The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

Facts have a way of changing. Isn't that what scientificos worship, thinking that more time and research gets ever closer to the "facts?"

1. facts are facts. facts don't change

2. "scientificos" don't "worship".

3. More research, study, investigation, data collection,... makes up for an ever deeper understanding of the world, which leads to learning and making progress. You don't like learning and making progress?

 

[exchemist]

Facts have a way of changing. Isn't that what scientificos worship, thinking that more time and research gets ever closer to the "facts?"

Facts do not generally change. As a rule it is understanding that changes, in the light of new facts.

Science deals in observations of nature. These can be treated as facts if sufficiently well corroborated, but a lot of new observation is interpreted with a degree of caution.

Science is an exercise in studying nature and constructing theories that model the physical world ever more accurately and completely. If you want to call ultimate physical reality "the facts" I suppose you can, but it is not very helpful.

 

[gnostic]

Facts have a way of changing. Isn't that what scientificos worship, thinking that more time and research gets ever closer to the "facts?"

Now you are sprouting straw man BS.

STOP MAKING IDIOTIC CLAIMS!​

A religious person worship, not a scientist.

But a scientist can also be religious too, BUT, he or she wouldn’t worship science. A religious person who worked in science or science-related profession, who can still worship god.

Science isn’t a religion, and there are no worshipping involved and no dogma.

If a theory can be corrected because of new data, new evidence, science isn’t dogma.

Religion used dogma and creed, not science.

 

[tas8831]

If you cut the nerve between the MIDDLE OF THE BRAIN and the visual cortex the individual will not experience "sight". But if you throw a ball at his head he'll catch it.

Which nerve is that, by the way? The one between the MIDDLE OF THE BRAIN and the visual cortex?

Into the reptilian brain it is called the optic nerve(s). I don't know what it's called past it but i';m sure you do.

later...

Yes, of course I know what it is called. Because I know anatomy and neuroanatomy. I have had graduate training in both, and have taught both at the university level. And that is how I know that you do not.

The optic nerves carry impulses from the retina to the thalamus (which is sort of on the 'middle' of the brain).
From there, the optic radiations convey the impulses to the visual cortex.

There is no one "nerve" in the optic radiations:

You have been repeatedly corrected on your anatomical ignorance, yet you often keep making the same erroneous claims.
This phony baloney about 'ancient language' and how only you understand it all is total BS.
You are simply not nearly as knowledgeable on these things as you want to think you are.

To quote that great creationist Jerry Bergman:

"A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about."​

As a creationist, he then went on to violate his own implied maxim, but he does make a good point. This is why I seldom, if ever, comment about physics or math or geology, expect perhaps for some generic stuff.

A pity that so few creationists recognize their limitations.

 

[tas8831]

Facts have a way of changing.

No they don't.

Was that an inference on your part, or a guess?

 

[cladking]

I responded:
Here you go - prove it. Because, golly, when I did a keyword search, neither "stable" nor "population" shows up...

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

He used the word "number" 293 times. You should find it in one of these sentences.

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."

You drive a car but you don't make it go. There is an engine that makes it go wherever the driver points it. The "driver" is consciousness and behavior and running into the tree was a result of Look and See Science.

Species change not as a result of the intention of the driver because there is no known entity that drives it. "Driver" is just a word and you parsed it wrong just as you are "intentionally" parsing my every word incorrectly. I try to parse your words to make sense because I know they do. You assume mine don't so you make no attempt. I understand my fluid perspective makes some things harder to understand but each sentence stands on its own and like EVERYONE I use all the meanings of each word. Once you incorrectly parse "driver" you want to adhere to the error.

Behavior is at the root of change in species because nature selects for behavior, and consciousness is FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES the origin of behavior. Since consciousness is derived in large measure from genetic information in the INDIVIDUAL it fools us into believing genes directly and survival of the fittest indirectly account for "evolution". This perspective is WRONG. Consciousness, behavior, and the genetic origins of these change species by means of population bottlenecks accounting for all observed evidence.

 

[tas8831]

No, the "ancients" (whoever it is you are referring to, btw) didn't know about micro-organisms.
Like many people before and after them, they noticed that it's probably a good idea to avoid contact with ill people if possible, sure.

But they didn't know about micro organisms.

On a related note - a creationist I had encountered years ago claimed, like clad, that the bible people did know about microbes, and that is why there are rituals (in Leviticus maybe?) in which Oil of Hyssop is used to anoint the walls and such in the home of the leper.
Why? Because, this creationist claimed, Oil of Hyssop contains "50% antibacterials."

I posted a list of the components in Oil of Hyssop (it was actually oregano oil, if I remember correctly - hyssop is a group of plants and the bible did not specify which one) and there was actually only a couple of things known to have mild antibacterial activity, it amounted to like 3%.

My post was deleted and he banned me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He used the word "number" 293 times. You should find it in one of these sentences.

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."

You drive a car but you don't make it go. There is an engine that makes it go wherever the driver points it. The "driver" is consciousness and behavior and running into the tree was a result of Look and See Science.

Species change not as a result of the intention of the driver because there is no known entity that drives it. "Driver" is just a word and you parsed it wrong just as you are "intentionally" parsing my every word incorrectly. I try to parse your words to make sense because I know they do. You assume mine don't so you make no attempt. I understand my fluid perspective makes some things harder to understand but each sentence stands on its own and like EVERYONE I use all the meanings of each word. Once you incorrectly parse "driver" you want to adhere to the error.

Behavior is at the root of change in species because nature selects for behavior and consciousness is FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES the origin of behavior. Since consciousness is derived in large measure from genetic information in the INDIVIDUAL it fools us into believing genes directly and survival of the fittest indirectly account for "evolution". This perspective is WRONG. Consciousness, behavior, and the genetic origins of these change species by means of population bottlenecks accounting for all observed evidence.

Individual A outcompetes individual B in survival and reproduction, because A happened to be immune to infection X because of genetic mutation Z, while B didn't.

Individual A outcompetes individual B in survival and reproduction, because the color of its fur was more in tune with the "background" of the habitat, making it harder for predators to see them, while B stood out with his bright colors during the hunt.

Individual A outcompetes individual B in spreading its genes, because A had a mutation that made it more appealing to potential mates, and thereby out-reproduced the competition.


Where's the "conscious behaviour" as a driving factor in the selection process in each of these examples?

 

[tas8831]

He used the word "number" 293 times. You should find it in one of these sentences.

Right, because "number" = "population remains stable".

Of course - that must be from that Ancient Language that you pretend to be the only person that knows of...

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."

You drive a car but you don't make it go. There is an engine that makes it go wherever the driver points it. The "driver" is consciousness and behavior and running into the tree was a result of Look and See Science.

Make it up as you go fake science - that which you employ - cannot hang in the real world. You think that writing the same things over and over = lots of evidence.

It doesn't.

it just reveals how out of your league you are.

Unless you want to claim that mutation is behavioral, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Without the 'raw material' of mutation, selection has nothing to act on, and thus 'behavior' is irrelevant as a driver of evolution - if the trait never arose in the first place (via mutation), the selectable behaviors would not exist.

Species change not as a result of the intention of the driver because there is no known entity that drives it.

Correct - but surely you do not think speciation is like driving a car?

Why no actual evidence for anything you claim?

"Driver" is just a word and you parsed it wrong just as you are "intentionally" parsing my every word incorrectly.

So, you ignored that I actually cited about 7 times in which you claimed behavior, not "survival of the fittest", is what cases evolution?

You know - just as my recent response re: optic nerves demonstrates, you would do well to spend some time actually learning about the things you pontificate on. Then you might be able to use relevant, appropriate language and would not come across as an ignorant, arrogant Dunning-Kruger effect sufferer.
I doubt it, but it is possible.

I try to parse your words to make sense because I know they do. You assume mine don't so you make no attempt.

I am fully aware of things like metaphorical language. When people that know the material use such language, I can parse it fine. In fact, I just sort of used some such language when I referred to 'selection' acting on things - that is metaphorical, and biologists understand that.

But you claim speciation is sudden. You claim it is all about behavior. You claim 'artificial' bottlenecks are different from real ones, genetically. You claim that 'driver' means something other than what any other person thinks it does, but cannot explain it or provide evidence. In the context of biological change, any rational person would parse 'drive' to mean 'to cause to happen'. But not you... I guess...
You offer no actual evidence for any of these.
Because you don't know what you are talking about, and that has nothing to do with me incorrectly parsing your idiosyncratic gibberish, it has to do with you never being able to provide anything resembling evidence or support for your counterfactual claims.

Behavior is at the root of change in species because nature selects for behavior and consciousness is FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES the origin of behavior.

You have written that or something similar dozens of times, yet can offer nothing in its support beyond your say-so.

As you can present no reason to be taken seriously, nobody does, and they are correct.

 

[tas8831]

Individual A outcompetes individual B in survival and reproduction, because A happened to be immune to infection X because of genetic mutation Z, while B didn't.

Individual A outcompetes individual B in survival and reproduction, because the color of its fur was more in tune with the "background" of the habitat, making it harder for predators to see them, while B stood out with his bright colors during the hunt.

Individual A outcompetes individual B in spreading its genes, because A had a mutation that made it more appealing to potential mates, and thereby out-reproduced the competition.


Where's the "conscious behaviour" as a driving factor in the selection process in each of these examples?

You're not parsing it correctly.

 

[cladking]

"A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about."

I don't suppose you've seen any of my various rants about how the human species is imploding and fast approaching Tower of Babel 2.0?

This is being caused by specialization. Every individual with two brain cells to rub together is being trained as a specialist. Even machine operators and garbagemen tend to be specialists now days. Everything from print shops to the federal government is being run by specialists and committees of specialists. In business the left hand never knows what the right hand is doing. The right hand shoves nickels in the right pocket sometimes causing dollars to fly out the left. CEO's destroy products so they can personally reap short term gains but this is invisible to the other specialists that oversee sections or aspects of that business. It can even be overlooked by the CEO himself because he is a specialist as well (usually in knowing whom to shmooze). Yet there is no specialty for "metaphysics" and there are no "generalists". Few people understand the concept of a "nexialist" (a generalist with in depth knowledge and multiple specialties/ polymath).

We are imploding because the entire race is working against itself. Education is a shambles and Look and See Science is running rampant and steering for the forest they can't see for the trees.

With the remarkable amount of knowledge we have today specialization is a necessity. But getting in a car driven by committee is suicide.

 

[cladking]

Without the 'raw material' of mutation, selection has nothing to act on, and thus 'behavior' is irrelevant as a driver of evolution - if the trait never arose in the first place (via mutation), the selectable behaviors would not exist.

No. Mutation is the second leading cause in change in species in the majority of instances. Obviously it can be primary in any specific case.

It's not just the result of bottlenecks though. There are also localized bottlenecks which introduce (cause) a wider variety of genes. When bottlenecks occur only locally the population changes but then it interbreeds again and these changes are "lost" or at least they become invisible to cursory observation.

I mentioned earlier that I created a new species of fly. They couldn't see it because it's outside of their experience and beliefs. It's relevant now. I've killed every visible housefly in a local area every few hours for several weeks. You must be careful to be sure you get them all each time. This will create a new species I call "upside down flies". These flies are a little slimmer, much faster, and they usually land (or hide) on the underside of furniture. Withing a generation of cessation of such pressure the species reverts to the slow, fat, sugar eating, dirty, and annoying drones we all know know and love. But their genes live on providing the species of "flies" with a little more genetic diversity to survive almost anything. But it will be those individuals with the "upside down" genes which survive an event that kills all flies that are right side up. It is not "natural" for a fly to be on the bottom of a table covered in spilt syrup and crumbs of meat.

I maintain that this is all part of "real science" and not modern science and not Look and see Science. It is real science because it is interwoven with real knowledge and a different metaphysics. It is observation and logic which is quite similar to ancient science, bee science, or beaver science. It is derived from consciousness rather than the metaphysics of modern science. It is primitive, mostly informal, and prone to error and it has even more severe limitations than ancient science but I believe it still is "real" in at least some instances.

 

[cladking]

A population is a set of individuals.
In biology, it's a closed set of individuals within wich reproduction occurs.

I wanbted to overlook this nonsense but people are persisting in this.

All individuals in a "species" are not fertile or mature. Some individuals will never even copulate much less produce off spring or viable off spring. No individual ever has parented an entire species or mated with every other individual.

There is no such thing as "species" because the referent is a null set. No two individuals are alike so this makes the word "species" nothing more than a reductionism that exists in modern language. Ancient Language had no words for reductionism, taxonomies, "belief", or "thought". It broke Zipf's Law and no linguist ever even noticed any of this!!! We see "species" because our brains are programmed to see "species" by modern languages that are metaphoric and symbolic by nature. We can't think of any other thing to call a rabbit or living such that we can't "think" at all. We think animals act on instinct and are unconscious because they just don't get metaphor and symbols. The reality is our brains are programmed by a language which determines not only the words in which we think but also what we see and how we see it. The Tower of Babel was "real" but it is invisible to most of us. "Survival of the fittest is not real but we see it because of our perspective that emphasizes "irrelevancies".

 

[cladking]

Why no actual evidence for anything you claim?

If you parsed my words correctly you'd see a great deal of evidence.

Much of the evidence that supports any part of my theory is not consistent with models and what people believe. It's very hard for anyone to see anything that flies in the face of beliefs.

 

[cladking]

You know - just as my recent response re: optic nerves demonstrates, you would do well to spend some time actually learning about the things you pontificate on. Then you might be able to use relevant, appropriate language and would not come across as an ignorant, arrogant Dunning-Kruger effect sufferer.

Yes. I understand that this is exactly why I get little support. I speak in tautologies and authoritatively in subjects where my depth of knowledge is nearly nonexistent. I know very little outside of a couple of wholly irrelevant specialties. Egyptologists hear my musings and rarely even told me where I was wrong because it wasn't "worth their time".

But specialists while extremely knowledgeable (and highly valuable) are very poor in most cases at relating their knowledge outside of their specialty. This is the ONLY THING I can do; see the relationships between specialties. And much of my knowledge of specialization is woefully out of date.

 

[tas8831]

Why no actual evidence for anything you claim?

If you parsed my words correctly you'd see a great deal of evidence. ...It's very hard for anyone to see anything that flies in the face of beliefs.

Parsing has nothing to do with it. 'Flying in the face of beliefs' has nothing to do with it.

When you claim that an infant can decide to grow a broccas area, there is nothing to parse - that claim is absurd on its face.

When you claim that cutting a nerve from the middle of the brain to the visual cortex does X, that claim is absurd on the face of it because there IS NO such nerve.

And so on down the line.

You merely stringing together fantasies premised on your shallow grasp of the things you want to discuss is NOT evidence.

Here is an example of how, when asked for evidence, a more or less sane, rational, educated adult goes about responding:

Where is the evidence that shows that the process of random mutations and natural selection are responsible for all (or most) of the diversity of life ?

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:
Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

[...]

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

[...]

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

[...]


We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.

Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

[...]

Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

[...]

A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

[...]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION:
This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.​

I edited out most of the verbiage for brevity, but you see how simple and straightforward I am when asked for evidence? This is how pretty much EVERY evolutionist on this forum responds when asked for evidence - they actually present some. Evidence that anyone can check out for themselves. No mere series of repeated assertions, riddled with errors and ignorance, claimed to BE evidence.

I do not simply claim 'I already listed a whole bunch, not my fault you missed it.'

i did not write 5 paragraphs of gibberish simply reiterating my original assertion and then claiming that others just can't parse my assertions to see the 'evidence' I presented.

See how it works in real life?

 

[cladking]

​

I edited out most of the verbiage for brevity, but you see how simple and straightforward I am when asked for evidence? This is how pretty much EVERY evolutionist on this forum responds when asked for evidence - they actually present some.

So why not just present evidence showing a large change in a complex species being caused by gradual change or survival of the fittest?

Yet over and over I present extensive evidence for ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES TO BE SUDDEN; in a word "agriculture". But you can't even see it much less respond to it.

Death of individuals doesn't occur on a geological scale of time. No committee has ever had an idea and no species is conscious.

These aren't just words but incontrovertible fact and you can't even understand it because you have your own circular argument that nowhere intersects mine. You simply will not see the countless quadrillions of facts nor the logic here. You can't see that nature is a manifestation of logic and your "theory of evolution" is a product chiefly of taxonomies, reductionism, thought, and belief all expressed in a language that obeys Zipf's Law and underlying your models. You can't see that reality unfolds in a way that is far more infinitely complex than any concept of "infinity" yet it is still finite. You have reduced reality to what can be held in models and failed to notice the countless and continuing anomalies caused by these models.

While you have no evidence you can still berate me for not having evidence or logic because this is how YOUR models work. Mine are different. In your world it simply doesn't matter that there are no two identical objects in existence. You force all of reality into a mathematical framework that is not representative of what exists or how it came to be.

 

[cladking]

Death of individuals doesn't occur on a geological scale of time.

I've been to weddings that just seem to drag on and some that fly by but take forever to get over the hangover (especially for the groom), but I've never heard of one that lasts for as long as "survival of the fittest".

...And she'd probably still win anyway.

All OBSERVED change in life is sudden.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So why not just present evidence showing a large change in a complex species being caused by gradual change or survival of the fittest?

Yet over and over I present extensive evidence for ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES TO BE SUDDEN; in a word "agriculture". But you can't even see it much less respond to it.

Death of individuals doesn't occur on a geological scale of time. No committee has ever had an idea and no species is conscious.

These aren't just words but incontrovertible fact and you can't even understand it because you have your own circular argument that nowhere intersects mine. You simply will not see the countless quadrillions of facts nor the logic here. You can't see that nature is a manifestation of logic and your "theory of evolution" is a product chiefly of taxonomies, reductionism, thought, and belief all expressed in a language that obeys Zipf's Law and underlying your models. You can't see that reality unfolds in a way that is far more infinitely complex than any concept of "infinity" yet it is still finite. You have reduced reality to what can be held in models and failed to notice the countless and continuing anomalies caused by these models.

While you have no evidence you can still berate me for not having evidence or logic because this is how YOUR models work. Mine are different. In your world it simply doesn't matter that there are no two identical objects in existence. You force all of reality into a mathematical framework that is not representative of what exists or how it came to be.

The evidence does not show change in populations is sudden. Even in conditions of punctuated equilibria, change is not instantaneous.

You are correct. I do not see quadrillions of facts or logic in your claims. What I think I see is a contrarian.

 

[cladking]

The evidence does not show change in populations is sudden.

So where is your evidence showing gradual change in complex species caused by survival of the fittest? You have none not because it is so hard to acquire, you have none because it doesn't exist and it doesn't exist because it doesn't happen this way (to any significant degree).

Meanwhile ALL OBSERVED CHANGE TO ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN and not gradual.