Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Valjean]

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.)

Their conclusionss are not based on "suppositions." They're based on tested, factual evidence, just as yours are based on mythology and popular opinion.

 

[Valjean]

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? You don't understand evolution, the evidence thereof, or the methodology of science.

Its absurdity. You don't understand evolution, the evidence thereof, or the methodology of science.

 

[Valjean]

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.

What is your concept of "gradual;" how many generations?

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?

How can new languages arise when every child speaks the same language as his parents and grandparents?

 

[Valjean]

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, offspring are not clones of their parents, there is variation, and some variants are better environmental fits than their siblings.

 

[jes-us]

No, offspring are not clones of their parents, there is variation, and some variants are better environmental fits than their siblings.

Offspring of wild animals clone their parents actions .

Tamed wild animals start to form humanity

Humans clone each other within a sentient being

Variation is word choice .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

None that I know.



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.

It is sad how much evidence and support that has been presented on here that just gets ignored or waved away. And no evidence or support from those denying the science or those that seem to be creating a personal alternate reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Offspring of wild animals clone their parents actions .

Tamed wild animals start to form humanity

Humans clone each other within a sentient being

Variation is word choice .

This is nonsense. But good luck with it.

 

[jes-us]

This is nonsense. But good luck with it.

Why do people who don't have the intellect to understand something always reply with this is nonsense or this is gibberish or word salad ?

Why do people like yourself think you have some sort of authority in a thread and your opinion is meaningful or purposeful ?

What I said is actually factual and observable in life .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What suppositions? Name one.

At best it will be things that are not suppositions. At worst, who knows? It will likely be meaningless, erroneous, fallacious or irrelevant.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do people who don't have the intellect to understand something always reply with this is nonsense or this is gibberish or word salad ?

Why do people like yourself think you have some sort of authority in a thread and your opinion is meaningful or purposeful ?

What I said is actual factual and observable in life .

I have an IQ of 154. I think can safely recognize nonsense when I see it.

Why do you think you have authority and your nonsense is meaningful and purposeful?

What you said is nonsense that isn't supported by observation or is the product of poor word usage and is misleading to the point of seeming like gibberish.

Young wild animals might learn from or mimic the behavior of their parents, but they do not clone the behavior. Poor word usage renders your statement silly.

No animals form humanity except human animals.

Humans cloning each other in sentient beings is nonsense and meaningless.

Variation is observed and not based on word choice.

Good luck with all that.

 

[cladking]

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.

It may never be possible to study consciousness nor ANYTHING dependent on it with reductionistic science.

I guess no one is going to address these points.

 

[cladking]

Their conclusionss are not based on "suppositions." They're based on tested, factual evidence, just as yours are based on mythology and popular opinion.

"Evidence" is what supports prevailing beliefs. Anomalies are rarely discussed in polite company.

It's absurdity. You don't understand evolution, the evidence thereof, or the methodology of science.

Yet, remarkably, you can't tell me where I'm wrong. You just gainsay my statements and tautologies.

 

[jes-us]

I have an IQ of 154. I think can safely recognize nonsense when I see it.

Why do you think you have authority and your nonsense is meaningful and purposeful?

What you said is nonsense that isn't supported by observation or is the product of poor word usage and misleading.

Young wild animals might learn from or mimic the behavior of their parents, but they do not clone the behavior. Poor word usage renders your statement silly.

No animals form humanity except human animals.

Humans cloning each other in sentient beings is nonsense and meaningless.

Variation is observed and not based on word choice.

Good luck with all that.

You have my respect dear Sir because you didn't use your moderator power or reply back with I have authority because I am a moderator .

You actually uses your brain to give an intelligent reply .

Ok sir , I assume you know the term semantics and what you are calling none sense , would be a semantic argument .

Cloning is an exact copy of information or process .

Does a fledgeling not feed worms to its own siblings , cloning the process of its parent ?

 

[cladking]

It's absurdity. You don't understand evolution, the evidence thereof,

I don't agree with "Evolution" nor do I find interpretation of "evidence" and "experiment" compelling.

How can new languages arise when every child speaks the same language as his parents and grandparents?

There were no new languages until Ancient Language began failing.

In some ways modern languages do "evolve" and I have said so many times.

 

[cladking]

No, offspring are not clones of their parents, there is variation, and some variants are better environmental fits than their siblings.

Every individual has genes and parents. By definition every generation is more fit than their parents.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Many years ago I had the good fortune to meet Norman Borlaug. He was a key figure in the Green Revolution and likely, as a result of his research and work, instrumental in saving the lives of as many as a billion people. He was thrilled and impressed with the work my lab was doing and how it was advancing the work he pioneered.

I sort of expect that Darwin would respond much the same way if he were alive today to see how his theory has progressed and all the evidence that has been uncovered to support it and the directions and discoveries resulting from what he formulated.

 

[jes-us]

Every individual has genes and parents. By definition every generation is more fit than their parents.

If you want the answer why evolution must be wrong , it is because babies can't survive on their own . They can't walk etc which means the infants were looked after by some other species that were not mammals .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you think you have authority and your nonsense is meaningful and purposeful?

He gets his authority from Misters Dunning and Kruger.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have my respect dear Sir because you didn't use your moderator power or reply back with I have authority because I am a moderator .

You actually uses your brain to give an intelligent reply .

Ok sir , I assume you know the term semantics and what you are calling none sense , would be a semantic argument .

Cloning is an exact copy of information or process .

Does a fledgeling not feed worms to its own siblings , cloning the process of its parent ?

I am familiar with semantic arguments. They have been a key tool that some creationist use to deny science.

Cloning in the context of biology, and this is a discussion of biology, has a specific definition that you are not using. So your post regarding offspring cloning adults makes no sense. If you want to be understood, then you need to use the terminology that matches the context. But I will say, that one statement was the least nonsensical claim you made.

I don't know if fledgling birds feed their siblings. I have seen no evidence that they do. If they do, then they are mimicking their parents and not cloning them.

And this doesn't even address the rest of the post I critiqued or the superior attitude with which response was offered.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you want the answer why evolution must be wrong , it is because babies can't survive on their own . They can't walk etc which means the infants were looked after by some other species that were not mammals .

It gets deeper.

And you wonder why I have such regard for your claims.

There is no evidence that mammals are raised by other, non-mammalian species.