Irony of the evolutionary belief

[cladking]

You don't see an explanation and description about how evolutionary fitness works as relevant to a discussion about how evolutionary fitness works?

Mmkay.

It is dogma. It is only dogma that people want to believe. They want to believe that man is the Crown of Creation. Sure they say man is only a twig on the tree of life but in the very next breath they say we are at the top of the food chain and we are all geniuses who know everything even how we became a twig. It is nonsense. In many ways we are not even up to the standards of the forest animals whom at least are never sleepwalking through life.

We think ourselves into existence but we can't even directly observe our own consciousness!!! We are truly homo omnisciencis but homo circularis rationatio is how we got to where we are. Since we can't directly see our own consciousness we can't see even glimpses of reality. We see our beliefs just as every experiment shows. We think therefore we reason back to our beliefs in every single case that isn't derailed by experiment. Did I ever mention that no experiment shows Evolution and all observation shows species change suddenly at bottlenecks?

 

[SkepticThinker]

• MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.
  CORRECTION: Though “survival of the fittest” is the catchphrase of natural selection, “survival of the fit enough” is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two “best” individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the “fittest” in the population, but they are “fit enough” to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.

All they've done here is double down on their belief in survival of the fittest. So now we have not fit, almost fit, and super fit. But this certainly in no way addresses the simple fact that genetics demands each generation is more fit. All those words are a mere a smokescreen to hide this fact. Every objection stands. If consciousness plays any role in speciation then everything we know is wrong because our assumptions are wrong.

Well, if you're just going to make stuff up, there's not going to be much to talk about.

Maybe a bright six year old would miss these problems as he was being indoctrinated.

"Evolution" never sounded right to me and I was familiar with it long before I was six.

Well, you don't seem to understand that much about it and feel free to apparently just make stuff up as alternative explanations, so ...

 

[cladking]

Well, if you're just going to make stuff up, there's not going to be much to talk about.

It's kindda like Darwin making up Evolution isn't it?

It's a shame all his assumptions were wrong or we could have avoided most of the carnage in the last century and a half.

I have enormous advantages on Darwin including not only a lot more human knowledge but also search engines. I can hardly imagine where the world would be today if Sir Isaac Newton had had a search engine!!!!

 

[McBell]

It's kindda like Darwin making up Evolution isn't it?

It's a shame all his assumptions were wrong or we could have avoided most of the carnage in the last century and a half.

I have enormous advantages on Darwin including not only a lot more human knowledge but also search engines. I can hardly imagine where the world would be today if Sir Isaac Newton had had a search engine!!!!

ROTFLMAO

You do know that even if there were search engines back then, the currently available information would not be on it, right?

 

[cladking]

ROTFLMAO

You do know that even if there were search engines back then, the currently available information would not be on it, right?

Of course.

But Newton was highly deficient in subjects like zoology and the life sciences. With the ability to have all this at his fingertips he'd have made many more connections than just math and physics. for instance he might have been able to decipher the "Emerald Tablets of Hermes" rather than merely translate them and assume they were alchemical in nature. This would have opened the door to our own natures centuries earlier as we're still waity9ing for Egyptologists to determine the Great Pyramid was "principally" a time capsule.

God only knows the many directions Newton could have made if every data point he needed was at hand rather than requiring weeks to get the data. Even with today's communications I could not have done what I did without a search engine because most enquiries would take hours for a response since people don't pick up their phone since it's always rachel from India calling anyway. You may not realize this but most experts provide wrong answers anyway. I don't know why but whatever the question they missed that day in school.

Reductionistic science probably could get us to most of the right answers in time but the fact is there would be a series of revolutions every few years in order to get there. There are always many routes to the truth and infinitely more to falsehood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

This is literally word games.

You still could learn what science is and how it is done. It is never too late to learn.

So which is it that's totally and utterly wrong; that all individual life without exception is based in genetics or that life is naturally selected to be more fit for the existing environment? You can't have it both ways because we can observe at all times in every species that individuals do not get more fit with each generation. There's a simple reason for this: All individuals are created exactly equally fit.

This is called a strawman argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Berkeley already explained it to you like you're a six-year-old.

He is too well protected by his bogus version of "survival of the fittest". I think that we need something a bit more extreme. Maybe electro shock therapy. Or a very hearty wet towel snap as he comes out of the shower at his gym. That would get anyone's attention.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is dogma.

No.

It is only dogma that people want to believe.

No.

They want to believe that man is the Crown of Creation.

No. I don't believe that. That sounds like a Christian thing to me.

Sure they say man is only a twig on the tree of life but in the very next breath they say we are at the top of the food chain and we are all geniuses who know everything even how we became a twig.

I've not said this nor has anyone else in this thread that I can see.

It is nonsense. In many ways we are not even up to the standards of the forest animals whom at least are never sleepwalking through life.

No idea what this means.

We think ourselves into existence but we can't even directly observe our own consciousness!!! We are truly homo omnisciencis but homo circularis rationatio is how we got to where we are. Since we can't directly see our own consciousness we can't see even glimpses of reality. We see our beliefs just as every experiment shows. We think therefore we reason back to our beliefs in every single case that isn't derailed by experiment. Did I ever mention that no experiment shows Evolution and all observation shows species change suddenly at bottlenecks?

Wrong.

It's kindda like Darwin making up Evolution isn't it?

No. He didn't just make stuff up as you've done here.

It's a shame all his assumptions were wrong or we could have avoided most of the carnage in the last century and a half.

Modern genetics confirmed his theory, actually. Also, we've learned a lot more about it since Darwin first posited it, like 160+ years ago.

I have enormous advantages on Darwin including not only a lot more human knowledge but also search engines. I can hardly imagine where the world would be today if Sir Isaac Newton had had a search engine!!!!

I have no idea why we're talking about Darwin. There are mountains and mountains of evidence for evolution that have nothing to do with one of the first guys to posit the idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no idea why we're talking about Darwin. There are mountains and mountains of evidence for evolution that have nothing to do with one of the first guys to posit the idea.

That's easy. As you know the present day evidence for evolution spans all aspects of biology. Every single branch of biology confirms the theory and is tied to the other branches through it. That would be impossible to attack. So instead one attacks the man that first got the modern understanding of evolution going. He may convince a small handful of people if he does that.

Did you know that when young Darwin was playing soccer instead of using a soccer ball he would use kittens instead?

Evolution must be wrong!

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's easy. As you know the present day evidence for evolution spans all aspects of biology. Every single branch of biology confirms the theory and is tied to the other branches through it. That would be impossible to attack. So instead one attacks the man that first got the modern understanding of evolution going. He may convince a small handful of people if he does that.

Did you know that when young Darwin was playing soccer instead of using a soccer ball he would use kittens instead?

Evolution must be wrong!

Ah, I see now!

 

[cladking]

They want to believe that man is the Crown of Creation.

No. I don't believe that. That sounds like a Christian thing to me.

Christians believe in something greater than themselves or Peers. They believe in Jesus, God, and prophets. Believers in science see only theory and profits as above themselves. Greed is the ultimate good and there's no such thing as "sin" if you have no conscience.

Certainly Christians reason in circles just like all members of our species (remember experiment). But they reason from numerous true premises in comparison. They are true because religion is based on (a confusion of) ancient science.

You can't imagine that there is any way in which a bee or a whale is superior or smarter than you. Most people don't even believe animals are conscious where the reverse is more true.

 

[cladking]

No idea what this means.

I've said many times that humans are like sleep walkers. We can't even see our own consciousness or reality itself directly. We see everything through a kaleidoscope of what we believe. We can't communicate with animals or even our own young.

 

[cladking]

No. He didn't just make stuff up as you've done here.

Of course Darwin made everything up. Do you believe God handed down scripture from above and he just published it?

As soon as he ended up at his assumptions he wrote his book. Homo circularis rationatio.

 

[cladking]

There are mountains and mountains of evidence for evolution that have nothing to do with one of the first guys to posit the idea.

But you still can't produce any experiment that shows gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest.

Nor can you provide a cogent answer for why each generation is not more fit than the last.

 

[cladking]

We can't communicate with animals or even our own young.

With eight billion different languages we hardly communicate with one another.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They want to believe that man is the Crown of Creation.


Christians believe in something greater than themselves or Peers. They believe in Jesus, God, and prophets. Believers in science see only theory and profits as above themselves. Greed is the ultimate good and there's no such thing as "sin" if you have no conscience.

Certainly Christians reason in circles just like all members of our species (remember experiment). But they reason from numerous true premises in comparison. They are true because religion is based on (a confusion of) ancient science.

You can't imagine that there is any way in which a bee or a whale is superior or smarter than you. Most people don't even believe animals are conscious where the reverse is more true.

Well this has certainly gone way off the rails. What a load. I loathe people telling me what they think I believe and getting it absolutely and utterly wrong when they could have just asked me in the first place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've said many times that humans are like sleep walkers. We can't even see our own consciousness or reality itself directly. We see everything through a kaleidoscope of what we believe. We can't communicate with animals or even our own young.

I disagree. I've communicated with both animals and young people.

I don't care if we can "see our consciousness" and I don't see how that's relevant to anything. We can certainly view brain activity via a variety of brain scans.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course Darwin made everything up. Do you believe God handed down scripture from above and he just published it?

What does one have to do with the other?

Darwin "made everything up" based on his observations of the animal kingdom and the natural world. Scientists that have followed have greatly expanded upon his original observations.

As soon as he ended up at his assumptions he wrote his book. Homo circularis rationatio.

???

 

[cladking]

I disagree. I've communicated with both animals and young people.

Really?

You do realize I was referring to pre-verbal infants? I wager you don't get more out of them than "please change my diaper".

 

[SkepticThinker]

Really?

You do realize I was referring to pre-verbal infants? I wager you don't get more out of them than "please change my diaper".

I have communicated with babies as well.
They can communicate a lot of things like happiness, anger, fear, and many other emotions. My 8-month-old nephew managed every day to communicate to me that he didn't like any of the food I was giving him.