stays up for others to look at right.

But sometimes it is hard to see in believers.

You and the other creationists are the only believers here that deny science. Trying to turn acceptance of science into a derogatory simply because no one followers your beliefs and constantly shows your claims wrong is your sour grapes.

Obviously my only belief is everyone makes sense all the time in terms of their premises but it is these premises that are often so nonsensical.

It isn't your only belief. Peers. Scientific theories can be inherently evil. Much about Egyptology. The list could go on.

It's hard to see sense when you don't accept any of the premises. Just as you don't see any sense in creationist beliefs I often see no sense in the premises of those who believe in science.

You don't show anyone anything that would make them change their mind. You claim blindly, without one bit of evidence or experiment. You don't formulate conclusions. You offer revealed truth you consider to be fact.

Of course I might be wrong and maybe there really is such a thing as survival of thew fittest and people are being murdered for reasons that have nothing to do with Darwin.

The error of your position has been shown to be wrong constantly. You have mechanisms that you use to subvert that and continue without learning.

Mebbe I'm just a little omniscient. I claim only to know the formatting of reality, not everything.

It seems you believe you are.

The formatting of fitness is binary if you want it in those terms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was a weak post.

I know. Hence the SO WHAT.

But the point remains that even if I weren't somewhat familiar with some of Darwin's writing and beliefs I could still well predict what they were.

No you couldn't.

Remember I believe everybody, every single homo omnisciencis since the tower of babel is a product of his beliefs. Darwin was no different.

I know you believe a lot of things that have no evidence of observation or experiment.

Darwin followed the evidence. You don't.

 

[cladking]

As to your conspiracy theories, I put no stock in them and am not compelled to believe them.

I believe in no conspiracies. I believe entire cultures can go insane like nazi Germany did. When you damage children for trivial reasons and mutilate them to control population you have gone mad whether you do it alone or with millions of voters or at the behest of corporations.

Hitler didn't launch a conspiracy. It was a putsch. He led the country into madness.

 

[cladking]

And here I thought they were taking to heart the age old adage "it is better to let people think you are a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Everyone agrees with me that I'm smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket. Well, almost everyone.

Believe me this isn't funny in the least.

Secretly I think I might be almost as smart as Booboo but no one would agree with this.

...later.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've been putting people on ignore. It's great not even knowing when they post.

I have an ignore pile. You'll be back there soon enough.

There are lots of smart upbeat people who make sense. Why should I get mad about people who refuse to listen and resist any understanding?

I'm calling projection again.

The evidence of these threads shows who refuses to listen, how they do it and their level of understanding.

There are several that have those traits. That they continue to survive in a sense on the internet refutes your own beliefs about fitness having to do with killing off the weak. In the observed scenario, the environment seems to favor those with weak positions, but with the tenacity and time to force them into the public square as fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe in no conspiracies.

You've told us that you do. Remember your conspiracy of the Peers.

I believe entire cultures can go insane like nazi Germany did.

Individuals can too.

When you damage children for trivial reasons and mutilate them to control population you have gone mad whether you do it alone or with millions of voters or at the behest of corporations.

Hitler didn't launch a conspiracy. It was a putsch. He led the country into madness.

This is a conspiracy you use against the theory of evolution that does not propose any of this.

Remember those evil hammers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everyone agrees with me that I'm smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket. Well, almost everyone.

Believe me this isn't funny in the least.

Secretly I think I might be almost as smart as Booboo but no one would agree with this.

...later.

No. I find no humor in it. Sort of makes me feel sad.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everyone agrees with me that I'm smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket. Well, almost everyone.

Believe me this isn't funny in the least.

Secretly I think I might be almost as smart as Booboo but no one would agree with this.

...later.

You could clear all this up by providing the assumptions Darwin used and a detailed explanation of how they are wrong. With evidence and references.

The same for the Lenski experiment.

The same for all change in all living things being sudden.

The same for all living things being equally fit.

The same for your claims of various conspiracy theories related to science.

The same for your claim that people that accept science are believer merely for disagreeing with your claims, logic, word games, reliance on fallacies and so forth.

And so many, many more claims you have made.

You've got some work to do.

While I realize that past performance is not an indicator of future results, I don't expect any of this to be addressed based on past performance.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've been putting people on ignore. It's great not even knowing when they post.

There are lots of smart upbeat people who make sense. Why should I get mad about people who refuse to listen and resist any understanding?

Thinking about the 'situation,' on the board, here is a quote you might enjoy.
The apostle Paul wrote this in response to some back then who were not accepting the fact of the resurrection, although like some here, they liked the idea of Jesus, (From 1 Corinthians 15:45-47)
"So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit. However, what is spiritual is not first. What is physical is first, and afterward what is spiritual. The first man is from the earth and made of dust; the second man is from heaven."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is this mike even on?

Good question, and I think you know the answer. There's no evidence in his replies to me that he ever read or understood my offer and suggestion as you predicted. There is no path to get an idea from one's head into many of the people we see posting on RF. It's like trying to send a fax to a fax machine that's not properly connected to your device. You look at an image on your end and imagine the same thing on the other side after faxing, but the message never arrived.

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

He asks questions that nobody will answer. Nobody can parse meaning from his words. That's our fault. If nobody understands you, there's something wrong with everybody else. What else is even possible?

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

Did you hear about the conjoined American twins who visited the UK so the other one could drive?

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

And that must be my fault.

What exactly makes one more likely to have offspring?

Speaking of non sequitur, you seem to have missed the point of the discussion. What possible difference could any answer to that make? Maybe it's the brightness of a cock's comb, or the specific pheromone an insect emits. Or maybe not having had a hysterectomy.

Please confine your answers to species other than ours since I believe we are the exception in many ways.

There is no reason why his answers should conform to your beliefs, which I don't think anybody can accurately paraphrase anyway. Who knows what you mean by either exception or human. I still don't know what you mean by Homo omnsciensis. Nor normal nor average with regard to offspring. Nor intelligence, nor consciousness. Probably my fault, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 not just a matter of not being educated. It is impossible to get the right answers when one willfully opposes being educated.

 

[cladking]

Speaking of non sequitur, you seem to have missed the point of the discussion. What possible difference could any answer to that make? Maybe it's the brightness of a cock's comb, or the specific pheromone an insect emits. Or maybe not having had a hysterectomy.

I understand this. Are you suggesting it can't be because a a squirrel doesn't run in front of a car or that it can run faster than a fox? On average each generation will necessarily be more fit than the previous if survival of the fittest really drives a gradual change in species. This is YOUR belief. I believe every individual is different but equally fit. If females choose brighter colors or stinkier mates then that isn't necessarily "fitter" but it will still tend to exist more in ever6y subsequent generation.

Why are people not addressing this and acting like it isn't true?

It's not my belief.

There is no reason why his answers should conform to your beliefs,

I'm not talking about single celled life because it is irrelevant. I'm talking about a higher level of consciousness than a dust mite. His study neither proves hias point nor disproves mine. [cue the lecture on proving things in science]

 

[cladking]

(From 1 Corinthians 15:45-47)

I'm a big fan of 1 Corinthians 14. I believe it is in reference to language and the tower of babel.

But I do find most of the Bible pretty interesting and had never seen the line you quoted. I believe people will be surprised when someday we have a far more complete understanding of why the authors wrote what they did. I'm a little surprised Jesus is referred to as an Adam and it might lead me to a new line of research after I think about it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand this.

Apparently not.

Are you suggesting it can't be because a a squirrel doesn't run in front of a car or that it can run faster than a fox? On average each generation will necessarily be more fit than the previous if survival of the fittest really drives a gradual change in species.

Under pressure from the environment some lines just end.

This is YOUR belief.

It isn't a belief. Belief is what you have. No matter how much knowledge, evidence, reason and logic, your views stay unchanged. That is a belief.

I believe every individual is different but equally fit.

If they are equally fit, they are not different. If they are different, they are not equally fit. You can't have it both ways and expect to get a blue ribbon in the science fair.

If females choose brighter colors or stinkier mates then that isn't necessarily "fitter" but it will still tend to exist more in ever6y subsequent generation.

They would be fitter in the context of the selection.

Why are people not addressing this and acting like it isn't true?

It's not my belief.

It is your belief.

I'm not talking about single celled life because it is irrelevant. I'm talking about a higher level of consciousness than a dust mite. His study neither proves hias point nor disproves mine. [cue the lecture on proving things in science]

What would be the point? You believe you are science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good question, and I think you know the answer.

Yeah, I do.

There's no evidence in his replies to me that he ever read or understood my offer and suggestion as you predicted. There is no path to get an idea from one's head into many of the people we see posting on RF. It's like trying to send a fax to a fax machine that's not properly connected to your device. You look at an image on your end and imagine the same thing on the other side after faxing, but the message never arrived.

There is a great deal of disconnect obvious in all of these anti-science, creationist views.

He asks questions that nobody will answer. Nobody can parse meaning from his words. That's our fault. If nobody understands you, there's something wrong with everybody else. What else is even possible?

There do seem to be many defense mechanisms employed to avoid answering questions or supporting claims in the observed style.

Did you hear about the conjoined American twins who visited the UK so the other one could drive?

LOL! I haven't heard that one. I did see a person driving a while back that had me perplexed for a moment until, I realized they had right hand drive. Don't see that around the US much.

And that must be my fault.

Of course. Our failure to embrace every claim of revealed truth is our fault.

Speaking of non sequitur, you seem to have missed the point of the discussion. What possible difference could any answer to that make? Maybe it's the brightness of a cock's comb, or the specific pheromone an insect emits. Or maybe not having had a hysterectomy.

There is no reason why his answers should conform to your beliefs, which I don't think anybody can accurately paraphrase anyway. Who knows what you mean by either exception or human. I still don't know what you mean by Homo omnsciensis. Nor normal nor average with regard to offspring. Nor intelligence, nor consciousness. Probably my fault, right?

I recognize the belief as an amalgam of different world views, philosophies, fan fiction and so on, but that is the best I can do.

I find those inclusions to be useless extensions that serve no purpose. I suppose a person could feel like these lend legitimacy to their words, but that feeling isn't substantial, given that those words either nonsensical or given no context or definition.

 

[John53]

If females choose brighter colors or stinkier mates then that isn't necessarily "fitter" but it will still tend to exist more in ever6y subsequent generation.

Why are people not addressing this and acting like it isn't true?

Because it's not true.

There are 2 parents that contribute to the genetic make up of the offspring. There's also environmental issues to take into consideration.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because it's not true.

There are 2 parents that contribute to the genetic make up of the offspring. There's also environmental issues to take into consideration.

If males with brighter colors or stronger odors become appealing to females and those males so described successfully reproduce in a greater proportion to males that don't express those traits or with the same intensity, then those colorful and stinky males have greater fitness.

Those things could be seen as proxies for male vigor, since those males that possess brighter colors or attractive stinks can afford to waste the energy producing them.

This is seen in bird populations. In some species of swallow, those males with longer tails have greater reproductive success and are fitter.

And of course, other factors are involved too. Chance events, zygosity, atavisms, etc. If two parents have a fit phenotype, but are heterozygous for some of the traits that impart greater fitness, they will have a proportion of offspring that don't have those traits and are less fit in the given environment.

Wikipedia had this quote from John Maynard Smith that I find amusing and accurate.

"Fitness is a property, not of an individual, but of a class of individuals—for example homozygous for allele A at a particular locus. Thus the phrase 'expected number of offspring' means the average number, not the number produced by some one individual. If the first human infant with a gene for levitation were struck by lightning in its pram, this would not prove the new genotype to have low fitness, but only that the particular child was unlucky."

Maynard-Smith, J. (1989) Evolutionary Genetics