Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Valjean]

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



There were no new languages until Ancient Language began failing.

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

Language changes over time. Small changes accumulate. Slowly Latin turns into French or Romanian. Slowly Tiktaalik's progeny changed into terrestrial tetrapods.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Those that have studied and accept the theory of evolution know that what you are saying here is nonsense. There is recognized and demonstrated variation in the offspring of each generation.

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

Is it relevant to your syncretic belief system?

 

[John53]

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.

Depends on the definition of fledgling, in the birding world it usually means they have developed flight feathers. I've never heard of siblings from the same brood feeding each other but in some species young birds may hang around and help out with caring of a new brood. While technically siblings they are not of the same age, nor would they be known as fledglings. Kookaburras and Australian Magpies are 2 species that will do this.

 

[cladking]

All I get is that you turn believer into a derogatory term for people that accept science on evidence and reason...

No. Most scientists understand why science works. "Believers in science" are those who can't even accept metaphysics or an older definition for "metaphysics".

and not your syncretic, pseudoscientific belief system without evidence.

No. Anyone who accepted idiosyncratic understanding of science on say so alone would just be a different type of "believer".

We all reason in circles but real scientists try not to and recognize the importance of experiment in stopping circular reasoning. Science is experiment and while this tautology could not possibly be more true it is not comprehensive is it?

 

[jes-us]

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.

Interesting but still , the new born would require assistance .

Logically I think we can rule out any sort of evolution from the oceans because human babies can't walk , unless a fully mature adult came from the sea , which also would make no logical sense because the baby couldn't survive under the sea either .

My personal opinion is our bodies origins are clones but not perfect copies and were not a part of evolution .

My other opinion is that humanity did evolve in the form of data cloning .

 

[Valjean]

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

Huh? How so? Fitness is an artifact of environment. Variants fit more or less well, and a rapid environmental change might render the entire species unfit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Depends on the definition of fledgling, in the birding world it usually means they have developed flight feathers. I've never heard of siblings from the same brood feeding each other but in some species young birds may hang around and help out with caring of a new brood. While technically siblings they are not of the same age, nor would they be known as fledglings. Kookaburras and Australian Magpies are 2 species that will do this.

That's interesting and I appreciate the information. It was to some of my ornithology coursework that I was looking back to for information on this. It was in that course, that I was first introduced to the terms altricial and precocial in reference to the development of offspring and the advantages that each has in terms of survival. Ground nesting birds seem to have evolved development patterns that are precocial. An advantage for species that are more at risk to predation. But I could find nothing on fledglings feeding their siblings. Sounds like there isn't anything to find.

 

[Valjean]

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 .

-- I don't see the connection.

 

[Valjean]

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

But he did...

 

[cladking]

Slowly Latin turns into French or Romanian. Slowly Tiktaalik's progeny changed into terrestrial tetrapods.

I understand you lack evidence for this.

The only thing really known is that what you call "tiktaalik" is an older version of tetrapods. You are assuming the change was gradual and result of survival of the fittest not because of compelling argument but because of the assumptions you started with.

In science you need to show your work even if you are a Peer. You can be right without an experiment but it's not science without an experiment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. Most scientists understand why science works. "Believers in science" are those who can't even accept metaphysics or an older definition for "metaphysics".

So, a meaningless mantra you use as a derogatory term for people that disagree with you and back it up with observation, evidence and experiment. Got it.

No. Anyone who accepted idiosyncratic understanding of science on say so alone would just be a different type of "believer".

Like someone that believes in some ancient whatever that has no basis in evidence or experiment.

We all reason in circles but real scientists try not to and recognize the importance of experiment in stopping circular reasoning. Science is experiment and while this tautology could not possibly be more true it is not comprehensive is it?

Maybe you do. It certainly seems so, But all do not. Many have told you this and had their words ignored by you. It is the only circle we have come to expect.

Science is many things, but it is not what you claim it is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand you lack evidence for this.

You mean the evidence that linguists use to show changes and relationships in language? So another subject you know little about, but speak as if you are a world-renowned expert in the field.

The only thing really known is that what you call "tiktaalik" is an older version of tetrapods.

It is a transitional species in the fossil record. It isn't a tetrapod, but it has adaptations leading to tetrapods.

You are assuming the change was gradual and result of survival of the fittest not because of compelling argument but because of the assumptions you started with.

Is there anything that shows that it suddenly grew lobed fins? No. Is there any reason to consider that the change wasn't gradual? No.

Considering the transitional nature of the fossil, it is the evidence for gradual change.

In science you need to show your work even if you are a Peer. You can be right without an experiment but it's not science without an experiment.

You have yet to show there is any significance or value in referencing this mythical "Peer" or the unfounded conspiracy you associate it with.

It is not science without observation and hypothesis testing. You can do that without a controlled laboratory or field experiment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

A rare instance when you say something factual that I agree with. Gazelles and similar animals evolved precocial young. That trait increases the fitness of members of that group. Since a sessile baby would be easy pickings for predators and put the mother at risk for trying to care for it.

 

[John53]

You mean the evidence that linguists use to show changes and relationships in language? So another subject you know little about, but speak as if you are a world-renowned expert in the field.

If language doesn't evolve over time one wonders why the makers of dictionaries bother publishing revised editions every year.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If language doesn't evolve over time one wonders why the makers of dictionaries bother publishing revised editions every year.

They must be publishing in a circle.

I suppose if one thinks that life exists in some unchanging vacuum, language must as well. Contrary to the evidence and experiment of course.

 

[cladking]

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

Did you really mean that environments stabilize?

Science is many things, but it is not what you claim it is.

So now you allude to a more comprehensive definition of "science".

This is literally word games.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So now you allude to a more comprehensive definition of "science".

This is literally word games.

Your word games. I never claimed a more comprehensive definition for science, just that what you claim is science isn't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So now you allude to a more comprehensive definition of "science".

This is literally word games.

I also notice that you are focusing on trash talk again and not on the subject or your claims of understanding science so well that you can dictate what it is to others.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So now you allude to a more comprehensive definition of "science".

This is literally word games.

1. List the assumptions Darwin used in formulating the theory of evolution and demonstrate that they are wrong.
YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS.
2. Provide evidence that all change in all living things is sudden.
YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS.
3. Demonstrate with evidence that there was a science used by people of 40,000 years ago in a language that no one knows about.
YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS.
4. Provide legitimate reasons for rejecting the findings of the Lenski experiment. And not a claim that your rejection falls within three categories.
YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS.
5. Provide evidence that speciation occurs at population bottlenecks.
YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS.
6. Provide evidence that homo omiscience is a legitimate taxonomic epithet that is based on evidence and not some erroneous claim that you make persistently for personal reasons that don't have to be accepted by anyone. I have looked and not found that it exists anywhere outside of your use of it. The same is true of your other attempts to redefine the taxonomy of humans.
YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS.
7. In a related claim, demonstrate that Homo sapiens no longer exist and we are a different species.
YOU HAVE NEVER DONE THIS.

I could go on with the things you have claimed and never defended or supported with evidence from observation or experiment, but eventually I have to go to sleep.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly.

Point?

...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.

We already know that you don't accept the evidence and instead make intellectually dishonest demands based on strawmen.