Irony of the evolutionary belief

[cladking]

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.

A lot of two way communication is possible with babies because they are little homo sapiens who speak Ancient Language. I'm hardly adept but can communicate with them. Babies are much easier than other animals. You'd probably be surprised what they can learn at this age.

You can get their attention almost from birth and they love to learn. I think they are stunted because they get no feedback they can understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I can see none of this is ever going to happen.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ROTFLMAO

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

That fantastic! But I think that is the perception. Search engines so good they can reach into the future.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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!

Tales of Young Darwin.

He ran the four minute mile in two minutes, under water with an engine strapped on his back.

 

[cladking]

Didn't you create a false equivalency here? In the first instance you very specifically refer to "individual life", and in the second, you simply refer to "life", which leads the reader to infer all life in general.

I almost missed this since I was swamped at the time. Remember all life is individual and all life is conscious. Conscious/ living/ and individual (life) are essentially synonyms. "Life" in general or life as "species" does not have a referent in the real world. It is a handy abstraction but it does not exist. Darwin and biologists today believe they do. It is one of their many false assumptions.

So while it is true that in each instance of an individual lifeform, the die has been cast for it at inception and it's compliment of genes is either suited or unsuited to survive the circumstances to come, but in the second case, you are referring to not an individuals genes, but the whole pool of genes contained within a reproductive species.

Yes and no. Your point is technically valid except the second generation can be thought of as a collection of individuals with numerous traits which can be measured and averaged over the "species". In any case fitter parents will by definition have fitter off spring so each new generation is made up on average of fitter individuals. We do not see this therefore survival of the fittest can not cause speciation. All individuals are exactly equally fit because "God" does not waste resources making individuals for meat or cannon fodder.

Disregard the concept of fitness and ask yourself whether the pool of available genes for a given species changes over time, for whatever reasons, and as a consequence the genetically expressed features of the species changes over time.

Certainly I agree.

If you agree, then those changes in expressed features are said to have been selected by the circumstances that caused the changes in the gene pool.

That's fine except that a species can remain virtually unchanged for eons. Obviously niches change but species do not necessarily. Changes occur much more due to bottlenecks and mutation. Certainly radical changes in an environment can also cause rapid change in species I call "adaptation". Species and individuals are excellent at adapting to change. Where there's life there is hope. It's the efforts of individuals created by consciousness that likely is primary in rapid adaptation. This is likely largely sexual selection but no doubt there are many ways that consciousness affects life on all levels.

It is also quite apparent that not all individuals are equally fit, for not all individuals survive to reproduce for a wide variety of reasons. If they do not reproduce, then their compliment of genes does not pass to the pool of genes available for the next generation.

No. Other than errors in genetics, maladaptive mutations, and physical/ chemical accidents all individuals are equally fit. Obviously some are less likely to thrive in the environment in which they find themselves but they are no less "fit" merely less likely to reproduce their genes. These individuals are necessary to the species because niches change and without them the species can suddenly become extinct. But without them the next generation will be more suited to the environment and we don't see this. When a species thrives its genes become more varied rather than less.

Life is about cooperation. It is not a dog eat dog world where the fittest climb up on the backs of weaker individuals and lesser species. Every species cooperates to maximize the total amount of life possible. Our species is always the odd man out. What we do is contrary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We murder and destroy because of our beliefs.

 

[cladking]

This is likely largely sexual selection but no doubt there are many ways that consciousness affects life on all levels.

I never thought of this before but just as ancient men tended to be scientists and women tended to be metaphysicians it seems likely that females are generally the selectors simply because they are more metaphysical. Women better understand how knowledge fits together and men are more adept at discovering new knowledge. Of course the two go hand in hand and there's always overlap between men and women and their respective rolls.

When species are under stress you want pairings whose results are most likely to suffer less stress

 

[Valjean]

I almost missed this since I was swamped at the time. Remember all life is individual and all life is conscious. Conscious/ living/ and individual (life) are essentially synonyms. "Life" in general or life as "species" does not have a referent in the real world. It is a handy abstraction but it does not exist. Darwin and biologists today believe they do. It is one of their many false assumptions.


That's fine except that a species can remain virtually unchanged for eons. Obviously niches change but species do not necessarily. Changes occur much more due to bottlenecks and mutation.

By what mechanism? How does that happen?
What about natural selection?

Certainly radical changes in an environment can also cause rapid change in species I call "adaptation". Species and individuals are excellent at adapting to change. Where there's life there is hope. It's the efforts of individuals created by consciousness that likely is primary in rapid adaptation. This is likely largely sexual selection but no doubt there are many ways that consciousness affects life on all levels.

Not following. Species recognize a need for adaptation and consciously will themselves to change?

No. Other than errors in genetics, maladaptive mutations, and physical/ chemical accidents all individuals are equally fit. Obviously some are less likely to thrive in the environment in which they find themselves but they are no less "fit" merely less likely to reproduce their genes. These individuals are necessary to the species because niches change and without them the species can suddenly become extinct.

But this is the very definition of 'fit'!
How are you defining it?

But without them the next generation will be more suited to the environment and we don't see this. When a species thrives its genes become more varied rather than less.

Huh? The next generation will be more fit/better adapted without the better adapted parents? How does that work?

How does genetic variation increase in a thriving species? How is it suppressed in less successful ones? What mechanism would account for this?

 

[cladking]

How does genetic variation increase in a thriving species? How is it suppressed in less successful ones? What mechanism would account for this?

Life can be thought of as an endless string of population bottlenecks. When a female selects a mate she has artificially excluded every other member of the species and when any individual dies only his own genes are lost. At every breath and every stage of life the effect is on the individual. Only a single sperm fertilizes an egg and all others are lost.

In addition to ongoing bottlenecks there are also ongoing mutations and mixings of genes. If carbon dioxide pours down a valley at night killing every butterfly within 10' of the ground the seeds are laid for the "invention" of moths. Nature is continually "experimenting" with life and death and new genes.

Most of the bottlenecks that potentially affect individuals (like predation of rabbits) are far more dependent on consciousness/ behavior than on fitness. Consciousness is an expression of genes manifest as behavior. Except in homo omnisciencis all consciousness/ behavior is an expression of genes in the context of knowledge and experience.

No survival of the fittest and few bottlenecks cause speciation. It is only bottlenecks that select for unusual behavior that cause speciation. This occurs in a vibrant genome that has experienced many many localized selective bottlenecks that have given rise to lots of variant genes thus giving rise to lots and lots of variant behavior. When a global bottleneck then arises that selects for odd behavior a speciation event occurs. These oddballs were just as fit as other members of the species but their odd genes when combined with the other odd genes create a new species.

Less successful species have lower populations and less chance of localized bottlenecks. They have more chance of extinction.


I think what makes this so hard to see besides the fact that our assumptions are wrong is that our minds try to factor out the complexity of reality. We invent "laws" to govern nature and mathematics to tame it. We take what we see at face value rather than pondering how it came into existence. We forget that even the tiniest event in the real world involves a virtual infinity of atomic collisions whose nature we don't yet understand. We forget that the tiniest event reverberates through time like the beat of a butterfly's wing in China. We think by defining "species" we can ignore the individuals which comprise it and their individual consciousness as well as their individual sets of knowledge and genes.

Then to cap it off we can't even define "consciousness" because our species can not directly observe it unlike every other individual on earth. We see what we believe and we believe life and consciousness can be reduced and factored out of experiment.

 

[cladking]

Not following. Species recognize a need for adaptation and consciously will themselves to change?

Individuals adapt. It's not likely they can put on a new set of genes but if the winters are too cold in Quebec more will stay in Kentucky. If they do winter in Quebec at least the food supply will be better. They might build or find better shelter or learn to hunt only on the warmest days. They might even engage in unique behavior such as sheltering with another individual for warmth. Perhaps the following year they might even cache food. The ability to adapt behavior to specific circumstances is a characteristic and most important aspect of consciousness other than merely staying alive under normal conditions. When food is scarce some fish will swim upstream and some downstream. Such things are fundamental to life and critically important to the health of the species and the individual. A small puddle full of dying fish is not good for life even if it creates a feast for a bird.

There is no referent for a "conscious nature" but highly complex systems can mimic it especially if these systems are living and cooperating. This is why we have terms like "mother nature".

 

[MikeF]

No. Other than errors in genetics, maladaptive mutations, and physical/ chemical accidents all individuals are equally fit. Obviously some are less likely to thrive in the environment in which they find themselves but they are no less "fit" merely less likely to reproduce their genes. These individuals are necessary to the species because niches change and without them the species can suddenly become extinct. But without them the next generation will be more suited to the environment and we don't see this. When a species thrives its genes become more varied rather than less.

I get that you have strong notions on how things are, so my intent isn't to change your mind, simply provide an alternate view.

In the paragraph above you start with an emphatic "No" and then go on to list all the ways an individual may not be fit or suited to existing conditions, essentially illustrating my point. So I take that then as a yes. You bring up the excellent point that the random mixing of available genes through sexual reproduction along with errors in transcriptions, maladaptive mutations, etc create opportunities that should environmental conditions change in ways that make the statistical average expression of the species less suitable, there may be an outlier from the mean created that remains suitable and is successful in passing its genetic changes along to the pool of available genes.

Life is about cooperation. It is not a dog eat dog world where the fittest climb up on the backs of weaker individuals and lesser species. Every species cooperates to maximize the total amount of life possible. Our species is always the odd man out. What we do is contrary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We murder and destroy because of our beliefs.

This is not what is observed. Yes, some species may evolve into social, intra-cooperative species, but even in some of these cases, different grouping of the same species can compete with other groups of the same species. In both cases, these cooperative species still compete with other species. Other species can be completely competitive on the individual level, against their own species as well as others. Different species may evolve to form symbiotic relationships with other species, forming interspecies cooperation, yet that pairing still competes for resources with other species outside of the symbiotic relationship. There are also parasitic relationships which I certainly do not see as cooperative.

No, the view you express here in no way corresponds to what we observe. Cooperation is one of many strategies a species may employ to enhance survival to reproduction, but it is by no means the only one and is not used by every species.

 

[cladking]

In the paragraph above you start with an emphatic "No" and then go on to list all the ways an individual may not be fit or suited to existing conditions, essentially illustrating my point.

No! Some individuals are mistakes and accidents of nature. The fittest rabbit in the world can break a leg or be born with only three legs. Nature doesn't "try" to do this, but reality doesn't exclude such problems. Only a small percentage are not "fit" and since they often die very young they have little direct impact on the genome.

You bring up the excellent point that the random mixing of available genes through sexual reproduction along with errors in transcriptions, maladaptive mutations, etc create opportunities that should environmental conditions change in ways that make the statistical average expression of the species less suitable, there may be an outlier from the mean created that remains suitable and is successful in passing its genetic changes along to the pool of available genes.

You're thinking of these individuals as being "less fit" but this is not the case. A below average rabbit is still as fit as any other rabbit. Even rabbits that are dumb as chipmunk might be important and be highly successful. As soon as you assume that reproductive success results from fitness you are reasoning in circles. Certainly some individuals have better odds but every individual has an achilles heel as well. Individuals are as varied as their genes and knowledge. At every stage and in every circumstance there is a strong tendency for consciousness/ behavior to determine outcomes rather than speed, intelligence, or strength. The individual sperm that wins the race wins by a vast multitude of factors. Like a race car/ driver there is no single factor that allows them to win. But unlike a race car there is no single thing like power that dramatically improves the odds for an individual. There is no such thing as "fitness". Nature needs every individual and we have no means of defining fitness and then showing it experimentally to cause change in species. It is a belief created by a circular argument.

 

[MikeF]

No! Some individuals are mistakes and accidents of nature. The fittest rabbit in the world can break a leg or be born with only three legs. Nature doesn't "try" to do this, but reality doesn't exclude such problems. Only a small percentage are not "fit" and since they often die very young they have little direct impact on the genome.

I think we are talking past each other a bit. What you have said here does not contradict what I have been saying. Once conceived, an individual is either suited for what will come, or is not. I certainly agree that within a species, statistically the pool of available genes for each generation will produce a vast majority of individuals with close morphology within an expected range. They are, however, not identical, and things like variations in metabolism can make some in the population better able to survive a temporary drought or survive an extended or deeper cold season, etc. So, on the individual level, an individual may or may not be suited to what may come, but the species as a whole will have enough variation between existing individuals that at the very least some will survive an extreme event. If the population does not experience such a challenge and the living is easy, then the odds will be good for nearly all to make it to reproduction, right?

You're thinking of these individuals as being "less fit" but this is not the case. A below average rabbit is still as fit as any other rabbit. Even rabbits that are dumb as chipmunk might be important and be highly successful. As soon as you assume that reproductive success results from fitness you are reasoning in circles. Certainly some individuals have better odds but every individual has an achilles heel as well. Individuals are as varied as their genes and knowledge. At every stage and in every circumstance there is a strong tendency for consciousness/ behavior to determine outcomes rather than speed, intelligence, or strength. The individual sperm that wins the race wins by a vast multitude of factors. Like a race car/ driver there is no single factor that allows them to win. But unlike a race car there is no single thing like power that dramatically improves the odds for an individual. There is no such thing as "fitness". Nature needs every individual and we have no means of defining fitness and then showing it experimentally to cause change in species. It is a belief created by a circular argument.

You seem to have a problem with the word 'fitness' which is fine. I don't think its all that useful either because it then begs the question, fitness for what? I like to think in terms of being sufficient. Reproductive strategies evolve to ensure a critical number of individuals within a species will be sufficient to live to reproduce the next generation within certain environmental parameters. Some species have very narrow environment conditions to which they may be sufficient, while others may be sufficient to exploit a very wide spectrum of environments. And as the fossil record indicates, sometimes a species gets boxed in to a narrow set of conditions that disappear as environments continually change, resulting it the species extinction.

Nature, or Life in its entirety, doesn't need every individual or a specific individual. Nature needs continual variation so that at least something continues in the face of perpetually changing conditions. It doesn't matter what specifically continues, just that there is continual variation to exploit as many possible resources across the widest range of environmental conditions.

 

[gnostic]

And after 3000 times of defining "metaphysics" as the "basis of science" you've earned a spot on my ignore list.

You are still using this stupid claim. That’s not a definition for metaphysics…it is just a claim.

I could use this same claim - “basis of science” - to the following, but none of them are actual definitions to respective terms:

• empiricism
• naturalism
• Methodological Naturalism
• Metaphysical Naturalism
• Scientific Method
• cause and effect
• etc

Every single ones of them, the above terms, are the “basis of science“, but it is definition to none of them, including your defined metaphysics.

Your so-called definition explain nothing as to what metaphysics is. You could have at the very least, use a dictionary. From the Oxford Dictionary of English:

Oxford Dictionary of English, metaphysics

the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space.

That's a proper definition, not your vague "metaphysics is the basis of science". Nothing in that definition say "science", nor "experiment".

You keep using this same stupid claim - “metaphysics is the basis of science” - but you keep ignoring the fact that metaphysics is philosophy, not science, another fact you have been ignoring is that metaphysics don’t use and don’t require experiments.

You wrote, something that you have repeated before:

“science is experiment”​

This also isn’t definition to the term “science”, but I will get back to you on its definition.

Now if that statement “science is experiment” was true, then metaphysics isn’t the “basis of science”, because metaphysics as I said before, don’t require experiments.

Now, getting back to the definition of science, here is a proper definition from Oxford Dictionary:

Oxford Dictionary of English, science

the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observations, experimentation, and testing the theories against the evidence obtained.

Science do use experiments as one of the means of testing a model, hypothesis or theory, but science don't literally means "experiment" if that's what you are claiming. If I have to give one word literal meaning of the word "science" then that would be "knowledge".

The root word for science is the Classical Latin scientia, which literally means "knowledge". It is a Latin translation for scientia as another word that means "knowledge", coming from ancient Greek as epistḗmē ἐπιστήμη, which in English it is translated to epistemology.

Metaphysics is a philosophy and knowledge that are abstract, it requires no experiments, no evidence.

This is what David Hume wrote:

David Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748):

If we take in our hand any volume [book]; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.​

I agreed that metaphysics is sophistry. It is outdated, and it is useless.

It is funny how you have the ignore that science require to meet the Scientific Method. Metaphysics don't require Science Method, which would mean it doesn't require testings, and “no testing” would mean it don't require experiments and evidence, which are what needed for any potential scientific theory.

But I obvious in your ignore list, so I don't expect reply from you, but at least others, will learn that metaphysics is outdated philosophy that is no longer the basis of science, because it has outlive it usefulness since the mid-19th century.

 

[gnostic]

You seem to have a problem with the word 'fitness' which is fine. I don't think its all that useful either because it then begs the question, fitness for what? I like to think in terms of being sufficient. Reproductive strategies evolve to ensure a critical number of individuals within a species will be sufficient to live to reproduce the next generation within certain environmental parameters. Some species have very narrow environment conditions to which they may be sufficient, while others may be sufficient to exploit a very wide spectrum of environments. And as the fossil record indicates, sometimes a species gets boxed in to a narrow set of conditions that disappear as environments continually change, resulting it the species extinction.

I think that’s not the only problem @cladking has with the word “fitness”.

cladking believes that “survival of the fittest” is what drive Evolution, and he also blame Darwin for this term for all murders, wars, genocide, particularly that of World War II.

For one. The “survival of the fittest” is only descriptive phrase Herbert Spencer used on Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species; “survival of the fittest”, to describe Natural Selection. But “survival of the fittest” isn’t a mechanism to the theory of Evolution, Natural Selection is the mechanism.

Two. Evolution, particularly Natural Selection, isn’t about killing, particularly killing each other, like in wars, genocide or even murders, as they don’t change human species in any way. No where in Darwin’s On The Origin, or other books of his, that Darwin promote wars, genocide or murders, as there are nothing natural about such death. Wars and genocide occurred because of social, economical, political or military agendas (or combination of these agendas), it doesn’t change human species at all. No where in Darwin’s works, does it dictate legal or government policies, nor does his works direct military strategy.

As I’ve said Natural Selection is not about killing, whatsoever…Natural Selection is about being able TO REPRODUCE when the natural environment have changed, changes, for examples, in geography (eg migration to location that can isolate the population from the parent population), climate (eg glaciation), natural disasters, availability of food sources (eg famine), etc.

cladking have the wrong idea as to what “fitness“ mean, in biological context.

 

[MikeF]

I think that’s not the only problem @cladking has with the word “fitness”.

cladking believes that “survival of the fittest” is what drive Evolution, and he also blame Darwin for this term for all murders, wars, genocide, particularly that of World War II.

For one. The “survival of the fittest” is only descriptive phrase Herbert Spencer used on Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species; “survival of the fittest”, to describe Natural Selection. But “survival of the fittest” isn’t a mechanism to the theory of Evolution, Natural Selection is the mechanism.

Two. Evolution, particularly Natural Selection, isn’t about killing, particularly killing each other, like in wars, genocide or even murders, as they don’t change human species in any way. No where in Darwin’s On The Origin, or other books of his, that Darwin promote wars, genocide or murders, as there are nothing natural about such death. Wars and genocide occurred because of social, economical, political or military agendas (or combination of these agendas), it doesn’t change human species at all. No where in Darwin’s works, does it dictate legal or government policies, nor does his works direct military strategy.

As I’ve said Natural Selection is not about killing, whatsoever…Natural Selection is about being able TO REPRODUCE when the natural environment have changed, changes, for examples, in geography (eg migration to location that can isolate the population from the parent population), climate (eg glaciation), natural disasters, availability of food sources (eg famine), etc.

cladking have the wrong idea as to what “fitness“ mean, in biological context.

Of course at this point I don't think it really matters what Darwin did or didn't say. The Theory of Evolution has matured beyond Darwin's initial conception of it.

 

[gnostic]

Of course at this point I don't think it really matters what Darwin did or didn't say. The Theory of Evolution has matured beyond Darwin's initial conception of it.

true.

 

[cladking]

You seem to have a problem with the word 'fitness' which is fine. I don't think its all that useful either because it then begs the question, fitness for what? I like to think in terms of being sufficient. Reproductive strategies evolve to ensure a critical number of individuals within a species will be sufficient to live to reproduce the next generation within certain environmental parameters. Some species have very narrow environment conditions to which they may be sufficient, while others may be sufficient to exploit a very wide spectrum of environments. And as the fossil record indicates, sometimes a species gets boxed in to a narrow set of conditions that disappear as environments continually change, resulting it the species extinction.

Individuals vary on a virtually infinite number of parameters. Some like visual acuity can be almost definitional to something like a hawk and others can be trivial like the ability of toad to contain its bladder for longer times. They also have an infinite number of genetic differences that lead to an infinite number of different consciousnesses resulting in an infinite number of behaviors. Indeed, each individual also has an infinite number of different experiences and knowledge sets which also are primary determinants of behavior.

These things are just ignored in their entirety by reductionistic science and replaced by an abstraction, "species" which has no referent in the real world. It is simply assumed some individuals must be more fit and these individuals must have more off spring. It's not even necessary to argue against it here because it is nonsense. But the observation that every generation must be fitter is certainly apt. If the fit survive preferentially to the less fit then it follows every generation is fitter and more able to survive in any given environment all else being equal.

Niches don't "evolve" the way species do. They more oscillate with weather patterns and populations. This is a random walk for eons until something disrupts it in its entirety. A random walk is not going to result in a change of species and there's no reason to suppose that any species has ever changed as a result of survival of the fittest over protracted time periods. This is what we might see staring into fossils that seem to change gradually but it is an illusion because all observed change is sudden as the fossil record also indicates since new species (changed species) tend to lay at the bottoms of strata.

I have a "problem" with survival of the fittest because it doesn't exist. Every individual is equally fit, equally able to populate the planet. Those individuals who are more successful are simply in the right place at the right time and their off spring are always just like the "species" that produced them barring bottlenecks and mutation etc.

The problem with "fit" isn't the word but nonsensical notion that nature selects some individuals to succeed and others to be the guest of honor at a meal for some other species. This is not reality. Nature doesn't select anything and isn't even conscious. Nature doesn't even really exist at all and is an abstraction usually reserved for the description of "reality as it concerns living things". Darwin was a mystic much like every other homo omnisciencis.

 

[cladking]

Darwin was a mystic much like every other homo omnisciencis.

Every experiment shows we are each mystics who bend and contort our perceptions to fit what we believe.

THIS is reality.

You must either start with correct assumptions or devise experiment to lead you to the correct answer to even have a CHANCE of being right.

THIS is reality for homo omnisciencis. This is why religion gave us science to start with. This is why we had a 3500 hundred year dark ages after the so called tower of babel.

We are mystics who can believe anything at all.

 

[MikeF]

Individuals vary on a virtually infinite number of parameters.

Not to be argumentative, simply for the sake of clarity, I think it would be better to describe Life in it's entirety as highly variable. To my mind, once we zoom in to any one individual, their die has been cast. Even still, prior to conception of an individual, its ability to vary is extremely limited to the genes contained in its parents.

And realistically, any one individual can only be the result of a breedable pair in sexual reproduction. The individuals that constitute a breedable group would be the maximal available pool of genetic traits that can be drawn from to form an individual.

These things are just ignored in their entirety by reductionistic science and replaced by an abstraction, "species" which has no referent in the real world.

'Species' simply describes the set of individuals that can breed. A salamander cannot breed with an elephant for example, and this sentence makes sense because 'salamander' and 'elephant' do have a referent in the real world.

It is simply assumed some individuals must be more fit and these individuals must have more off spring. If the fit survive preferentially to the less fit then it follows every generation is fitter and more able to survive in any given environment all else being equal.

You seem to perseverate over this concept of fitness. I thought we might have agreed to let the term go.

The problem with "fit" isn't the word but nonsensical notion that nature selects some individuals to succeed and others to be the guest of honor at a meal for some other species. This is not reality. Nature doesn't select anything and isn't even conscious. Nature doesn't even really exist at all and is an abstraction usually reserved for the description of "reality as it concerns living things". Darwin was a mystic much like every other homo omnisciencis.

Aside from fixating on the concept of fitness, you have some cogent points here. I agree that nature and by extension reality is not conscious. I see the phrase "natural selection" as a metaphor. It is simply a way to describe how environmental pressures can cause some genes to dwindle from the available pool of genes for a given species, as well as cause an increase throughout a species of new or novel genes born out of some mechanism of mutation or error.

 

[cladking]

Not to be argumentative, simply for the sake of clarity, I think it would be better to describe Life in it's entirety as highly variable. To my mind, once we zoom in to any one individual, their die has been cast.

This is the way the human mind works. We can add, subtract, and divide elephants. We can calculate the square root of a herd. But "elephants" as they exist in the real world are not interchangeable. Nor is any individual set in stone as it concerns change in species because individuals act on knowledge as it is processed by their brains which can be thought of as cast in the stone of its individual genes. Real elephants vary not only in any imagined potential but how they actually behave and change over time. Being stronger, faster, smarter or louder will not materially affect its behavior nor it's likelihood to reproduce. We merely imagine such things because this is the way we think.

Every individual has countless strengths and weaknesses and far more ways for them to result in success or failure. Like a driver who escapes a fatal crash by being thrown clear even the greatest weaknesses can result in success and conversely the great strengths can cause failure.

The individuals that constitute a breedable group would be the maximal available pool of genetic traits that can be drawn from to form an individual.

I believe in time it will be found that this is not strictly true for a few reasons.

A salamander cannot breed with an elephant for example, and this sentence makes sense because 'salamander' and 'elephant' do have a referent in the real world.

Your point is valid but the word "elephant" is still an abstraction to our thinking. There are only individuals and an old Steinway piano with ivory keys is less an "elephant" than the one charging you in the savannah. All of our words are symbolic to a greater or lesser extent. Words like "species" are just a mnemonic and handy way of using our beliefs to reason in circles.

You seem to perseverate over this concept of fitness. I thought we might have agreed to let the term go.

I don't see how this is possible. People believe in gradual change in species caused by fitness. When people use the term "Evolution" this is what they mean. Evolution doesn't exist because all individuals are equally fit and species change at bottlenecks driven by consciousness.

I see the phrase "natural selection" as a metaphor. It is simply a way to describe how environmental pressures can cause some genes to dwindle from the available pool of genes for a given species, as well as cause an increase throughout a species of new or novel genes born out of some mechanism of mutation or error.

To some extent my saying it was just a "word game" which was turning one of the arguments of "believers" back onto them. Most people don't believe nature has any intent in the sense of the word it is typically used. But regardless "nature" does not select some individuals to thrive and others to die. There is no characteristic in reality that can be defined as "fitness". The habit of most believers is to simply assume those which reproduce are fitter which is a circular argument.

Our species can only reason circularly. All other species before the tower of babel saw reality in terms of knowledge and processed information in a four dimensional brain/ body. We can see only our beliefs forcing our one dimensional train of thought into spirals, circles, and mobius strips.