The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

I love that I am like the 20th person to break it to you - You do not understand what "survival of the fittest" refers to in evolution despite having it explained to you dozens of times.

That's pretty convenient: Survival of the fittest = evolution and evolution = survival of the fittest.

Unfortunately it's also a circular argument that is devoid of any meaning. Darwin started with the assumptions that survival of the fittest caused evolution and that populations remain relatively stable over the long term. He could reach no other conclusions than he did.

Just because biologists have a much clearer understanding of "evolution" than they did in Darwin's day doesn't make them right. It doesn't allow them to see that consciousness is the root of behavior and that behavior is the root of change in species.

 

[cladking]

You ignored it when I presented it, troll:

The Believabliltiy of Evolution

It's simply not relevant to anything I'm talking about. I do get a kick out of some of the nonsense generated by refusal to look at "populations" in terms of consciousness.

"Rather, it's proportional to something more abstract — specifically, the effective population size (Ne). In an ideal population of sexually reproducing individuals , Ne will equal Nc. An "ideal" population has the following characteristics, and most deviations will decrease the effective population size:"

The simple fact is every male can not have an opportunity to mate with every female in virtually any "population". Obviously from a reductionistic and mathematical perspective this must be factored out. Ironically every single thing about what cause change in species is factored out at the exact same time. ALL life is individual and there is no such thing as species. All life is based on consciousness. There are mostly only fine distinctions between life and consciousness. Yet all the reductionism ignores life. It ignores individuals. And it can't even define "consciousness". You have reduced reality to a spectra with which you extrapolate the meaning of observation. This would be OK only if these spectra were backed with experiment. They are not.

 

[cladking]

I love that I am like the 20th person to break it to you - You do not understand what "survival of the fittest" refers to in evolution despite having it explained to you dozens of times.

You should be aware that "survival of the fittest" is merely a pejorative phrase for Darwin's conclusions. I believe it is both very apt and so widely used by both believers and disbelievers in "evolution" that it is entirely appropriate. The usage of the term hardly suggests that users have no knowledge of the "theory". My knowledge may be shallow but I certainly know other ways to express his conclusions and the modern theory.

 

[tas8831]

Now you not only parse sentences incorrectly but you ignore parts of them that define the meaning! I said LOCALIZED bottlenecks are the leading cause of genetic diversity and then EXPLAINED how this works yet you ignore it all.

Yes, I know what you said, and I also know it was complete NONSENSE.

You "explanation" was crap - the sort of thing I would expect from someone that has never taken a genetics class.

And I believe you have frequently admitted that you know very little science, so why do you act all uppity when your goofy Make-It-Up-As-I-Go-Along-Phony-Nonsense-Science is laughed at and dismissed?

Bottlenecks REDUCE genetic diversity, Oh Expert on Nothing.

LEARN some science before pretending to know anything about it.


Bottlenecks and founder effects

"Population bottlenecks occur when a population's size is reduced for at least one generation. Because genetic drift acts more quickly to reduce genetic variation in small populations, undergoing a bottleneck can reduce a population's genetic variation by a lot, even if the bottleneck doesn't last for very many generations"​

What is a reduction in genetic variation? A LOSS of alleles.
And what was it you declared via your phony made-up child's science?

Ah, yes:

"There are also localized bottlenecks which introduce (cause) a wider variety of genes."​

Hmmmmm.... Whom to believe?

Actual evolutionary biologists/geneticists or some dude on the internet that gets basic definitions wrong, brags about not have a science education, but presents, as fact, zany counter-factual nonsense that he can never provide evidence for???


Hmmmm.......

My gosh, man.... How can you be this clueless yet so confident?

I mean besides being a creationist of some sort?

 

[tas8831]

It's simply not relevant to anything I'm talking about. I do get a kick out of some of the nonsense generated by refusal to look at "populations" in terms of consciousness.

I omitted the Deepak Chopra crap, as it is all made-up fluff.

People that look at defined scientific entities like "populations" only in terms of made-up crap are bound to vomit up nonsense,.

Which is what you keep doing.

 

[tas8831]

You should be aware that "survival of the fittest" is merely a pejorative phrase for Darwin's conclusions.

Why should I be aware of your made-up nonsense?

Do you fabricate out of thin air EVERYTHING you pretend to know about, or just stuff related to science?

Try READING something - for once - before you keep making a total fool of yourself:

https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letters/darwins-life-letters/darwin-letters1866-survival-fittest

"In place of ‘natural selection’, Wallace suggested that Darwin substitute ‘survival of the fittest’, an expression first used by Herbert Spencer in an 1864 instalment of Principles of biology. (Letter from A. R. Wallace, 2 July 1866.) "​

Now that you have been corrected, if you ever again claim that "survival of the fittest" is merely a pejorative phrase for Darwin's conclusions" I and all those reading will conclude that you are one that cannot tell the truth about things you have been corrected on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why should I be aware of your made-up nonsense?

Do you fabricate out of thin air EVERYTHING you pretend to know about, or just stuff related to science?

Try READING something - for once - before you keep making a total fool of yourself:

https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letters/darwins-life-letters/darwin-letters1866-survival-fittest

"In place of ‘natural selection’, Wallace suggested that Darwin substitute ‘survival of the fittest’, an expression first used by Herbert Spencer in an 1864 instalment of Principles of biology. (Letter from A. R. Wallace, 2 July 1866.) "​

Now that you have been corrected, if you ever again claim that "survival of the fittest" is merely a pejorative phrase for Darwin's conclusions" I and all those reading will conclude that you are one that cannot tell the truth about things you have been corrected on.

Dagblasted. I think I did it again. Went right to your last conclusion based on prior discussions. Sorry about that.

 

[rrobs]

I will gladly try to answer any questions. And I am sure that others will try to help as well.

Well, evolution is as broad of a subject as the scriptures, so I guess you can't say it all in a few paragraphs. Plus, perhaps my knowledge is so out of date that the following questions are irrelevant. If so, let me know.

Do they still say all life came from primordial soup?

On a similar note, do they still hold the big bang theory as the ultimate source of the universe? If that is the case, do they know where the energy came from?

Thanks

 

[rrobs]

Dagblasted. I think I did it again. Went right to your last conclusion based on prior discussions. Sorry about that.

Still, it's a stretch to say you're a fool.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, evolution is as broad of a subject as the scriptures, so I guess you can't say it all in a few paragraphs. Plus, perhaps my knowledge is so out of date that the following questions are irrelevant. If so, let me know.

Do they still say all life came from primordial soup?

On a similar note, do they still hold the big bang theory as the ultimate source of the universe? If that is the case, do they know where the energy came from?

Thanks

A "primordial soup" is an inaccurate term, but most scientists accept that life arose from abiogenesis. That is not evolution. In fact moving the goalposts to abiogenesis is in effect admitting that life is the product of evolution. Evolution deals with life after it existed.

Nor is the Big Bang evolution. But it is the leading explanation for the beginning of our universe as we know it. I could link an excellent video for you. It demonstrates that the universe could have come from nothing. Energy is mostly bookkeeping. And to the current best ability to measure the total energy of the universe astronomers find that the total energy of the universe is zero. The TLDR is that there is both positive and negative energy and they appear to balance out.

But you are far far afield from evolution. Let's not pull a Federal Inmate 06452-017.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Still, it's a stretch to say you're a fool.

You mean someone that doesn't understand science, but denies it anyway? No. I leave that to others.

 

[james bond]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

I've learned water is an universal solvent. This means life needs water, but the building blocks of life cannot form in water. It gets dissolved.

I would give the big bang more credibility if it didn't violate the laws of physics and described things more in detail. The same with abiogenesis which I think is just spontaneous generation updated for today. It's not just peptides, amino acids, and DNA but chirality, molecules, and proteins to have a living cell.

Humpty Dumpty is true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Still, it's a stretch to say you're a fool.

My conclusion from previous attempts at discussion with @cladking are that he has erroneous ideas he has elevated to universal facts on his opinion alone and is closed to evidence-based thinking, valid critique and corrections of his errors.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've learned water is an universal solvent. This means life needs water, but the building blocks of life cannot form in water. It gets dissolved.

I would give the big bang more credibility if it didn't violate the laws of physics and described things more in detail. The same with abiogenesis which I think is just spontaneous generation updated for today. It's not just peptides, amino acids, and DNA but chirality, molecules, and proteins to have a living cell.

Humpty Dumpty is true.

I see others have arrived.

 

[metis]

The BB does not violate the laws of physics as far as quantum mechanics is concerned. Also, stagnant water is like a solvent that allows for more chemicals and matter to mix, thus is very conducive to changing matter.

As for me, I believe there's likely more, and that "more" is God, imo. Just don't ask me to prove it because I can't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've learned water is an universal solvent. This means life needs water, but the building blocks of life cannot form in water. It gets dissolved.

I would give the big bang more credibility if it didn't violate the laws of physics and described things more in detail. The same with abiogenesis which I think is just spontaneous generation updated for today. It's not just peptides, amino acids, and DNA but chirality, molecules, and proteins to have a living cell.

Humpty Dumpty is true.

Seriously, find a reliable source. Not some dishonest discredited ex-scientist.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #409: Jonathan Wells

And what laws of physics does the Big Bang violate?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, evolution is as broad of a subject as the scriptures, so I guess you can't say it all in a few paragraphs. Plus, perhaps my knowledge is so out of date that the following questions are irrelevant. If so, let me know.

Do they still say all life came from primordial soup?

On a similar note, do they still hold the big bang theory as the ultimate source of the universe? If that is the case, do they know where the energy came from?

Thanks

The origin of life is not evolution. Primordial soup is a metaphor.

You are mixing cosmology, biological origins and biological evolution together erroneously. These are different sciences with independent hypotheses and theoretical bases.

All this mixing creates confusion. Is that your intent of is it a basic misunderstanding?

 

[cladking]

And I believe you have frequently admitted that you know very little science,...

I once understood a little of what you think is "science" and mostly from a physics perspective. But I have been a generalist and a metaphysician virtually since I was a child. I may not "know" much science but I understand it better than many scientists. I've long had a unique perspective and since discovering ancient science that perspective has more range and depth. You don't seem to understand that the problem here isn't lack of experimentation so much as it is a failure of interpretation and conclusions. The problem here is look and See Science. It is perfectly natural to extrapolate experimental results and models of these results but the farther afield you get the more likely you are to be wrong. Biologists are extrapolating laboratory results to apply to stone in the shape of bones that didn't even exist when laboratories were invented. We only know what we know and we have no means of knowing that large changes in species are the result of "survival of the fittest". This IS NOT how nature "selects" for genes. Nature selects based on consciousness because consciousness is the root of life and change even if you could show a gradual change. And you can not.

Bottlenecks REDUCE genetic diversity, Oh Expert on Nothing.

LOCALIZED bottlenecks somewhat reduce diversity in the surviving population. This is only logical. But because the bottleneck was created by consciousness and behavior the survivors share some unusual trait and ALL TRAITS, ALL BEHAVIOR are genetic in nature. These genes are reinforced and unusual genes associated with them are reinforced. These "new" genes are suddenly mixed back in with the general population which increases the diversity of genes over time. I believe this is what experiment and observation are REALLY showing.

Your job is to comment on what I'm saying and not to rewrite it.

My gosh, man.... How can you be this clueless yet so confident?

I mean besides being a creationist of some sort?

If I am you'll never figure it out by parsing my words wrong, will you?

 

[cladking]

People that look at defined scientific entities like "populations" only in terms of made-up crap are bound to vomit up nonsense,.

Next you'll be saying that science is only correct within its definitions.

Maybe there's hope for you yet.

 

[james bond]

Seriously, find a reliable source. Not some dishonest discredited ex-scientist.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #409: Jonathan Wells

And what laws of physics does the Big Bang violate?

You need to read better internet websites for your information. The blogger himself is what and Norwegian loon?

Wells isn't a creationist. He's -- Jonathan Wells | Molecular and Cell Biologist and Senior Fellow, Center for Science & Culture. There are many against evolution, including secular scientists.

Give me something that has infinite temperature and infinite density in this world? Or infinite anything? What does one have to be able to have infinity in mathematics?

ETA: What is your degree again? American Loons U? Maybe I should put you on ignore as we can't keep meeting everywhere. Is that okay? Or you can do it.