I don't think there has been enough time since the Big Bang for that much alcohol to form.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
There is clearly the element of magic involved in many if not most of the claims, but the current show is about an imagined ancient reality.
Yes. Evolution. Just as Darwin described. Good Darwin!
Perhaps you need to update your parsing or maybe you are having trouble with your Broca's area.
Sure. So what? That doesn't mean they don't effect fitness. Sometimes a male recovers from mumps, but can't reproduce. You parse this incorrectly as saying something about him as a person or some totally off the wall idea the theory advocates he be destroyed. That's not even in the same state as correct. You just parse it wrong.
Some people catch diseases more easily. Before we built cities and had widely available medical treatment, this would have left them unable to fend for themselves at times. Nobody is going to date them when they are sick. They might even die before they reproduce. The susceptibility or resistance to disease is a fitness factor.
But it is not the only factor. Susceptibility to disease has levels and specificity and different mechanisms. The causes of disease vary. Bacteria, viruses, prions, and malnutrition cause diseases and living things vary in their susceptibility across populations and within populations. This is reflected in their fitness. If a population is constantly subjected to selection pressure from diseases and isn't wiped out, the survivors will have a greater propensity to resist disease than their ancestors. They could as easily be slower than their ancestors or taller or anything that the is protected or ignored by selection of the environment.
I appreciate what Darwin did for us by adding this knowledge to the body of information that all can access, but apparently too many don't want to parse and understand.
But it is not the only factor. Susceptibility to disease has levels and specificity and different mechanisms. The causes of disease vary. Bacteria, viruses, prions, and malnutrition cause diseases and living things vary in their susceptibility across populations and within populations. This is reflected in their fitness. If a population is constantly subjected to selection pressure from diseases and isn't wiped out, the survivors will have a greater propensity to resist disease than their ancestors. They could as easily be slower than their ancestors or taller or anything that the is protected or ignored by selection of the environment.
I appreciate what Darwin did for us by adding this knowledge to the body of information that all can access, but apparently too many don't want to parse and understand.
Last edited:
I just got that. I was thinking of a different pain.
A lot of my material is cerebral.
My Broca's region had the hiccups. It's a fitness thing. For a second, I understood you in 200 quadrillion languages.
I am thinking about fitness in terms of this thread.
We have a population of posts. The genes are our claims, arguments and defense of them. The number of posts by a poster could be the measure of fitness, but number is not the only factor. The quality of posts should be considered too, as those that have claims that are presented with evidence, explanations and arguments for a conclusion that persuade or educate would be seen as those of higher fitness. Though this may vary from poster to poster and from time to time. We can't be on our best all the time and that would vary in how well they are presented and supported. A poster with good fitness would post clearly, using terms commonly recognized and explain when they are not. Arguments that are clear, with evidence and explanation supporting the conclusions.
Without naming names, there are several that I think have very good fitness based on the criteria I have mentioned. Now, there are characters of posts that would classify as less fit. Not responding to others. Using unknown or alternate definitions, especially in secret. Ignoring others. Failing to provide support for claims. Extraordinary claims without even the pretense of support. These would have a fitness disadvantage. Persistence and repetition as a posting trait might overcome that disadvantage, for a while. But that fitness bump only goes so far and the environment of the thread can deal harshly with that trait. Other posters are part of that environment. They might grow tired of repetition, being ignored or treated like they are stupid. But persistence could still be the trait that proves the most fit and the next generation of posts may not be the highest quality. With the higher quality posts no longer available, because those post have been removed from the environment due to frustration, fatigue or boredom from repetition and being ignored. Thus the fact that fitness does not have to increase from one generation to the next is demonstrated and what is most fit may not always be the posts with best information or logic either.
There may be an advantage to ignoring others, not supporting our claims and continually repeating those sorts of things without regard to what others have said. I would like to think the advantage of the environment would favor higher quality posts, but who knows. In this day and age, it doesn't seem so.
In terms of number, the persistent poster that doesn't seem to care what they post or favors repetition in a vacuum could have the highest fitness by post number, but lower by quality. Measuring the quality would require establishing metrics to determine differences. There seems to be advantages to both strategies, but persistence and disregard seems to have more disadvantages in terms of quality.
Last edited:
It's an interesting question, but I don't think you will get an answer from @cladking.
A dumb rabbit may not move for lack of understanding the situation. Who knows that might be an advantage. The fox might not even notice it.
The fast rabbit would have the advantage of speed, but that may not be as useful unless it is in the open.
A smart one might be wary enough to have an escape close at hand or an some easy exit available.
I was more successful at hunting them as I gained more knowledge of their behavior. Unlike a fox, I had the advantage of a tool that doesn't require you be the best shot either.
Our technology can let people overcome fitness disadvantages, but that seems to mean traits that are less fit without the technology are spread further and wider in the population. I have wondered the effect of glasses and contacts on the overall average, unaided eyesight has become since glasses eliminate the disadvantage of bad eyesight.
There is a reason we do not see dumb, slow, white cottontails predominate in the population. For all the repetition of the claim that all individuals are equally fit, that dearth is evidence to the contrary.
Dumb and dull colored might be fit enough that some survive even among those dull-colored, smart and fast.
There is a classic study of rabbit populations and bobcat populations that graphically shows that increases in the rabbit population are followed by increases in the bobcat population. High reproduction can be a fitness trait that gives advantage to the population if not to every individual. Thinking about it though, if the risk of ending up on the menu is spread out among individuals, more individuals should have a lower individual risk.
The fox is part of the rabbits environment and the rabbit is part of the foxes. Faster rabbits would select for faster foxes and vice versa when looking at speed alone. But at some point, the increased metabolism of speed has a negative impact.
Fitness advantages are not free.
I've thought of something similar when had the run of new posters not long back who started 7 or 8 similarly themed threads and made prolific posts then simply disappeared. Did they lack what it takes to be a regular contributor to the forum and became extinct?
There's a whole host of other factors to take into consideration too. Other predators, amount of food available, other prey for the foxes, weather, reproduction rates... to name a few. It's a very complex thing.
We Never Know
No Slack
"A dumb rabbit may not move for lack of understanding the situation. Who knows that might be an advantage. The fox might not even notice it"
That's a possibility if the fox only relied on sight and hearing, but It relies on smell just as much to locate prey.
There is variation and factors that influence durability, but in the long run, I think the majority of that population goes extinct and faster than the average. There are always diehards that refuse to see any other way but there own and have the tenacity to keep on rolling. But some of those run afoul of other mortality factors like environmental rules that they thumb their nose at.
I have seen some that post on numerous different forums and go to the ones that give them the most attention. But I think even their, they are not really thriving and merely subsistence survivors.
We are talking about an environment that is made up of individual people and governed rules that vary and policed by people that have their own fitness issues.
It is interesting to see a model of biology play out in the posts if you look at it from the right perspective.
I parse that good. Real good.
Them's mean streets out there for a tasty, cute little bunny.
After responding to @We Never Know, I went looking to see if I could find that study about the bobcat and rabbit populations and I found a study in New York state by a guy named, of all things, Lloyd Fox. It would have been even more funny if his name had been Robert Katt.
Didn't find the study I was looking for.
That's why they've been naturally selected to breed like rabbits.
This is true. Maybe a dumb, bland smelling rabbit.
But as you note, there are a number of factors contributing to fitness and a given environment may favor traits different than a neighboring environment or different predator population as noted by @John53.
There is definitely a population advantage to being r-selected. Given a large enough number, even the individual may have a greater advantage with the risk spread among a larger number of individuals. And too, predators can get confused in a large enough pray population and not succeed at all.
We Never Know
No Slack
Speaking of reproduction, "breeding like rabbits" surely helps their population survive. I think they have 5 or 6 litters a year.
We Never Know
No Slack
Just beat me to it lol