Irony of the evolutionary belief

[blü 2]

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.

*chuckle*

Have a look at my #550 above. It'll give you the rough outline.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

And that problem is that you mistakenly think you understand evolution theory.
However every post you make on the topic demonstrates the opposite.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

You have failed to ask any coherent questions concerning the sciences of evolution. If you are reasonably literate and educated you can look up many sources on the internet to answer your questions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Me too. I'd much rather chat about bugs, birds and annoying @Revoltingest .

I scoff at your ability to annoy.
You stand in the long shadows cast by
so many tedious & vexing posters here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some people that are lonely, they get a dog. Apparently, others try to walk back 500 years of intellectual achievement.

@Revoltingest does have a much higher fitness in the context of this forum.

I don't know what that means.
So I'll play it safe by taking offense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know what that means.
So I'll play it safe by taking offense.

And well you should. Many times I see this happening to people and they don't know the best, safest way to feel in regards to what has been said or what it could mean or whether it is something offensive or banal. I find that in those times the best course of action, after a healthy breakfast of fruit, yogurt and bacon is to rise to the occasion and sink to offense. Nay, descend willfully and with purpose seeking, unoffensively, that best level of offense that one finds comfortable. For is it not in these trying times, the best defense is a strong sense of offense?

 

[cladking]

You have failed to ask any coherent questions concerning the sciences of evolution.

OK. The let me ask you a couple questions about reality that you'll ignore.

If you have bunches of red and white poker chips and throw away all the red ones are the survivors white?

If you have bunches of slow and fast rabbits and the foxes eat all the slow ones are the survivors fast?

What kind of rabbit is most likely to have fast rabbits among their progeny?

All species will tend to get faster, smarter, and stronger all the time. Isn't this the point of Evolution to believers? The fit survive means the offspring of the fit are ever more likely to be naturally selected.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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?

No. I was suggesting that you've gone off on an irrelevant tangent when you asked what kinds of factors contribute to reproduction and hence "fitness."

On average each generation will necessarily be more fit than the previous if survival of the fittest really drives a gradual change in species.

Generations don't compete with one another. Individuals in populations do, and fitness doesn't reside in any one of them. It refers to relative reproduction rates and allele frequencies in gene pools.

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.

You're describing evolution. You're describing the action of natural selection on genetic variation which leads to changes in populations over generations.

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.

I've never understood what you're trying to say about consciousness. As I've told you several times, I don't know what the word means to you, so there can be no discussion of the topic.

Everybody makes perfect sense.

Yet you told me that everything I write is illogical and non sequitur to you. If you've been paying attention, you've seen quite a bit of discussion about YOU not making sense to others, much in the last 2-3 pages. The problem for you created by your refusal or inability to engage others is their discussion goes from being with you to being about you. They just lose interest in trading words with you.

A topic I post on from time to time is thinking about what's in it for the other guy. What do you bring to the table that will interest him or her? I've tried to reach out to you a few times - recently on this thread. You don't acknowledge seeing it. Then you're bemoaning that nobody will play with you. Nobody will answer your questions. That's not going to change if you don't. Why aren't you eager to get help from others? There are people here that can make a positive difference in your life if you'll consider and test their suggestions, but you have to reach back to them.

 

[cladking]

Maybe the doublethink is coming from the fact that Darwin isn't just wrong any longer but he is also very politically incorrect.

How long until he's canceled? Poor bad Darwin. He'll just end up on the trash can of history along with RE Lee, Columbus, and all the et als.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. The let me ask you a couple questions about reality that you'll ignore.

If you have bunches of red and white poker chips and throw away all the red ones are the survivors white?

If you have bunches of slow and fast rabbits and the foxes eat all the slow ones are the survivors fast?

What kind of rabbit is most likely to have fast rabbits among their progeny?

All species will tend to get faster, smarter, and stronger all the time. Isn't this the point of Evolution to believers? The fit survive means the offspring of the fit are ever more likely to be naturally selected.

Overly simplistic analogies do not prove anything. Well except that the person that made them is overly simplistic.

You are forgetting the cost of traits. "Speed" is a trait that has costs associated with it. You should know that speed can cause injuries. We are always hearing of elite athletes that push things too far and injure themselves. Or race horses that break a leg etc.. Pure speed is not free. A fast bunny will need more food than a slow bunny. Sometimes it is better for survival for a different more subtle trait to be developed. Invisibility would be ideal. But since that is not possible camouflage is a good substitution. And it is much less expensive from an energy perspective. You have this child's view of "fitness". Don't be obsessed by X-Men with super powers when there are simpler ways that species can become more "fit".

 

[cladking]

Yet you told me that everything I write is illogical and non sequitur to you.

No. Not at all. There are a few subject on which we disagree but it's not because you are illogical (all homo omnisciencis is illogical). it is because your premises are wrong. Some of your premises are logical and some are illogical but they are still wrong. People can and do make sense only in terms of their premises therefore the most important component of parsing their words is deducing their premises. When in doubt ask.

It's getting bad because more and more people are sharing bad premises. Bad Darwin.

 

[cladking]

You are forgetting the cost of traits. "Speed" is a trait that has costs associated with it. You should know that speed can cause injuries. We are always hearing of elite athletes that push things too far and injure themselves. Or race horses that break a leg etc.. Pure speed is not free. A fast bunny will need more food than a slow bunny. Sometimes it is better for survival for a different more subtle trait to be developed. Invisibility would be ideal. But since that is not possible camouflage is a good substitution. And it is much less expensive from an energy perspective. You have this child's view of "fitness". Don't be obsessed by X-Men with super powers when there are simpler ways that species can become more "fit".

Excellent point! Thank you.

I see what Darwin was saying now. A slow rabbit can be just as fit as a fast rabbit and a dumb rabbit can be as fit as a smart one. He was just saying all individuals are equally fit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Excellent point! Thank you.

I see what Darwin was saying now. A slow rabbit can be just as fit as a fast rabbit and a dumb rabbit can be as fit as a smart one. He was just saying all individuals are equally fit.

Nope. You do not know what Darwin was saying. But then you do not want to learn. No one can force you. You only want to believe.

Some bunnies are not fast. They are not even well camouflaged. They use different strategies to survive

 

[cladking]

He was just saying all individuals are equally fit.

This does leave a question of how do species change.

Obviously niches change and the definition of "fit" is always changing so this could be the mechanism similarly to what Darwin proposed. The problem with this hypothesis is quite simple; changes in an environment occur in a random walk. Most tiny changes in a species will just be walked right back a few or many generations later. This makes a very bad hypothesis for many reasons but chief among them is that it can not be tested. Even before we talk about how bad a speculation it is, we need to see it is neither a proper theory nor an hypothesis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK. The let me ask you a couple questions about reality that you'll ignore.

Why ask a question prefacing it like this? Right away you create division and show hostility to people that have been trying, in what has so far been a futile attempt, to establish a dialogue with you.

What I see is someone that believes they know everything telling the rest of us we are idiots and hardly worthy of your many, many, many posts.

If you have bunches of red and white poker chips and throw away all the red ones are the survivors white?

Yes, they are white.

If you have bunches of slow and fast rabbits and the foxes eat all the slow ones are the survivors fast?

You are describing co-evolution where the predation is the selection and the fast rabbits have the higher fitness. You are assuming complete loss of any rabbit that is slower in fact or in the gene pool. Is that a sound assumption? You are assuming selection is complete across the entire range of foxes and rabbits and that those ranges overlap completely and the foxes have no competitors for rabbits and rabbits have no other means to evade predation but to run.

What kind of rabbit is most likely to have fast rabbits among their progeny?

Obviously, the trend would be for faster rabbits. But you propose your question in a vacuum as if all we should expect to see are fox-like blurs chasing rabbit-like blurs around the fields and forests. There are costs to fitness and predators like foxes are not the only selection on a species.

All species will tend to get faster, smarter, and stronger all the time. Isn't this the point of Evolution to believers? The fit survive means the offspring of the fit are ever more likely to be naturally selected.

No. There are limits that you don't seem to be aware of these. You are idealizing and considering your limited knowledge to create ideals that must exist as the only outcome, since you came up with it.

There is a body of work on this subject. One that stands out is work done on garter snakes and newts in Oregon. The challenge is to you to read and learn. Here is some material for you to do that with.

A person doesn't need a degree to become knowledgeable on a subject, but a person cannot gain that knowledge by imagining it into existence either.

https://watermark.silverchair.com/e...jRLCM-e3RcjQIvKeKaPtEWkR6Zg9T7yUt19jPHm7-KNZF

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.n...GsLI1f3XkA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...o-behavioral-rejection-of-toxic-newt-prey.pdf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe the doublethink is coming from the fact that Darwin isn't just wrong any longer but he is also very politically incorrect.

You haven't shown that Darwin was wrong about the theory. False equivalence between the person and the theory isn't your answer either and is a tired old canard to boot. Good grief. Get some new material.

How long until he's canceled? Poor bad Darwin. He'll just end up on the trash can of history along with RE Lee, Columbus, and all the et als.

Nonsense trash talk that has no value in a rational discussion. You don't even see how you create the division you complain about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. Not at all.

Yes you did.

There are a few subject on which we disagree

That doesn't fit the evidence.

but it's not because you are illogical (all homo omnisciencis is illogical).

Meaningless.

it is because your premises are wrong.

This is an opinion that hasn't been established and incorrect too.

Some of your premises are logical and some are illogical but they are still wrong.

In the scope of your admitted limited knowledge and bias to see everything fit your conclusions. You haven't shown the assumptions of anyone, let alone that some or all are wrong.

People can and do make sense only in terms of their premises therefore the most important component of parsing their words is deducing their premises. When in doubt ask.

You don't ask.

It's getting bad because more and more people are sharing bad premises. Bad Darwin.

More worthless trash talk that doesn't fit the facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Excellent point! Thank you.

I see what Darwin was saying now. A slow rabbit can be just as fit as a fast rabbit and a dumb rabbit can be as fit as a smart one. He was just saying all individuals are equally fit.

Your sarcasm would be justified if you had any knowledge of the subject beyond trivial awareness. Of course, the paradox is, if you understood you wouldn't be posting this silly sarcasm.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This does leave a question of how do species change.

Obviously niches change

Yes.

and the definition of "fit" is always changing so this could be the mechanism similarly to what Darwin proposed.

Fitness varies with selection and populations evolve to address it. The mechanism for evolution as Darwin proposed.

The problem with this hypothesis is quite simple; changes in an environment occur in a random walk.

Why is it a problem? It isn't as if deserts turn into grasslands or glaciers at the flip of a switch. Your idealizing again and not considering reality.
You aren't taking into account the interfaces or that these changes can and are often gradual or that these are interactions and not one-sided events in a vacuum.

Most tiny changes in a species will just be walked right back a few or many generations later.

It could be if the environment stabilizes or doesn't advance changes in geography or time. But if that doesn't happen, then the species either leave, die or evolve.

This makes a very bad hypothesis for many reasons but chief among them is that it can not be tested.

It has been tested. You've had the reports made available to you, but you choose to ignore what doesn't confirm your beliefs.

Even before we talk about how bad a speculation it is,

It isn't speculation. That is what you have. I agree it has so far shown itself to be bad. But the other side of that coin is shiny.

we need to see it is neither a proper theory nor an hypothesis.

It is a proper theory. Your little biased denial hasn't done anything to it.

 

[cladking]

I've never understood what you're trying to say about consciousness.

Did you understand the part where I said our species (homo circularis rationatio) can not directly experience its own consciousness therefore might never understand it? A dust mite understands consciousness better than Aristotle did. You must of necessity model consciousness to understand it at all. But even here there is little to model at this time and all I can do is point you to the very little I know about it. Suffice to say that before you can grok the simplest aspect you must reject the silly notion that "I think therefore I am". It is impossible to understand consciousness using your existing models so of course you don't understand. Then you reject its characteristics as fast as you read what I write.

Consciousness is ubiquitous not in reality but in all living things and it is unique to all individuals.

To a very real degree our species must model everything to understand it. We each essentially become a new species as we acquire language and then must model all existing knowledge and all new knowledge. We don't experience this too much because it occurs over about a 12 month period between 2 and 3 years of age when brains are very plastic. Memory is formatted just like the brain so remembering the transition is in bits and pieces at best. Older memories of our thinking simply are barely retrievable or wholly irretrievable. This is just like the transition at the tower of babel that happens on the individual level. Before we are two we understand consciousness. Of course a baby's understanding is incomplete and it would be different than an adult rabbit's. Two year olds can't think because only modern language precipitates thinking. But thinking is entirely different than consciousness or the experience of consciousness.

If you begin constructing a model of this I can fill it in. If you just reject it out of hand then you will not understand me.