The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Could it be that you just don't want to understand?

I could ask you the same thing.

 

[gnostic]

You got that right. He is the ultimate artist and designer. We are creative, but not all powerful. . Of course all analogies aren't literal in every sense, that's what makes them analogies, but they are still useful to understand the broader reality.
You still haven't explained away creation, you are just trying to throw up smoke screens.

No, Wildswanderer.

You are still misunderstanding that analogies are not explanations, and they have no use whatsoever in sciences.

Analogies only have purposes as literary tools in literature, like narratives (hence in stories), in verses (eg poetry, hymns, etc), in religions and in philosophies, but they are useless in sciences, because they often misrepresented observed phenomena.

Intelligent Design only used analogies, not explanatory models.

Take Michael Behe, for example, he is the leading expert in Intelligent Design, and is one of the senior members of Discovery Institute, which is where Intelligent Design started in the first places (which was started by Phillip E Johnson and Steven Meyers).

Anyway, as a biochemist, Behe wrote paper on Irreducible Complexity, but he could never published in any publishers that do Peer Review, not only because it isn’t an unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) that include no explanations, no testable predictions, but because he also used analogies that have no bearing in science of biology.

Every bloody single members of Discovery Institute, who wrote books, essays and articles on Intelligent Design, every single texts written used unscientific analogies. None of their books were ever considered science. They include no evidence and no experiments, there are no real data...but they do have plenty of fake data.

Behe used a bloody mouse trap analogy.

What does mouse trap have to do with how life began?

Irreducible Complexity even failed as hypothesis, because his IC paper isn’t falsifiable.

If you want to fool yourself, as many of Discovery Institute authors have in the last 3 decades, be my guess.

Analogies may be useful in religious teachings or in poetry writings, it shouldn’t be used in falsifiable hypotheses or in tested scientific theories.

 

[Valjean]

Wildswanderer said: ↑
Yes. Me. You. Everything that exists.
The fairy tale of chance is the stuff of comedy routine.

Who's claiming chance?
The only chance was the original establishment of the natural laws and constants for this particular universe. After that, ordinary, unguided physics and chemistry took over and created the world we see around us.
There is no evidence of any original planning or intention. Your God is a product of your own imagination.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You claimed, if you recall, that it was likely the universe has always existed. Apparently you have forgotten already.

Not sure if I ever said that to you.

But if I did, I wouldn't have used the word "likely", because that the universe has always existed, is a fact.

Here's the demonstration of that fact:

Definition of 'always' = for all of time.

Now, go back in time and pick any spot in time.
There was a universe then.

For ALL OF TIME, the universe has existed. The reason is simple: time is an inherent part of the universe.
The start of the universe = the start of time.

The universe IS the "space-time continuum".
Whenever there was time, there was a universe.

So yes, the universe has always existed.
There is no point IN TIME where the universe did not exist.

Note also that "always" and "eternal" are not synonyms.

So saying "the universe has always existed", is not at all synonymous with saying "the universe is eternal".

And last but not least, saying "the universe has always existed" is NOT synonymous with saying "matter is eternal".

So pretty much on all accounts, you are wrong YET AGAIN when trying to claim what I believe or do or say.

You haven't been correct a single time when attempting to summarize my positions, opinions, beliefs, etc on anything.

You should reflect on that for a second.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So we are either in the most elaborate hoax of all time or a God created this place ..

False dichotomy.

you have had no real response to the computer and artistic analogies, just weak claims that it couldn't be designed.

His response was that they fail as analogies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you can't state in your own words any experiment exists that shows any species ever underwent any gradual change as a result of "survival of the fittest".

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

Handwave denial in 3...2...1....

All the experiments and all observation is consistent with my theory so far as I am aware.

Only because you are looking at them while blindfolded with religious doctrine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. Me. You. Everything that exists.

"Me, you, everything that exists" only demonstrates that those things exist. Not how they originated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Such as parts of the fossil record that lead nowhere or never change in successive layers.
It's not a tree, it's a bush with many branches missing.

Fossilization is extremely rare. Nobody expects to find a fossil of every species that ever lived.
Nonetheless, we have plenty of them to unambiguously support evolutionary transitions.

But the real problem is that the idea that one kind of animal becomes another kind is just that, an unproven idea.

Not to mention a strawman.

If "one kind of animal" became "another kind of animal", then evolution theory would be disproven.
Law of monophy: you can't outgrow your ancestry.

The ancestors of humans were mammals. Humans remain mammals. All of human off spring will be mammals. They'll also remain humans. And subspecies thereof.

The common ancestor between dogs and humans was a mammal. Both dogs and humans remain mammals.
The common ancestor between chimps and humans was a primate. Both humans and chimps remain primates.


"one kind of animal" to "another kind of animal" simply doesn't happen in evolution.
Cats will not produce dogs. If they did, evolution would be disproven.



You might want to learn the basics of the basics of the theory that you are so religiously hellbend on arguing against.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You want the definition?
"As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. It works the same with chickens. There are several breeds of chickens, but chickens breed with each other and you still get chickens. So there is a chicken kind. The concept is fairly easy to understand."

So what you really mean is "species"?

What about "mammal"? Is "mammal" a "kind"?

Animals have undergone many changes.But dogs are still part of the dog kind, cats are still part of the cat kind, and so on.

And both are still part of the "mammal" kind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ordered systems or structures do not happen spontaneously in our reality,

Of course, the entire universe teaches us just the opposite. The earth's rotation, the moon cycle, and the predictability of changing seasons are evidence for a creative designer.

Ow dear......................................................

 

[Guitar's Cry]

So you can't state in your own words any experiment exists that shows any species ever underwent any gradual change as a result of "survival of the fittest".

I mentioned this before, but "survival of the fittest" is an outdated phrase in evolutionary science. Scientists understand now that traits are simply passed down through reproduction. The mechanism is genetics, and sometimes genetics that aren't fit for survival survive because individuals are able to reproduce. Often, these traits seem to follow environmental changes, but not always.

What you have here is a belief system as surely as the individual who can't say how or when God came into existence. You believe in "Evolution" with no evidence whatsoever of any type or sort. I'm more inclined to believe in what I can see, touch, or experience. You can play with fossils until they're shiny but you can't see a gradual change in species by any means at all.

All the experiments and all observation is consistent with my theory so far as I am aware.

I'm perfectly happy to be nearly perfectly ignorant. God save us from those who know everything.

What's inconsistent here is you attempt to use (incorrect) scientific analysis of evolution in order to justify a belief that lacks any sort of testable or scientifically observable context. When we stack the scientific data of evolution against the scientific data of a creative being (which as far as I known is nonexistent), scientifically, the scale tips to evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I mentioned this before, but "survival of the fittest" is an outdated phrase in evolutionary science.

Actually... It seems to me that that phrase was never part of evolutionary science and that it rather was a phrase that was coined in popular literature where non-biologists were talking about evolution (in the media and such).

Having said that, the phrase is accurate - on condition that one understand "fittest" in the correct context. That context being that "fit" means "well adapted to the niche / habitat". And NOT "stronger, faster, smarter,..."

In context of specific circumstances of a population "weaker, slower and dumber" could actually contribute more to overall fitness then the opposites.

It's all about selection pressures. "only the strong survive" has nothing to do with evolution.

A T-rex, in that context, is a lot stronger and much higher up the food chain then some rodent that spends his days hiding in bushes. But that didn't stop T-Rex from going extinct while that rodent went on to evolve in (sub)species that currently dominate the planet.


Just thought I'ld point that out


The main problem with that phrase "survival of the fittest" is that, to the layman at least, it gives the impression that evolution / natural selection favours the "strong, fast and smart" over the "weak, slow and dumb". Not true at all.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Actually... It seems to me that that phrase was never part of evolutionary science and that it rather was a phrase that was coined in popular literature where non-biologists were talking about evolution (in the media and such).

Having said that, the phrase is accurate - on condition that one understand "fittest" in the correct context. That context being that "fit" means "well adapted to the niche / habitat". And NOT "stronger, faster, smarter,..."

In context of specific circumstances of a population "weaker, slower and dumber" could actually contribute more to overall fitness then the opposites.

It's all about selection pressures. "only the strong survive" has nothing to do with evolution.

A T-rex, in that context, is a lot stronger and much higher up the food chain then some rodent that spends his days hiding in bushes. But that didn't stop T-Rex from going extinct while that rodent went on to evolve in (sub)species that currently dominate the planet.


Just thought I'ld point that out


The main problem with that phrase "survival of the fittest" is that, to the layman at least, it gives the impression that evolution / natural selection favours the "strong, fast and smart" over the "weak, slow and dumb". Not true at all.

Generally, I agree! Except that traits that have nothing to do with being the fittest for survival get passed on. I would suggest it appears that traits more suited for reproduction are the ones that get passed on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Generally, I agree! Except that traits that have nothing to do with being the fittest for survival get passed on. I would suggest it appears that traits more suited for reproduction are the ones that get passed on.

Actually, when I use the word "survival" in this context, I'm not talking about specific individuals "not dying". I'm rather talking about the entire population / species not going extinct. So "reproduction" is part of that concept of "survival".

In evolution, it is all-encompassing.
For genes to be passed on to a new generation, the hosts of those genes must:
1. survive their childhood (not a given at all in "the wild")
2. further survive until breeding age
3. find a mate
4. successfully reproduce
5. succeed in making that off-spring survive its childhood (so that it at least has a fair chance of carrying on - otherwise it's a genetic dead end anyway)

The "fitness" of any particular individual then, is whatever it takes to maximize the probability of reaching stage 5.

So the "fitness" thingy is "whatever it takes".
For example, take two identical individuals. They are exactly alike in every single sense, except 1: individual A's fur color is slightly brighter then the color of individual B's fur.

Let's now say that females of that species are more attracted to brighter colors. Let's also say for the sake of example that this slight difference in fur color has no other impact whatsoever (so it gives no advantage or disadvantage in terms of hunting or being hunted or whatever)

This would make A "more fit" then B. Even though in terms of physical properties (endurance, stamina, agility, strength, speed, etc etc etc etc etc) they are exactly alike.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Can you point to valid sources that claim that everything happened by some chance fluke?

Take just one idea, that intelligent apes somehow stumbled on how to start fires. There are millions of these kind of flukes that have to happen for evolution to be correct.
Of course there's the big one:
Life can only come from other life. All we’ve ever observed in nature and everything we know about biology confirms that life always comes from other life.

"The evolution of intelligent life is a wildly improbable fluke, research by Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute showed."



Not that I agree with the article that life came about through evolution, but if it could, it would have to be a highly improbable fluke. The odds are astronomically against it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Such as parts of the fossil record that lead nowhere or never change in successive layers.

What does that mean?

Are you aware of genetics? That alone is enough to demonstrate the fact of evolution.

It's not a tree, it's a bush with many branches missing.

'It's not a tree, it's a bush" isn't a "gap in evolutionary theory.."

But the real problem is that the idea that one kind of animal becomes another kind is just that, an unproven idea.

That's not part of the theory of evolution and so also not a "gap in evolutionary theory."

Is that it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually it's defined pretty well so I'm not sure why it's hard to understand.

How is it defined?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Take just one idea, that intelligent apes somehow stumbled on how to start fires.

What do you find so surprising about that?
We also "stumbled" on radio-activity, gun powder, peniciline, etc...
So what?

There are millions of these kind of flukes that have to happen for evolution to be correct.

Figuring out how fire works literally has NOTHING to do with biological evolution.

Life can only come from other life.

How have you determined that?
And what does it have to do with the question you are asked?

All we’ve ever observed in nature and everything we know about biology confirms that life always comes from other life.

Actually, everything we know about biology confirms that there are yet-to-be-discovered processes by which life can originate naturally. There's an entire field dedicated to it called "abiogenesis".

"The evolution of intelligent life is a wildly improbable fluke, research by Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute showed."

1. yahoo is not a proper source

2. here's what happens when I click that link:

Not that I agree with the article that life came about through evolution, but if it could, it would have to be a highly improbable fluke. The odds are astronomically against it.

The odds of any particular specific event are astronomically against it.
My own birth is one of them. First, my dad is an immigrant from 4000 km's away. So a priori, the chances of my mom and my dad meeting up are ridiculously low.
Then, my conception: my dad deposited millions upon millions of sperm cells. Only one of which would have resulted in "me". Any of the others would have resulted in a different human. In fact, if they wouldn't have had sex that day and instead some other day, then again "I" wouldn't have existed, but some other human instead.

The chances of anyone specific being born is so improbable that you have actually better chances of winning the lottery multiple times over.

And that is so for the birth of every single individual that has ever lived.

Ridiculously improbable events happen all the time. Almost every specific event is ridiculously improbable in hindsight.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You want the definition?
"As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. It works the same with chickens. There are several breeds of chickens, but chickens breed with each other and you still get chickens. So there is a chicken kind. The concept is fairly easy to understand."

Animals have undergone many changes.But dogs are still part of the dog kind, cats are still part of the cat kind, and so on.

That's not a definition, it's an example. Please try again.

Are wolves dog "kinds" or the other way around, and how did you determine that? What criteria? How did all these different "kinds" come to be if creatures don't evolve?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Take just one idea, that intelligent apes somehow stumbled on how to start fires. There are millions of these kind of flukes that have to happen for evolution to be correct.
Of course there's the big one:
Life can only come from other life. All we’ve ever observed in nature and everything we know about biology confirms that life always comes from other life.

"The evolution of intelligent life is a wildly improbable fluke, research by Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute showed."



Not that I agree with the article that life came about through evolution, but if it could, it would have to be a highly improbable fluke. The odds are astronomically against it.

Wait, so how do you think we discovered how to build fires? Do you think the gods just gave us fire one day?
And why do you think that is some sort of argument against evolution??