The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

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

...And how curious is it that most evolution believers think that life arose spontaneously? Now that is irony of Biblical proportions.

 

[tas8831]

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

WHERE???????

Point to A SINGLE POST in which you have done anything remotely similar to what I demonstrated above.

Was it your Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along-If-It-Fits-My-Zany-Narrative- Science about mink?

The one that you merely asserted, and had ZERO evidence for?

You clearly have no idea what evidence even is.

for ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES TO BE SUDDEN; in a word "agriculture". But you can't even see it much less respond to it.

And we are back to square one.

How does the word "agriculture" show that "ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES TO BE SUDDEN"?????

The word "agriculture" is not evidence for anything other than you knowing a big word and being able to actually spell it correctly.

Provide EVIDENCE, as I did in my example, regarding your claim that "agriculture" is evidence that "ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES TO BE SUDDEN".

You won't, of course, and we will all have a good laugh at your flailing.

 

[tas8831]

...And how curious is it that most evolution believers think that life arose spontaneously? Now that is irony of Biblical proportions.

Still no evidence for anything.

 

[tas8831]

So where is your evidence showing gradual change in complex species caused by survival of the fittest?

And there is instance #48 of you pretending to understand "survival of the fittest" yet actually showing how ignorant you are of the topic.

Why do you think you, of all people, deserve a free pass on presenting evidence?

But, just to prove how wrong and out of your league you are yet again:

Genetic Drift and Effective Population Size | Learn Science at Scitable

"If we set p to 0.5, then one or the other allele should drift to fixation, on average, in 2.77 Ne generations. This would be 13,863 generations for a population with Ne equal to 5,000. However, if p is 0.25 (or 0.75), E(T) drops to 11,246 generations, and if p is 0.1 (or 0.9), E(T) drops considerably to only 6,502 generations. Moreover, if p is 0.01 (or 0.99), we can expect fixation to occur in just 1,120 generations."​

That is for genetic drift, not adaptive evolution, but it is theoretically possible (and in the case of some bivalves, documented via the fossil record) for genetic drift to produce new species.

I started looking for information on rates of adaptive evolution and speciation, but I figured - why bother? If I can find an example, an actual published treatment of the estimated rates of change (based on data), why cannot you do the same for your mere assertion premised on your Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along-If-It-Fits-My-Zany-Narrative- Science?

 

[tas8831]

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.

WOW!

Such AMAZING insights! All this time, I totally believed that EVERY SINGLE member of a species gave birth!

Good thing your Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along-If-It-Fits-My-Zany-Narrative- Science is showing me the way! Gosh... Maybe that is why speciation actually is not sudden?

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.

Yada yada yada - Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along-If-It-Fits-My-Zany-Narrative- Science in action.

What nonsense - whoever said that the members of a species are identical? Stupid...

Ancient Language had no words for reductionism, taxonomies, "belief", or "thought".

More made-up nonsense.

What is this Ancient Language and why on earth should anyone give a flying turd as it no longer exists (never did - all just fake nonsense that you made up) and has no relevance at all to this discussion re: your 100% inability to engage in honest debate?

delete insane gibberish
"Survival of the fittest is not real but we see it because of our perspective that emphasizes "irrelevancies".

Seeing as how you cannot seem to comprehend what "survival of the fittest" actually means, and have no concept as to what "evidence" is, you just come across like the crazy guy on the corner shouting at the clouds.

 

[cladking]

Seeing as how you cannot seem to comprehend what "survival of the fittest" actually means, and have no concept as to what "evidence" is, you just come across like the crazy guy on the corner shouting at the clouds.

It's hard to argue with someone who knows everything except single one of those "countless quadrillions of facts" presented earlier or any evidence to support gradual change.

I don't need to know how to spell "agriculture". I merely need to get a close enough approximation for spell check to do it for me.

Speaking of which it's even more curious believers accept the spontaneous advent of life while the Bible at least says it took 7 days.

Personally I believe that life was not really spontaneous nor terrestrial. Life began when the first organism achieved consciousness but this occurred by successive approximations. Once there was consciousness it was self propagating.

If you return to responding to my posts I'll address your arguments.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

I would just like to chime in here and say that repeating the same wrong argument over and over doesn’t make it any more right.

 

[cladking]

I would just like to chime in here and say that repeating the same wrong argument over and over doesn’t make it any more right.

Do you have evidence for gradual change of the type described?

Obviously my repetition of the statement doesn't make it true but I believe all observation really does suggest it is true.

There is no evidence of a 'missing link" between wolves and dogs so why would we expect evidence of a missing link between giraffes and a short ancestor? I contend most "missing links" are missing because they don't exist even if this gets less true as more fossils are actually found.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

This is your answer? Really?

More than enough evidence is widely available for anyone to review. And I have seen others present you with the evidence. What is not even in limited availability and what I have not seen from you is your evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's hard to argue with someone who knows everything except single one of those "countless quadrillions of facts" presented earlier or any evidence to support gradual change.

I don't need to know how to spell "agriculture". I merely need to get a close enough approximation for spell check to do it for me.

Speaking of which it's even more curious believers accept the spontaneous advent of life while the Bible at least says it took 7 days.

Personally I believe that life was not really spontaneous nor terrestrial. Life began when the first organism achieved consciousness but this occurred by successive approximations. Once there was consciousness it was self propagating.

If you return to responding to my posts I'll address your arguments.

@tas8831 is correct you are operating under some kind of make it up as you go along pseudoscience.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

To be fair after straw men and complete fabrication, ignoring or banning is the main creationist argument against science and evidence.T

That's a very, very, very important 3%. It's super serial guys.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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".

You make no sense at all.

It's perfectly fine to define logical sets of things that belong together.

 

[tas8831]

It's hard to argue with someone who knows everything except single one of those "countless quadrillions of facts" presented earlier or any evidence to support gradual change.

You have not present 1 quadrillion facts supported of your mere repeated assertions.

blabber blabber no evidence yammer yammer excuses for having no evidence blubber blubber.

Is this how the goofus maximus admits that he has no evidence for his dopey Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along-If-It-Fits-My-Zany-Narrative-Science?

Pathetic.

 

[tas8831]

Do you have evidence for gradual change of the type described?

Obviously my repetition of the statement doesn't make it true but I believe all observation really does suggest it is true.

There is no evidence of a 'missing link" between wolves and dogs so why would we expect evidence of a missing link between giraffes and a short ancestor? I contend most "missing links" are missing because they don't exist even if this gets less true as more fossils are actually found.

Who cares what you contend? Your goofy Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along-If-It-Fits-My-Zany-Narrative- Science is the hogwash of the ignorant Dunning-Krugerite.

 

[tas8831]

Do you have evidence for gradual change of the type described?

You didn't like my evidence?

Or are you too ignorant to understand it?

Where is your evidence for sudden change?

Provide 1 of the guadrillion facts you claim to have presented for it.

If you cannot do that, you will have no recourse but to admit you are just an annoying troll with no integrity or sense.

 

[tas8831]

It's hard to argue with someone who knows everything except single one of those "countless quadrillions of facts" presented earlier or any evidence to support gradual change.

I don't need to know how to spell "agriculture". I merely need to get a close enough approximation for spell check to do it for me.

Speaking of which it's even more curious believers accept the spontaneous advent of life while the Bible at least says it took 7 days.

Personally I believe that life was not really spontaneous nor terrestrial. Life began when the first organism achieved consciousness but this occurred by successive approximations. Once there was consciousness it was self propagating.

If you return to responding to my posts I'll address your arguments.

Look at the flailing!

 

[cladking]

You make no sense at all.

It's perfectly fine to define logical sets of things that belong together.

It is "fine" only because it's necessary to use models and taxonomies to think about our beliefs. But it is not "logical" because nothing in modern language can be logical. Mathematics is logical and computer language is logical but words are not and can't be arranged such that they become logical. We must use reductionististic words not only or not even principally to organize our world but as mnemonics to remember what we do know and as a framework for the metaphysics that define our science and allow communication in science.

The problem is almost everybody all the time is is confusing the construct for reality. We build models of our beliefs and we compare our sensory input to these models. We see ONLY in terms of these models. Over time we build additions and add to them to better reflect what we choose to believe is representative of reality and always are prone to confuse the model for reality itself. Since all of our beliefs are reflected in these models they are like an organic life form that grows from what has been already built. In other words they grow in highly predictable ways because they do reflect existing belief. We become our beliefs because we filter all experience and knowledge through these models. We are a species that each individual is a manifestation of a circular argument. It's what we do; live to see we were right all along. It's simply caused by seeing only what we believe.

I'm not at all suggesting that we need to stop or curtail the use of such mnemonics or that science can't better assign things to their proper groups as time goes by. I do believe that we are reaching the end of scientific progress using the tools of reductionism and experiment and I do believe that there are new tools that can be far more effective but humans have no choice but to organize their knowledge exactly as we do. Rather what I'm suggesting is that our thought can be better understood and this understanding can provide insights into what is already known and into metaphysics. More specifically I believe that our (biology's) current perspective into "evolution" is so bad that we can't see what is actually there.

People are not providing evidence I'm wrong OR evidence they are right. No one has yet shown a change in any sort of life that is gradual. No one has challenged my notion that one moment a couple is not married then virtually in the next, they are. Instead they choose not to see it. They choose not to see upside down flies. They choose not to see the effects of ancient agricultural theory in the production of farm animals and crops.

They choose to redefine my terms so that their current perspective can still be appropriate.

Only I get to define the terms I use. You can parse my sentence to mean anything and this is exactly what most are doing. Rather than entertain the notion that language couldn't have originated in bits and pieces and evidence clearly shows it did not, rather than see that changes are sudden, rather than addressing my argument they instead try to straighten me out. It's a difficult idea that there really was a "tower of babel" and a real live Adam really did name the animals. It's difficult for anyone to see anything at all from the perspective of ancient knowledge or from a modern day generalist. It's difficult to grasp the idea that reality to modern humans is a concept and our concept is mostly determined by a perspective we inherited with language that arose from the dust of the Tower of Babel. It's hard to believe that nobody really knows anything and all we have to discover what's real going forward is metaphysics because in all probability the tool we call experiment has reached about the end of its usefulness. We have devolved into Look and See Science that is taking us ever farther from reality. We are committing a slow suicide and only Tower of Babel 2.0 might save us but the result is far from certain and both the change and its effects will be thrust upon us.

 

[tas8831]

Only I get to define the terms I use.

No wonder it so frequently appears that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is "fine" only because it's necessary to use models and taxonomies to think about our beliefs.

It's necessary because otherwise communication is impossible.

When I tell you about felines, you immediatly now what group of animals I am speaking off. Same with mammals or homo sapiens.

Or Americans. Or asians. Or fruit as opposed to vegetables.

But it is not "logical" because nothing in modern language can be logical.

Yawn.

I'm just going to skip over the rest of the gibber-gabber. I just don't have the energy right now.

 

[cladking]

We are committing a slow suicide and only Tower of Babel 2.0 might save us but the result is far from certain and both the change and its effects will be thrust upon us.

From the perspective of all living people it is a slow suicide. From the perspective of "evolutionary changes" man's extinction would be quite "sudden".

No wonder it so frequently appears that you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you say my sentences are too long and it's hard to understand them it would be pretty silly to think you believe I had gotten 40 years for littering and 7 years for breaking a mirror.

I don't get to choose or define the words you use and you can't decide the meaning of my words. Our job is to understand the author, not rewrite him. You don't care if you parse my words correctly or not because you already know I'm just a creationist and probably even a Christian. I'm a bible thumping, science denying hothead who thinks he understands two different metaphysics so it's better not to understand me.

But then you probably never gave a second thought to metaphysics, thought, the nature of consciousness, how language works or how language arose. You've never thought about how animals think and experience the world so you aren't even aware you are parsing my words at all. You probably think every word has a definition and we all use it all the time. You don't remember learning language and wouldn't know how to teach it. You don't even realize that two people observing the same thing necessarily see two entirely different things. You believe that you see the world in terms of known facts and theory and all scientists do the same.

Despite the fact I continually assail each of your beliefs you just ignore and persist. When every premise is wrong it's almost impossible for our models to be right and this is what we have with the "theory" of evolution; every premise is wrong. Only by seeing "evolution" from the perspective of individual consciousness are its causes more easily seen. "Natural selection" exerts almost no pressure on causing change of species; principally it merely makes species "healthier" in the specific niche. "Survival" is not so much predicated on "fitness" as it is on luck and happenstance, anyway.

Bad premises lead to bad observation and bad conclusions. This is why look and See Science doesn't work. Only experiment can strip away premises and help assure proper interpretation and conclusion.

How ironic is it that modern mystics assail the science that still survives in religion and believe they are doing the right thing. I'm a huge fan of real science but I detest superstition.