Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

Everybody on the planet knows what survival of the fittest means.

Except for you that is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But you still can't cite a single experiment relevant to gradual change caused by fitness.

One of the classic examples of Natural Selection was that of Peppered moths and their coloring. Originally these moths were light colored. During the Industrial Revolution, buildings and trees began to get coated with a layer of soot. The white moths resting on the darker backgrounds became very noticeable and easily picked off and eaten by predators. Then a random mutation happened in one moth, which caused it to be darker. This helped camouflage the moth and it survived to pass on that gene to its offspring. And so on and so on. Until pretty much Peppered Moths were almost all dark in color.

By the way, it is important that you learn the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution does not happen at a steady rate.

 

[cladking]

One of the classic examples of Natural Selection was that of Peppered moths and their coloring. Originally these moths were light colored. During the Industrial Revolution, buildings and trees began to get coated with a layer of soot. The white moths resting on the darker backgrounds became very noticeable and easily picked off and eaten by predators. Then a random mutation happened in one moth, which caused it to be darker. This helped camouflage the moth and it survived to pass on that gene to its offspring. And so on and so on. Until pretty much Peppered Moths were almost all dark in color.

There are several assumptions here.

I won't point them out because this observation simply supports my theory that all change in life is sudden. No part of this observation is anomalous to my theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are several assumptions here.

I won't point them out because this observation simply supports my theory that all change in life is sudden. No part of this observation is anomalous to my theory.

Let me translate this: There are several assumptions here. I won't point them out because reality refutes my claims.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are several assumptions here.

I won't point them out because this observation simply supports my theory that all change in life is sudden. No part of this observation is anomalous to my theory.

Terms like gradual and sudden are relative, not absolute.

You need to become familiar with the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution does not happen at a steady rate.

No offense, but I have no idea what your personal theory is. I use the alert system, which basically lists posts that quote me along with a small selection of posts which RF determines may be interesting to me. So I usually don't see the overwhelming majority of the posts on any given thread. If it is important to you that I see your post, all you have to do is either quote me, or tag by name with an asterisk in front of it like @cladking .

 

[cladking]

Terms like gradual and sudden are relative, not absolute.

You need to become familiar with the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution does not happen at a steady rate.

No offense, but I have no idea what your personal theory is. I use the alert system, which basically lists posts that quote me along with a small selection of posts which RF determines may be interesting to me. So I usually don't see the overwhelming majority of the posts on any given thread. If it is important to you that I see your post, all you have to do is either quote me, or tag by name with an asterisk in front of it like @cladking .

My theory isn't really relevant to the irony of beliefs in evolution.

Essentially I'm saying that consciousness (and mutation) are the largest drive of change in species.

When I say all observed change in species is "sudden" I mean it is essentially complete in three generations. Punctuated equilibrium is much closer to reality than "survival of the fittest". Ironically most people who believe in Darwin simply don't see the anomalies and interpret evidence in terms of the ToE.

 

[metis]

You need to become familiar with the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Evolution does not happen at a steady rate.

In my intro to anthro course, I used this definition: Evolution involves different groups within a species, all evolving in their own way, only some of which may eventually form new species.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is convincing evidence that life had a beginning and evolved into the diversity we have today. There is not convincing evidence there was an intelligence prior to evolution created intelligence.

There is no convincing evidence that life emerged without intelligence causing it to come about. None whatsoever.

 

[metis]

There is no convincing evidence that life emerged without intelligence causing it to come about. None whatsoever.

There is no convincing evidence that life emerged other than the fact life is now here.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no convincing evidence that life emerged other than the fact life is now here.

what is interesting is that what is convincing evidence for some is not convincing evidence for others. Regardless of what some scientists may think, there simply is no proof, as the song from Sound of Music goes in reverse, that something came from nothing. No proof whatsoever. One of the lines goes, "nothing comes from nothing, and it never will..." Makes sense to some, obviously not all.
Glad you realize, if I understand you correctly, that the fact (yup, it's a fact) that life is HERE now for some, meaning those who are alive and observe it, means for some (not all, of course) that life came from something. Kind of similar to a baby being born. IT (he/she) came from something.

 

[metis]

Glad you realize, if I understand you correctly, that the fact (yup, it's a fact) that life is HERE now for some, meaning those who are alive and observe it, means for some (not all, of course) that life came from something. Kind of similar to a baby being born. IT (he/she) came from something.

Now you are doing what you accuse others of, namely drawing conclusions from 0 objective evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no convincing evidence that life emerged without intelligence causing it to come about. None whatsoever.

Really? How would you prove that?

That is not a wise accusation to make because it puts the burden of proof upon you. You let abiogenesis win by default if you cannot support those sorts of claims.

 

[John53]

There is no convincing evidence that life emerged without intelligence causing it to come about. None whatsoever.

There's also no convincing evidence life emerged with intelligence. In my opinion there's a lot less evidence that it did emerge with intelligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's also no convincing evidence life emerged with intelligence. In my opinion there's a lot less evidence that it did emerge with intelligence.

I am beginning to believe that there still is no intelligence today.

 

[John53]

I am beginning to believe that there still is no intelligence today.

My dog learnt to ring a bell when she wants to go outside.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My dog learnt to ring a bell when she wants to go outside.

She is doing better than some members of the forum. I stand corrected.

 

[YoursTrue]

In my intro to anthro course, I used this definition: Evolution involves different groups within a species, all evolving in their own way, only some of which may eventually form new species.

Not sure how you define species, otherwise I might agree with your definition.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not sure how you define species, otherwise I might agree with your definition.

A species is a group of living things that can successfully procreate fertile offspring. When any particular species changes so much that the descendants can no longer produce fertile offspring with the ancestor generations, we say that a new species has come into existence. For example, donkeys and horses share a common ancestor, and this is the reason they are still able to procreate together, producing mules. However, the mule is sterile, thus we say that donkeys and horses are two separate species.

 

[YoursTrue]

My dog learnt to ring a bell when she wants to go outside.

Wow. Now all she has to do is manufacture a bell.

 

[YoursTrue]

A species is a group of living things that can successfully procreate fertile offspring. When any particular species changes so much that the descendants can no longer produce fertile offspring with the ancestor generations, we say that a new species has come into existence. For example, donkeys and horses share a common ancestor, and this is the reason they are still able to procreate together, producing mules. However, the mule is sterile, thus we say that donkeys and horses are two separate species.

I'd like to hear Metis' definition, thank you.