Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Your definition apparently, but that isn't a definition anyone actually uses or that has any support of evidence or experiment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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



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

Everyone that has even the most basic knowledge of science has repeatedly told you and shown you where you are wrong. It happens so much, it has become tiresome.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Every human is born with 50-100 mutations on average that are not found in the parents. It is that variation that may result in a difference in fitness that can be acted on by the environment. Your claim is completely against observation, experiment and reason.

It is a mirage created by divining tea leaves and fossils.

Maybe that is how you do things, but that isn't how science works.

It is an hallucination created by our beliefs.

So you keep going on and on about without ever demonstrating that you have more than a mantra to chant.

It is supported neither observationally nor experimentally.

All that evidence that you have been provided and either ignore or wave away shows your claim to be hopelessly wrong. And what has been offered here isn't even the tip of the iceberg.

It is unreal. It does not exist. We by nature each reason in circles and Darwin et al started with wrong assumptions.

Keeping chanting it, but it won't make it true.

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

As I said, I think Darwin would be astounded at the knowledge we have gained and the directions we have taken using the theory he first formulated.

 

[jes-us]

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.

My apologies for not accessing my full potential and being a lazy writer . I was referring to data cloning rather than cell cloning .

Offspring of wild animals clone data from their parents actions .

Tamed wild animals start to clone human data .

Humans clone human data in infants to form humanity

Does that make more sense to you ?

 

[cladking]

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 .

Most animals can not take care of themselves when they are born. I don't see this as a deal breaker for the belief in Evolution.

 

[cladking]

Everyone that has even the most basic knowledge of science has repeatedly told you and shown you where you are wrong. It happens so much, it has become tiresome.

Gainsaying that science is founded in experiment is not an argument against metaphysics or the nature of science. It is just words.

 

[cladking]

Your definition apparently, but that isn't a definition anyone actually uses or that has any support of evidence or experiment.

Then exp[lain how it's possible that the fittest individuals are selected to reproduce but the resultant generation of every species is not more fit.

It is an impossibility that flies in the face of definitions and human knowledge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Gainsaying that science is founded in experiment is not an argument against metaphysics or the nature of science. It is just words.

I just wish you used words in some way that I could make sense of.

 

[jes-us]

Most animals can not take care of themselves when they are born. I don't see this as a deal breaker for the belief in Evolution.

The deal breaker is simple enough , all human babies would of died off , it would be impossible for any of them to survive and grow up to reproduce . Human babies can't walk or crawl when born , they would of starved off pretty fast . They'd also be naked and exposed to the elements.

 

[cladking]

All that evidence that you have been provided and either ignore or wave away shows your claim to be hopelessly wrong

It is believers waving away the numerous experiments that show we see what we believe. ALMOST EVERY BIT of the "evidence" to support gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest is irrelevant. It does not show it.

 

[cladking]

As I said, I think Darwin would be astounded at the knowledge we have gained and the directions we have taken using the theory he first formulated.

I think he would be astounded but after studying the data I doubt he'd believe in Evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then exp[lain how it's possible that the fittest individuals are selected to reproduce but the resultant generation of every species is not more fit.

It is an impossibility that flies in the face of definitions and human knowledge.

It has been explained to you numerous times and you ignore that. Fitness isn't an all or nothing condition. As told to you many times. Those with genes that provide greater fitness in a particular environment tend to reproduce more successfully than those less fit. In the face of an environment that stabilizes at this new optima, the population will have changed gradually over time to have those new gene variations more predominant in the subsequent populations.

You are just going to ignore this and repeat your erroneous claims.

 

[Valjean]

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

No, as often as not, evidence overturns prevailing beliefs.
Evidence is what it is. The conclusions drawn from it are tested and predictive. Science accepts the weight of evidence, whether it corresponds to prevailing belief or not.

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

Your conclusions are unevidenced, and your objections ignorant or irrational.

 

[cladking]

The deal breaker is simple enough , all human babies would of died off , it would be impossible for any of them to survive and grow up to reproduce . Human babies can't walk or crawl when born , they would of starved off pretty fast . They'd also be naked and exposed to the elements.

But those who believe in evolution believe that all off spring is just like every parent hence there would be an endless chain of parents to care for the young.

I see your point. I just don't believe it is relevant to their beliefs.

 

[cladking]

You are just going to ignore this and repeat your erroneous claims.

First I have to try to decipher it.

Did you really mean that environments stabilize?

 

[jes-us]

But those who believe in evolution believe that all off spring is just like every parent hence there would be an endless chain of parents to care for the young.

I see your point. I just don't believe it is relevant to their beliefs.

The majority of mammal species on earth would have the same ''technical hitch'' .

Do you know of any mammal species that is not a dependent from birth ?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is believers waving away the numerous experiments that show we see what we believe. ALMOST EVERY BIT of the "evidence" to support gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest is irrelevant. It does not show it.

You are getting more confusing. All I get is that you turn believer into a derogatory term for people that accept science on evidence and reason and not your syncretic, pseudoscientific belief system without evidence.

Now you are acknowledging that evidence has been provided in contradiction of your previous claims that none was provided and you are doing that while just handwaving it away for no declared reason.

The evidence supports the theory of evolution. Sorry, all your gainsaying and mantras doesn't change that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First I have to try to decipher it.

Did you really mean that environments stabilize?

I doubt you will do anything and it is pretty plain and easily understood.

 

[cladking]

The majority of mammal species on earth would have the same ''technical hitch'' .

Do you know of any mammal species that is not a dependent from birth ?

Things like gazelles are pretty close I believe. At least they are up and running very soon. Of course they must nurse for some time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think he would be astounded but after studying the data I doubt he'd believe in Evolution.

Of course you base this on nothing but your personal desire to reject the science for no valid reason you have ever supplied.