Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

Not sudden, hmm? @Subduction Zone also...Who observed these changes and when did this observation begin, by the way? Beaks getting larger, smaller. Maybe long time until birds become ... Well they're not going back to ... Large dinosaurs you think? Given the chance of possibilty maybe they will.

Almost anyone can. You could do so if you went to a university and checked out the peer reviewed literature. You will see very accurate photos and descriptions of quite a few fossil finds. You do not have to go out and recover all of the fossils yourself. As long as you know which stratum it came from you would know its age. The description of the rock it was fossilized in would tell you a lot about the environment that it lived in. Is that too hard to understand?

 

[YoursTrue]

Irrelevant.

If you don't accept dogma and the prevailing paradigm you can not be peer reviewed.

I mightta mentioned I do not accept all the assumptions underlying soft science and none of the paradigms. To the degree Evolution is a soft science I do not accept it either. I believe that people see what they expect.

OK after looking at the suppositions and conclusions of scientists defining evolution of "hominids" (in the "peer reviewed journals," etc.) I have decided their suppositions are not only insane but are insane. See? Both. Insane and insane. Now I believe opposers will have a real good time tossing them things around...Those promoting evolution here have convinced me that not only do they not know, but guess what? they don't know. (really if what they say is true is true.)

 

[cladking]

Insane and insane.

Some people might think they just need to tweak their definitions and perspectives a little but the problems are actually fundamental.

Besides if they tweaked their perspective they might see ow insane they are.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some people might think they just need to tweak their definitions and perspectives a little but the problems are actually fundamental.

Besides if they tweaked their perspective they might see ow insane they are.

I should have/could have realized that when I was younger, but yes, God has shown me the way. (Have a good evening...Revelation 21 - new heavens and new earth where righteousness will dwell. Yay!)

 

[cladking]

Cladking uses off the wall definitions for most the words they use.
they fancy themselves as some sort of beyond science scientist, but I have yet to see anyone, anywhere, agree with their "theories".

The only thing less important to science than Peers is popular opinion.

Prediction is the most important test of any hypothesis where experiment is impossible or where the powers that be are science hating fanatics who refuse to do experiment.

What would Darwin predict would be the result of every unherdable cat dying or breeding only cats that can be herded (it is exactly the same thing you know)? Whether nature does it or man the result is the same. The new species probably wouldn't even look like the old one. If nature did it the new species would probably go extinct leaving no fossils because, did I mention, that bottlenecks, by definition, dramatically decrease populations and the odds of fossilization.

What is so difficult about this concept?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How many lifetimes would a community interested in demonstrating by real observation a process that would take millions of years to occur need?

Is it realistic to accept without hesitation human conclusions about processes that no human can really verify by observation?

Is it really scientific to speculate about processes that supposedly take millions of years to complete?

Events of the past leave evidence in the present.

Evolutionary processes are quite well understood and as a result, we can make predictions about what we should and shouldn't find in contemporary genomes if evolution had occurred in the past and species share ancestry.

The collective genome of all things we have sequenced so far fit these predictions like a glove.
Life's DNA looks exactly like it should look were it the result of evolution.

We don't need to observe 7 million years of evolution to witness something like the split which lead to chimps and humans.
Just like we don't need to observe the conception, birth and lives of siblings to demonstrate that they share the same biological parents.
All we need is a DNA sample.

 

[cladking]

The collective genome of all things we have sequenced so far fit these predictions like a glove.
Life's DNA looks exactly like it should look were it the result of evolution.

How many other modes and means of change in species does the evidence fit closely?

We don't need to observe 7 million years of evolution to witness something like the split which lead to chimps and humans.

Of course we don't. But you still need evidence of gradual change caused by survival of the fittest to support your claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How many other modes and means of change in species does the evidence fit closely?

None that I know.

Of course we don't. But you still need evidence of gradual change caused by survival of the fittest to support your claims.

Which we have in abundance and which you have received plenty of examples of and which you subsequently handwaved away only to double down on your denial.

 

[cladking]

None that I know.

Exactly.

Which we have in abundance and which you have received plenty of examples of and which you subsequently handwaved away only to double down on your denial.

...And just like every other time I ask you won't even mention one piece of evidence conclusively showing a change in a significant species occurring gradually and caused by survival of the fittest. All you have is irrelevancies and extrapolations. I don't accept these tactics. I have evidence and you do not. Species are observed to change at bottlenecks.

 

[F1fan]

Exactly.


...And just like every other time I ask you won't even mention one piece of evidence conclusively showing a change in a significant species occurring gradually and caused by survival of the fittest. All you have is irrelevancies and extrapolations. I don't accept these tactics. I have evidence and you do not. Species are observed to change at bottlenecks.

This only shows your own ignorance of available knowledge in books and free on the internet. Evolution is a gradual process no matter how you frame it. Bottlenecks can and do happen in certain circumstances, usually with severe environmental stress. Just look at any major speices, like the horse, and how it evolved gradually over millions of years. The fossil record of the horse is vast. It took a few second to find this explanation of the fossil record of the horse.

18.5E: The Fossil Record and the Evolution of the Modern Horse

The detailed fossil record of horses has provided insight into their evolutionary progress.

bio.libretexts.org

That you have to make this an issue for open debate as if there ISN'T this and many other explanations of long term evolution of species is YOUR problem. It is YOUR bias. iIt is YOUR ignorance. If you don't bother to educate yourself, or worse, hold onto absurd religious bias and denial of science, then why bother challenging others in such a lost cause?

Your posts are a showcase of your bad faith approach to knowing anything. You're definiately beating this dead horse, and it won't evolve into knowledge and respect.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK after looking at the suppositions and conclusions of scientists defining evolution of "hominids" (in the "peer reviewed journals," etc.) I have decided their suppositions are not only insane but are insane. See? Both. Insane and insane. Now I believe opposers will have a real good time tossing them things around...Those promoting evolution here have convinced me that not only do they not know, but guess what? they don't know. (really if what they say is true is true.)

What suppositions? Name one.

 

[cladking]

What suppositions? Name one.

Why bother? They will not be addressed by believers and they've been listed many times by many posters. How can species change when every single individual is always the same species as its parents? If nature selects for the fittest then why isn't each generation fitter than the last?

There are dozens and dozens of insane assumptions made by believers so for now just ignore these two.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why bother? They will not be addressed by believers and they've been listed many times by many posters.

Well, I happen to have asked this poster the same question before and never received an answer.

So, pardon me, but I'm asking again, in hopes of getting an answer this time.

I don't care if you don't think I'm sincere, frankly.

How can species change when every single individual is always the same species as its parents?

We aren't clones of our parents. Rather, we're made up of a combination of 50% of each of our parent's genes. And on top of that children typically have about 70-100 new genetic mutations compared to their parents.

I'm pretty sure I've already seen another poster get into depth on this one with you.

If nature selects for the fittest then why isn't each generation fitter than the last?

Fitness is relative to one's environment. Fitness in one environment, doesn't equate to fitness in another environment.

There are dozens and dozens of insane assumptions made by believers so for now just ignore these two.

The above are not "insane assumptions" and you haven't shown that they are.

 

[cladking]

Well, I happen to have asked this poster the same question before and never received an answer.

I've seen him answer.

I don't care if you don't think I'm sincere, frankly.

I think most believers are sincere enough but have trouble even seeing opposing argument.

We aren't clones of our parents. Rather, we're made up of a combination of 50% of each of our parent's genes. And on top of that children typically have about 70-100 new genetic mutations compared to their parents.

Right?

Why aren't we all still swimming about in the primordial soup if we are all like our parents?

Fitness is relative to one's environment. Fitness in one environment, doesn't equate to fitness in another environment.

Since most traits breed true it follows each generation is fitter than its parents (all else being equal). Before you answer with evasion, do you really believe that environments are continually changing so fast that baby sharks aren't far far more fit than grampa shark?

The above are not "insane assumptions" and you haven't shown that they are.

No, there are dozens of assumptions that underlie belief in Evolution. When you actually address these two I'll trot out a few dozen more.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've seen him answer.

I haven't. What did she say?

I think most believers are sincere enough but have trouble even seeing opposing argument.

Okay.

Right?

Why aren't we all still swimming about in the primordial soup if we are all like our parents?

This doesn't follow from you're replying to.

Since most traits breed true ...

What?

... it follows each generation is fitter than its parents (all else being equal).

No, it doesn't follow. Did you not even read my response?

Before you answer with evasion

I don't appreciate such accusations when I'm sincerely trying to converse with you.

, do you really believe that environments are continually changing so fast that baby sharks aren't far far more fit than grampa shark?

Who said that?

No, there are dozens of assumptions that underlie belief in Evolution. When you actually address these two I'll trot out a few dozen more.

You've provided to inaccurate ones.
Got any more?

 

[cladking]

I don't appreciate such accusations when I'm sincerely trying to converse with you.

Yet you obviously don't see my point.

I believe all people make sense in terms of their premises and see only what they believe. The former is axiomatic to me and the latter is supported by countless experiments.

I don't believe you are stupid, willfully ignorant, or lying. I believe you and your beliefs are together for better or worse for the rest of your life. This isn't a failure on your part it is the human condition.

The fit survive but every generation is no more fit than its parent. This makes perfect sense if you believe in all the assumptions and in Evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yet you obviously don't see my point.

I believe all people make sense in terms of their premises and see only what they believe. The former is axiomatic to me and the latter is supported by countless experiments.

I don't believe you are stupid, willfully ignorant, or lying. I believe you and your beliefs are together for better or worse for the rest of your life. This isn't a failure on your part it is the human condition.

What you think about me is completely wrong.

The fit survive but every generation is no more fit than its parent. This makes perfect sense if you believe in all the assumptions and in Evolution.

No, it doesn't. You don't seem to understand evolution.

Evolutionary fitness

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[cladking]

What you think about me is completely wrong.

No, it doesn't. You don't seem to understand evolution.

Evolutionary fitness

evolution.berkeley.edu

You did not address anything I said. You merely gainsaid it.

Again; how is it possible for each generation not to be more fit than the previous? You're the one who claims the fit survive. I claim all individuals are equally fit so every generation is no fitter than the preceding.

It is impossible for our matrix/ nature/ character to not improve with each generation if we are both a product of our genes AND only the fit survive. If it were true it would be a paradox but it is not true. We are a product of our genes but all individuals are exactly equally fit because the production of individuals as meat or cannon fodder would be exceedingly wasteful and inefficient. Nature/ God/ gods/ reality are not in any way inefficient or insane. This has been left up for homo omnisciencis. We are grossly inefficient and waste virtually all resources and human potential. It's what we do. it's our function to know everything and act accordingly. It is insanity.

This constitute virtual proof you are wrong and there are dozens of other ways to show the exact same thing. Science, as most individuals understand it, is a belief system. It goes beyond the adoption of mere paradigms to the very belief that reductionistic science can be applied to all areas at this time. It can not!!! Reductionistic science may never be capable of understanding most of reality.

 

[cladking]

It is impossible for our matrix/ nature/ character to not improve with each generation if we are both a product of our genes AND only the fit survive.

We know that we are a product of our genes therefore there can be no gradual change in species through survival of the fittest.

It is a mirage created by divining tea leaves and fossils. It is an hallucination created by our beliefs. It is supported neither observationally nor experimentally. It is unreal. It does not exist. We by nature each reason in circles and Darwin et al started with wrong assumptions.

I wager if Darwin were alive today with access to so much data and experiment he would not believe in Evolution.

 

[cladking]

I wager if Darwin were alive today with access to so much data and experiment he would not believe in Evolution.

There's some irony on steroids!