The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

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.

If you'll read it more closely you'll see that it is actually from Spencer.

"...and I think it may be done without difficulty & very effectually by adopting Spencer’s term (which he generally uses in preference to Nat. Selection) viz. “Survival of the fittest.”5"

My source for its initial usage as a pejorative terms is not very good and Spencer is apparently a supporter of Darwin. I've already tracked it back further before losing all interest. I've done hundreds of thousands of such searches and all the others were more interesting to me.

It certainly "sounds" like someone making fun of Darwin.

All the funnier that he adopted it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.



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.



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

You could have saved yourself a lot of words here. What you are saying is 'I know more about science than scientsts. How do I know this? I said so'.

Every creationist argument ever.

You haven't got a clue what genetic bottleneck is either. Just made up claims against the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

I still want to go with Poe, but I think this guy is serious.

 

[cladking]

...ALL TRAITS, ALL BEHAVIOR are genetic in nature.

Obviously even consciousness has roots in genetics. It's not nature vs nurture because all characteristics are nature and all consciousness is nurture.

Just as every atom in the universe is intimately related everything about the individual is intimately related and both nature and nurture are intimately related. We take things apart for study, we reduce reality to definitions and experiments, but we put them back together at our own risk.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you'll read it more closely you'll see that it is actually from Spencer.

"...and I think it may be done without difficulty & very effectually by adopting Spencer’s term (which he generally uses in preference to Nat. Selection) viz. “Survival of the fittest.”5"

My source for its initial usage as a pejorative terms is not very good and Spencer is apparently a supporter of Darwin. I've already tracked it back further before losing all interest. I've done hundreds of thousands of such searches and all the others were more interesting to me.

It certainly "sounds" like someone making fun of Darwin.

All the funnier that he adopted it.

So even knowing the facts, you chose to ignore them. I knew there was a reason I stopped engaging you. I believe I will return to the clear path.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Sorry, my source tops your source. It is honest for one thing. Wells is a failed scientist. He relies on the false peer review of creationists. And he is is creationist. What makes you think that he is not?

In fact your link is a creationist link. What do you think that the Center for Science and Culture is?


Center for Science and Culture | Discovering Intelligent Design

It is the Discovery Toot. That is the organization that resulted in the Dover Trial. Do you remember that? That is where every creationist argument was destroyed and a conservative creationist judge found against them.


If you want to go over his claims that is fine with me. He has been refuted countless times so it will be rather boring refuting him again. At best he uses strawman arguments when he tries to argue against evolution.

And I answered your question. When you start responding to questions then you can ask again. Until then reread the thread where you asked it.

 

[cladking]

So even knowing the facts, you chose to ignore them. I knew there was a reason I stopped engaging you. I believe I will return to the clear path.

Did you read my post.

That's a rhetorical question?


It's much easier to hit a button to quote a post than to read it and try to understand it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you read my post.

That's a rhetorical question?


It's much easier to hit a button to quote a post than to read it and try to understand it.

I have read and understood your posts. The message overall is that you are right and science is wrong, because you say so. There is nothing from that to continue discussion with.

 

[cladking]

...Then you haven't read and understood any of my posts.

I have never even suggested that science is wrong.



I have said repeatedly that Look and See Science isn't science at all and if it's ever right it is only through coincidence and the simple fact that some things are exactly what they appear. It's even possible that fossils demonstrate a gradual change in species.

 

[rrobs]

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.

Thanks. Yeah, I know neither is technically evolution, but unless I'm mistaken, both the universe had to come into existence somehow and their had to be some "first life" before any evolution could have taken place. Preliminaries, if you will.

I did look on the internet at some basics of evolution. I can't help but see that it has not really changed that much since I went to school. Of course there is some differences in the experiments that have been carried out, but I don't see them affecting the overall ideas that much. I think there are way more holes than substance in the current theory.

I do accept evolution within a genus. Genesis does say God created animals "after it's kind" with the word "kind" being "genos" in Greek. Monkeys have certainly evolved into other species of monkeys, but I really don't see any evidence other than pictures and diagrams that a monkey became a man, or any other genus becoming another genus. Is their such evidence. I understand that the whole idea of family, genus, species, etc are man made for a means of classification. I guess it all comes down to, have they found the proverbial missing link? I understand the monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. Is there much evidence of whatever life forms led off into the direction of each?

Are these even valid questions?????

Take care

 

[rrobs]

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

I would venture to say we are all fools in our own way. Why bring that up in a supposedly intelligent discussion? That's all I was saying.

 

[rrobs]

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.

Well, not being familiar with the said your previous discussions with cladking, I should probably just keep quite. Context is everything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would venture to say we are all fools in our own way. Why bring that up in a supposedly intelligent discussion? That's all I was saying.

Those were your words, not mine. What are you talking about?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, not being familiar with the said your previous discussions with cladking, I should probably just keep quite. Context is everything.

Sounds good.

 

[rrobs]

The origin of life is not evolution.

Of course not, but we can't have the latter without the former. Or can we?

Primordial soup is a metaphor.

No wonder I can't find it in the grocery story! I'll stop looking. Thanks. (Just kidding)

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?

No relationship whatsoever between them? Maybe not, I don't know, I'm just asking.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks. Yeah, I know neither is technically evolution, but unless I'm mistaken, both the universe had to come into existence somehow and their had to be some "first life" before any evolution could have taken place. Preliminaries, if you will.

I did look on the internet at some basics of evolution. I can't help but see that it has not really changed that much since I went to school. Of course there is some differences in the experiments that have been carried out, but I don't see them affecting the overall ideas that much. I think there are way more holes than substance in the current theory.

I do accept evolution within a genus. Genesis does say God created animals "after it's kind" with the word "kind" being "genos" in Greek. Monkeys have certainly evolved into other species of monkeys, but I really don't see any evidence other than pictures and diagrams that a monkey became a man, or any other genus becoming another genus. Is their such evidence. I understand that the whole idea of family, genus, species, etc are man made for a means of classification. I guess it all comes down to, have they found the proverbial missing link? I understand the monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. Is there much evidence of whatever life forms led off into the direction of each?

Are these even valid questions?????

Take care

If someone does not understand the Bible would you support their dismissal of it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks. Yeah, I know neither is technically evolution, but unless I'm mistaken, both the universe had to come into existence somehow and their had to be some "first life" before any evolution could have taken place. Preliminaries, if you will.

I did look on the internet at some basics of evolution. I can't help but see that it has not really changed that much since I went to school. Of course there is some differences in the experiments that have been carried out, but I don't see them affecting the overall ideas that much. I think there are way more holes than substance in the current theory.

I do accept evolution within a genus. Genesis does say God created animals "after it's kind" with the word "kind" being "genos" in Greek. Monkeys have certainly evolved into other species of monkeys, but I really don't see any evidence other than pictures and diagrams that a monkey became a man, or any other genus becoming another genus. Is their such evidence. I understand that the whole idea of family, genus, species, etc are man made for a means of classification. I guess it all comes down to, have they found the proverbial missing link? I understand the monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. Is there much evidence of whatever life forms led off into the direction of each?

Are these even valid questions?????

Take care

The problem is that your religious beliefs are keeping you from seeing the obvious. They can do that. They will make otherwise honest people appear to be dishonest. You say that you cannot see evidence, but the evidence is undeniable. That means that you probably do not understand what is and what is not evidence. Before you can learn you need the basics first.

Don't be too embarrassed by this. It is part of the human condition. Scientists have a well defined definition of evidence. It appears to have a low bar one must cross and there are mountains of evidence for evolution and none for creationism. Here it is:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course not, but we can't have the latter without the former. Or can we?


No wonder I can't find it in the grocery story! I'll stop looking. Thanks. (Just kidding)


No relationship whatsoever between them? Maybe not, I don't know, I'm just asking.

The mixing of concepts and theories is often and widely carried out by those that reject some or all the theories in order to confuse discussion. Many times I have seen the origin of life erroneously used to reject the theory of evolution. But the theory of evolution is an independent theory and not predicated on a specific origin of life. People can have different views of how life originated, but that has no impact on the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not, but we can't have the latter without the former. Or can we?

Yes, but is a big "So what?" A god could have magically poofed the first life into existence. The source of first life does not matter to evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course not, but we can't have the latter without the former. Or can we?


No wonder I can't find it in the grocery story! I'll stop looking. Thanks. (Just kidding)


No relationship whatsoever between them? Maybe not, I don't know, I'm just asking.

Leading questions about relationships between cosmological origins, the origin of life, and evolution are yours. I have not commented on relationships, obvious or otherwise. I am pointing out that implying dependence is incorrect.