The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

He did say he was open and ready to learn.
You are showing some contradictions to these claims.

Sadly I have seen that claim many times. But when push comes to shove they refuse to learn a simple uncontroversial concept such as that of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks. Changed it.

My first reaction was "WTF??" and then I realized what you meant to say. Nit thut O evet hage a typo.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It appears that is where this discussion has gone. Creationists hate the concept of evidence. They simply refuse to understand it. And if one cannot understand evidence one cannot understand the sciences.

He has referred to the acceptance of the ToE as belief. He could at least try to define what he means and argue to demonstrate that claim.

He claims proof. Something else he should demonstrate or acknowledge his error.

He claims to want to know the basics, but his responses contradict this.

He refers to an educational history not in evidence and then declared a failure based on that.

Very frustrating. Is it intentional?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sadly I have seen that claim many times. But when push comes to shove they refuse to learn a simple uncontroversial concept such as that of evidence.

It is part of the playbook.

Shouldn't be have enough knowledge of the science to have the confidence to create a thread like this or raise the rejection he has?

Based on experience, this is a prelude to a reversal of the burden of proof or a diversionary tactic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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."

Is the narrative above illustrative of what you learned about evolution in school? Were you taught to mix the origin of life with the evolution of life? Can you use lack of knowledge in one area of science to refute a theory in another area of science? You are saying yes. Can you explain and support that?

Can you provide me with your sources that describe evolution as you have here? I have never seen your description of evolution proposed by any scientist.

We are all learning about the origin of life. Observations are being accumulated. Hypotheses have been proposed. No scientist claims to know the origin of life. At least we can agree that the text of Genesis does not describe it.

 

[tas8831]

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?

And he never did...
Because he is... well... cladking. Nothing more needs to be written.

 

[tas8831]

Hilarious...

I once understood a little of what you think is "science" and mostly from a physics perspective.

And now you understand none of it - this is clear from your every post.

I may not "know" much science but I understand it better than many scientists.

Only in your fantasy land.

You think your mere assertions count as evidence. They do not.

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.

No, I understand that your interpretations of all scientific issues are failures. This is demonstrated on a near daily basis. Not only are your interpretations child-like and absurd, but on those rare occasions that you pretend to discuss the science you make a complete fool of yourself - laughably erroneous spellings of core conceptual words, totally ridiculous claims regarding things like anatomy, repetitious errors that have been corrected innumerable times, etc.

The problem here is look and See Science.

A fantasy that you have never defined, cannot explain, and can offer no examples of.

Why should anyone care what someone rants about consciousness and brain function when they do not even understand basic brain anatomy? Why listen to the ravings of a lunatic regarding population bottlenecks when they do not know what a bottleneck is, and thing 'natural' ones and 'artificial' ones are different?

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.

And what was it you claimed to understand a bit at one time - physics? Yet you pontificate - evidence-free - on genetics, biology, etc.

Take your own advice, superstar.

Biologists are extrapolating laboratory results to apply to stone in the shape of bones that didn't even exist when laboratories were invented.

LOL!
What laboratories existed in Pyramid days? Glass houses, and all that jazz, eh?

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".

You are either the greatest troll ever, a Poe, or truly have mental issues. You clearly have no idea what "survival of the fittest" means. Heck - you IGNORE my refutation of your truly stupid claim that "survival of the fittest" was a pejorative reference. Shall we conclude that you are just a plain old liar? Or a plain old kook? or a plain old troll? Because at this point, I see no other options.

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.

More of your dopey, counterfactual assertions that nobody believes or cares about and that you cannot support with a single piece of evidence.
Dismissed.

Bottlenecks REDUCE genetic diversity, Oh Expert on Nothing.

LOCALIZED bottlenecks somewhat reduce diversity in the surviving population.

ALL BOTTLENECKS, by Definition, reduce diversity:

"The population bottleneck produces a decrease in the gene pool of the population because many alleles, or gene variants, that were present in the original population are lost. Due to the event, the remaining population has a very low level of genetic diversity, which means that the population as a whole has few genetic characteristics."

Until/unless you can provide an example of a definition of bottleneck that agrees with your made-up Make-it-up-as-I-go-along-because-I-don't-understand-anything Science, then just shut up about bottlenecks and"survival of the fittest" and all of the other scientific issues that you have a demonstrated lack of even basic understanding of.

This is only logical.

Make-it-up-as-I-go-along logic in action!

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 job is to try to get religious nuts and scientific simpletons to stop pontificating on things that do not understand.

What "consciousness" operated to separate a small sample of a population of finches from mainland South America and put them on Daphne Major?

Do tell!

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

It has nothing to do with parsing, it has to do with your inability to learn and/or your ego-saving dishonesty at every turn.

 

[tas8831]

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

Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Maybe one day you will learn how to spell the science words you pretend to understand, or better yet - you might one day provide evidence for even 1 of your dopey claims.

But I doubt it.

'broccas area' is 'bifurcated' in 'several places' in the 'middle of the brain'... stupid, truly stupid.

 

[tas8831]

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.

If I will read more closely????

"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.) "​

Thanks for PROVING that you do not read what you reply to beyond perhaps a skim.

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.

This is how the charlatan tries to 'save face' - not by admitting error, but by re-stating the obvious (from MY post) and pretending not to be interested.

Such trollish behavior from a supposed 'Christian'...

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

All the funnier that he adopted it.

No, it sounds like some fool is desperate to try to save face after being called out on a stupid, oft-repeated lie of his.

 

[cladking]

A fantasy that you have never defined, cannot explain, and can offer no examples of.

Look and See Science is everything people believe is science but is founded on the opinion of experts rather than experiment. The need for surgeons to bypass handwashing so they could hurry and tend to patients in the 1860's was Look and See Science. The explanation that the species represented by fossils slowly changed over eons by the means of "survival of the fittest" is Look and see Science.

Look and See Science can be correct because some things are exactly what they appear to be. But ALL SUCH RESULTS are still opinion and not real science.

More of your dopey, counterfactual assertions that nobody believes or cares about and that you cannot support with a single piece of evidence.
Dismissed.

You can confidently state that something we each know is real but for which we have NO DEFINITION can not be the the source of life!!! Curious.

population of finches from mainland South America and put them on Daphne Major?

"A long-term study of finch populations on the island of Daphne Major has revealed that evolution occurs by natural selection when the finches' food supply changes during droughts. "

What Darwin's Finches Can Teach Us about the Evolutionary Origin and Regulation of Biodiversity

Almost sounds like a bottleneck.

"The population bottleneck produces a decrease in the gene pool of the population because many alleles, or gene variants, that were present in the original population are lost. Due to the event, the remaining population has a very low level of genetic diversity, which means that the population as a whole has few genetic characteristics."

Until/unless you can provide an example of a definition of bottleneck that agrees with your made-up Make-it-up-as-I-go-along-because-I-don't-understand-anything Science, then just shut up about bottlenecks and"survival of the fittest" and all of the other scientific issues that you have a demonstrated lack of even basic understanding of.

Your link is irrelevant. It is a discussion of bottlenecks and I intentionally created a new phrase to refer to an event called a "local bottleneck". BECAUSE most bottlenecks are caused by a force that scientists haven't even defined yet (consciousness) and related to something they haven't observed or defined (consciousness driven behavior) it's hardly possible that the eradication of almost all genes in a "species" is in any way comparable to the loss of most individuals in a small region. Again I agree that even these localized events reduce variability in the survivors but not by a great deal in most instances because the event is usually precipitated by a force that selects for behavior rather than "fitness". The survivors have some common behavior which allows survival (read your Bible for examples ) but still have a diversity otherwise. The gene that caused the behavior which spares them will create a new and slightly different species that can interbreed with unaffected individuals from other areas. This IS THE SOURCE OF NEW GENES AND DIVERSITY IN EVERY SPECIES. It is this remixing AFTER the bottleneck that creates diversity; not the killing of most of a species locally.

These are all simple concepts but you refuse to even consider them and instead insist the disagreement is caused by my ignorance rather than your certainty. I believe I could be making your argument better than you are but I don't believe the "science" underlying your argument so I won't.

 

[cladking]

"A long-term study of finch populations on the island of Daphne Major has revealed that evolution occurs by natural selection when the finches' food supply changes during droughts. "

What Darwin's Finches Can Teach Us about the Evolutionary Origin and Regulation of Biodiversity

Almost sounds like a bottleneck.

I might add that there will be found simple mechanisms that allow specific birds to survive these bottlenecks. Biologists look only at populations and don't consider the genetic variability in the individuals before or after they are eradicated. They don't consider the behavior nor the consciousness that drives that behavior because we can't think this way. We are reductionistic and must break everything down to the lowest common denominator to study it. We don't "name the animals" and we certainly don't try to understand them on an individual basis and how and why specific individuals have a better chance of survival.

There are individual variations in diet for instance. Perhaps finches that habitually eat some specific food that tends to upset the stomachs of the other birds have a far better chance of surviving the drought. This can occur by a virtually infinite number of means. Perhaps some individuals are eating foods that protect them from a drought induced toxin. There are an infinite number of categories of means that some individuals preferentially survive and within these categories that are an infinite number of possibilities. But biologists instead believe there is a single causation for ALL DEATH AND ALL LIFE; survival of the fittest.

Biologists and ALL MODERN PEOPLE can't see past the tip of our beliefs and we all believe we know everything. We are ignorant savages always going off half cocked because we believe we have the answers despite the fact we still lack the definitions (consciousness) to even ask the right questions.

 

[tas8831]

Look and See Science is everything people believe is science but is founded on the opinion of experts rather than experiment.

Your projection is astounding, for you have yet to produce a SINGLE instance of any experiment supporting a single claim you have made.

When did you do your experiments on how the pyramids were built?

Do tell!

The need for surgeons to bypass handwashing so they could hurry and tend to patients in the 1860's was Look and See Science.

That is SO relevant to what we are discussing here...

The explanation that the species represented by fossils slowly changed over eons by the means of "survival of the fittest" is Look and see Science.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Why do you keep using phrases that you have demonstrated yourself to be ignorant of?

Present 1 example of a legitimate researcher claiming that evolution = "survival of the fittest."

Why is it so hard for you to admit even trivial errors? Is your ego really that frail?

Look and See Science can be correct because some things are exactly what they appear to be. But ALL SUCH RESULTS are still opinion and not real science.

I really, I mean really, do not care at all about your crazed and absurd opinions about science. I really do not. You are disingenuous and dishonest and totally under-informed on the subjects you pretend to be able to discuss intelligently.

So just stop yammering about your fantasies and nonsense, OK?

More of your dopey, counterfactual assertions that nobody believes or cares about and that you cannot support with a single piece of evidence.
Dismissed.

You can confidently state that something we each know is real but for which we have NO DEFINITION can not be the the source of life!!! Curious.

Not as curious as the repeated demonstrations of you 100% disability to address what is actually written.

population of finches from mainland South America and put them on Daphne Major?

"A long-term study of finch populations on the island of Daphne Major has revealed that evolution occurs by natural selection when the finches' food supply changes during droughts. "

Yes, wow you CAN use Google ! Weird that you used it in this instance yet no others...


Also weird that you totally deleted the whole section of my post wherein I proved that you are ignorant re: "survival of the fittest" and population bottlenecks - is that because you think that if you do so, you will have some kind of (im)plausible deniability regarding how wrong you were shown to be?

That isn't very honest, is it? Nor very gracious or intelligent.

What Darwin's Finches Can Teach Us about the Evolutionary Origin and Regulation of Biodiversity

Almost sounds like a bottleneck.

No, it really doesn't - you appear not to understand what a bottleneck is (as already established). Given your lack of science understanding, you seem to only see what fits in your Make-it-up-as-I-go-along-because-I-don't-understand-anything Science, shame that you cannot see beyond that.
You see, that article is about speciation and the evolution - the selection of beneficial traits - of the Galapagos finches AFTER they arrived there from the mainland (weird how you didn't understand this). The selection was for MORPHOLOGICAL TRAITS like beak width and depth, NOT behavior.

I get the distinct impression that you stopped at your quote because you misinterpreted it.
Some other quotes from the paper YOU linked to:

"All species of Darwin's finches are closely related, having derived recently (in geological terms) from a common ancestor."

"In this article we survey the evidence from field studies of the ecological causes of diversification. The explanation for diversification involves natural selection, genetic drift, introgressive hybridization, and genetic as well as cultural evolution. Linking all these factors are the frequent and strong fluctuations in climatic conditions, between droughts on the one hand and extremely wet (El Niño) conditions on the other. An important conclusion of this study is that environmental change is an observable driving force in the origin of new species."​

WHAAAATTT????? Not 'behavior'???? These clowns must not be aware of the amazing Make-it-up-as-I-go-along-because-I-don't-understand-anything Science that you are the sole master of!

"Observations of a newly founded population go to the heart of the question of how biodiversity generation begins. Environmental change appears to have been a key factor in facilitating population establishment and subsequent exponential growth. The G. magnirostris population experienced a genetic bottleneck (microsatellite allelic diversity fell), and inbreeding depression occurred, as shown by the relatively poor survival of the 1991 cohort. "​

WHAAAT??? How can that be? YOU claimed that genetic diversity is INCREASED by bottlenecks! 'Look and see science' trumps phony baloney Make-it-up-as-I-go-along-because-I-don't-understand-anything Science every time!
Here are some of the zany, crazy assertions you have made (never with even an attempt at providing evidence of any kind) on this topic:

"Most change occurs as the result of population bottlenecks arising from events that favor specific behavior"

The two primary drivers are what we call "mutation" and "population bottlenecks (resulting in the propagation of a behavior)".

"Every" population bottleneck that causes speciation in nature (not man made) is unique and results from the behavior of individuals.

"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." ​

For not one of those claims was evidence provided, just your assertions.

And what do you do here? When you finally try (and admit it - all you did was Google 'Daphne Major' and looked in the results for something that, due to your science ignorance, thought helped your cause, right?) to support a claim, you link to a paper that CONTRADICTS your major claims on the subject!

HILARIOUS!

You should try to read and understand more BEFORE you try to play real science.

Your link is irrelevant. It is a discussion of bottlenecks and I intentionally created a new phrase to refer to an event called a "local bottleneck".

So now you are making up phrases because to use the actual, defined phrase makes you look foolish?

Got it, but not buying it.

BECAUSE most bottlenecks are caused by a force that scientists haven't even defined yet

Not going to bother with your dopey made-up Make-it-up-as-I-go-along-because-I-don't-understand-anything Science.

I exposed your ignorance yet again, and your sad attempt at face-saving just backfired.

But keep ranting and blabbering - I enjoy demolishing your claims because it is so easy.

 

[tas8831]

I might add that there will be found simple mechanisms that allow specific birds to survive these bottlenecks.

Or, you could just read the article you quoted but apparently did not read in its entirety.
Therein, you will find that it is almost entirely morphology that dictates survival.
Not behavior.
Not this magic as yet unknown 'mechanism.'

Biologists look only at populations and don't consider the genetic variability in the individuals before or after they are eradicated.

So...

You've never herd of the entire field of Population Genetics?

I guess we can now add another field of science that left you behind.

snip baseless nonsense

My gosh, you are boring.

 

[cladking]

You've never herd of the entire field of Population Genetics?

Until it is shown that "population genetics" is causally related to a change in species it is simply irrelevant. You are looking at the wrong end of horses before the carts. What makes a horse alive is chiefly at the other end; the end you have pointed right at the cart.

 

[gnostic]

Until it is shown that "population genetics" is causally related to a change in species it is simply irrelevant.

Over the decades and nearly 2 centuries (1835), biologists would still visit and studied the species on Galápagos Islands, and how accurate Darwin’s framework of Evolution, like the mechanism Natural Selection.

How different environments can cause divergence.

How highlands and lowlands (terrains), of how humidity and dryness (climate), how abundance and scarcity of food (resources), which separated one island from another, by narrow stretch of water, can change the courses of populations of subspecies.

On one island, the higher humidity of highland, produce abundance of plant that are low enough for larger dome-shaped shells, where tortoises with short legs and necks can readily reach their food without a problem.

But on nearby island, the dry lowlands, where smaller tortoises’ food are higher off the ground, this population of tortoises need longer necks and legs, and since they must stretch legs and cranked their necks upward, a different type of shells are required, known as the saddleback shells.

The saddleback shelled tortoises were originally like their sister species, have dome shaped shells, but such shape were insufficient for their survival.

But their shells didn’t change shape, and they didn’t grow extra inches of necks and limbs, overnight. By natural selection, after some generations of breeding with other tortoises that have slightly longer necks and legs, and gradually the changes occurred enough for them to survive.

The saddleback shells even allowed these tortoises to stand on their hind legs to reach edible leaves that no dome-shaped tortoises could possibly reach.

 

[cladking]

But their shells didn’t change shape, and they didn’t grow extra inches of necks and limbs, overnight. By natural selection, after some generations of breeding with other tortoises that have slightly longer necks and legs, and gradually the changes occurred enough for them to survive.

Darwin

I wager you don't have a series of fossils or actual shells to show this "evolution". You are merely assuming there was a gradual change in species.

I believe that if there were evidence it would show the domed tortoise right up until the saddle shaped shell emerged after a population bottleneck. This is assuming that your proposal for the cause of the change in species is correct. The existence of such plants is merely observational "evidence".

 

[cladking]

[]

These shells are remarkable and show in numerous ways how nature really works but we can't see it. Each will adhere to the fibonacci sequence in various ways and each is encoded in incredibly simple ways right into the genes that comprise these animals. I'm struck by the flarings in the domed shell right where the saddle back shell differs from it. For all practical purposes nature has made this transition a million times before so it was all ready to do it one more time so these consciousnesses might survive.

Nature is infinitely more complicated than any biologist, physicist, or mathematician can appear to imagine. We are looking at the wrong end of the telescope and the microscope and the horse and mebbe even the tortoise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwin

I wager you don't have a series of fossils or actual shells to show this "evolution". You are merely assuming there was a gradual change in species.

I believe that if there were evidence it would show the domed tortoise right up until the saddle shaped shell emerged after a population bottleneck. This is assuming that your proposal for the cause of the change in species is correct. The existence of such plants is merely observational "evidence".

Why didn't you tell us that you did not understand the concept of evidence? All scientific evidence is observational.

 

[cladking]

Why didn't you tell us that you did not understand the concept of evidence? All scientific evidence is observational.

Amd some of those observations are supposed to be of experiment.

Everything else is Look and See Science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Amd some of those observations are supposed to be of experiment.

Everything else is Look and See Science.

Oh my, you do not understand the scientific method either.

Where do you want to start?