The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

All these posts and so few that are relevant.



All observed changes in life, changes in species, and changes associated with individuals and species are sudden. "Evolution" is the odd man out. you are claiming it is gradual and then ignoring every bit of evidence that I cite. Explain how fit wolves slowly changed into less fit dogs despite the FACT we know it was sudden. Why do you keep ignoring this? Over and over I cite evidence you and believers ignore it. Just address this one simple example and then maybe I'll try to move on. There's plenty of more evidence I can always repeat. I'm sure I'll think of lots more if you want to actually discuss it.



I've always gotten things done for a living. I've moved mountains and changed opinion. Nobody ever likes having me around but then it's like the guy who believes he has the golden touch; they don't believe any of it but they need the gold. I am a nexialist and see connections that others miss.



But you can't cite a single example.



I never really said I did. It is a series of hypotheses.

You might want to look up the word "theory" in a dictionary before you respond. I know you won't though.



I wasn't aware but it's irrelevant. Simply stated creationists are no less intelligent (there's no such thing as "intelligence) and they make no less sense than any scientist (remember everybody makes perfect sense in terms of their premises). Creationists can make the exact same arguments as me or a scientist. They can be right or wrong just like everyone else. The only people who are always wrong is Congress.



Homo omnisciencis. I guess you now believe you've straightened me out on this issue.



You explain how wolves suddenly devolved into dogs and I'll repeat all the evidence.

Your beliefs are illogical and not supported.

Yes, you did:

"If survival of the fittest applies to evolutionary "theory" then my theory will prevail because my theory can beat the hell the out yours."

I'd suggest looking up the definition of "scientific theory" which is what we're talking about here. Any other definition is irrelevant.

 

[F1fan]

You explain how wolves suddenly devolved into dogs and I'll repeat all the evidence.

Who says the changes were sudden?

And who says dogs devolved? Look how few wolves there are in the world compared to dogs. I'd say the dog species was a vastly superior change.

And the evolution of dogs from wolves is fairly well explained, it is mostly due to the domestication of wolves as human civilizations became larger and there was mutual benefit for both. Less fearful wolves stayed close to humans, and these pools of wolves bred and these friendly traits were passed on (as fitness). More friendly wolves kept breeding, and the physical traits of these animals also changed. Look it up. Read.

Your beliefs are illogical and not supported.

More irony. More denial.

Notice you did not articulate what you mean. No facts. No examples. No explanation. Lazy.

 

[cladking]

Any other definition is irrelevant.

And yet the word still exists.

If you can call "survival of the fittest" a theory then I can call a moon made of green cheese a "theory".

 

[F1fan]

I wasn't aware but it's irrelevant.

You brought Darwin up as a punching bag. This tactic is desperate because you don't have sufficient knowledge to actually argue against evolution. And even if you did it wouldn't;t help you. If anything you would know how flawed your position and beliefs are.

Simply stated creationists are no less intelligent (there's no such thing as "intelligence) and they make no less sense than any scientist (remember everybody makes perfect sense in terms of their premises). Creationists can make the exact same arguments as me or a scientist. They can be right or wrong just like everyone else. The only people who are always wrong is Congress.

You must be lonely on your birthdays. You don't like anyone.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And yet the word still exists.

Not in a scientific context, which is the one we're currently in.

If you can call "survival of the fittest" a theory then I can call a moon made of green cheese a "theory".

Who said "survival of the fittest" is a theory? You?

 

[cladking]

Look how few wolves there are in the world compared to dogs. I'd say the dog species was a vastly superior change.

My wolf can beat up your dog and outthink it first.

Less fearful wolves stayed close to humans, and these pools of wolves bred and these friendly traits were passed on (as fitness). More friendly wolves kept breeding, and the physical traits of these animals also changed.

YES. Exactly! "Less fearful" is a description of behavior and "breeding" in this context is a description of a population bottleneck.

If this exact same thing had occurred naturally then wolves would be extinct and the dogs would have arisen from that population of individuals. You are putting the cart before the horse.

So which wolves were unfit? Which individuals that didn't snarl, claw, and bite were least fit for their environment? Why were some wolves more doglike? What made any individual wolf tame enough to sire dogs? How did individual consciousness of the dog wolves affect their behavior? You can't answer of these questions but these are the questions must have answers to understand change in species. All I can do is tell you the mechanisms for the change because the question is far too complex for mere mortals.

 

[F1fan]

And yet the word still exists.

If you can call "survival of the fittest" a theory then I can call a moon made of green cheese a "theory".

That's OK because "survival of the fittest" is just a phrase that simply explains a mechanism of biology. You don't seem to know what theory (in science) means.

 

[F1fan]

My wolf can beat up your dog and outthink it first.

And then your wolf will be shot by Sarah Palin. My dog will have puppies.

 

[ratiocinator]

You explain how wolves suddenly devolved into dogs and I'll repeat all the evidence.

Your use of "devolved" here is yet more evidence that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. Evolution doesn't have a direction so there is no "devolving". Losing function, strength, intelligence, or anything else is just as much evolution as gaining them, if it makes the species more suited to its environment (hence more 'fit').

 

[ratiocinator]

My wolf can beat up your dog and outthink it first.

Which does not mean it is any more 'fit' (in the sense used in evolution). This just highlights your total ignorance. Yet again: fitness does not mean stronger, more intelligent, or anything else absolute. It can only be assessed with respect to the population's environment.

 

[cladking]

All I can do is tell you the mechanisms for the change because the question is far too complex for mere mortals.

This question can't even be studied yet by science because we lack a working definition of "consciousness". Once we begin learning about consciousness then we can begin performing experiments and tyrsts to see how it affects change in species.

The idea that animals are like cookies all stamped out in the exact same shape is the root of the error in current understanding. There is no such thing as "wolves" but rather a collection of individuals who share the same language etc.

 

[ratiocinator]

What made any individual wolf tame enough to sire dogs?

It never happened like that and what made some wolves more 'tame' was (effectively) random variation.

How did individual consciousness of the dog wolves affect their behavior?

Meaningless question.

You can't answer of these questions but these are the questions must have answers to understand change in species.

Baseless assertion.

All I can do is tell you the mechanisms for the change because the question is far too complex for mere mortals.

You obviously don't understand the mechanisms for change. One of the most significant mechanisms, natural selection, is actually very simple for such a profound scientific theory. You should try learning about it sometime.

 

[cladking]

Which does not mean it is any more 'fit' (in the sense used in evolution).

Horse > cart. You have a circular argument. If only the fit survive then the survivors are more fit.

Dogs would still be dogs if there were no humans and no wolves. But they'd have died out very quickly. They'd all be dead dogs. Not fit dogs, dead dogs.

"Evolution" is a circular argument dependent on semantics and interpretation.

 

[F1fan]

YES. Exactly! "Less fearful" is a description of behavior and "breeding" in this context is a description of a population bottleneck.

Less fearful wolves will be a random trait of personality. And if you mean bottleneck as a separate pool of individuals that breed, OK. There will be other pools. Bottlenecks mean one existing pool that survives and all other pools go extinct. there are still wolves.

If this exact same thing had occurred naturally then wolves would be extinct and the dogs would have arisen from that population of individuals. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Dogs did evolve naturally at first. They evolved because of humans organizing and having mutual benefits. Without humans dogs would not evolve. They didn't evolve with earlier hominids. It was the evolution of humans, the change in behavior, and the circumstances of mutual benefit that allowed it to happen. That's it.

So which wolves were unfit?

The more timid wolves were not fit to live closer to humans. But they were fit for the wild.

Which individuals that didn't snarl, claw, and bite were least fit for their environment?

Wolves were fit for their environment. Less timid wolves were fit to live closer to humans. Both were fit.

Why were some wolves more doglike?

Random and innate personality traits, like with any cat or dog. And some might have had less stress and fear in their development stage, just like pets today. Many variables.

What made any individual wolf tame enough to sire dogs?

Wolves can breed with dogs. Breeding doesn't require being tame. For the pools of wolves that settled with humans it took many hundreds of generations for traits to be established to a degree that changes were obvious.

How did individual consciousness of the dog wolves affect their behavior?

You need to contact their therapists. (Seriously I have no idea what you are asking here)

You can't answer of these questions but these are the questions must have answers to understand change in species.

Right again, I couldn't answer a single one.

All I can do is tell you the mechanisms for the change because the question is far too complex for mere mortals.

So I'm not a mere mortal? Cool.

BTW, you didn't tell me the mechanisms. I explained things to you. But I'm no ordinary mortal, so you'd better listen.

 

[ratiocinator]

This question can't even be studied yet by science because we lack a working definition of "consciousness". Once we begin learning about consciousness then we can begin performing experiments and tyrsts to see how it affects change in species.

Fantasy.

The idea that animals are like cookies all stamped out in the exact same shape is the root of the error in current understanding.

Ignorance. This idea is not part of the current understanding.

 

[F1fan]

Horse > cart. You have a circular argument. If only the fit survive then the survivors are more fit.

Dogs would still be dogs if there were no humans and no wolves. But they'd have died out very quickly. They'd all be dead dogs. Not fit dogs, dead dogs.

"Evolution" is a circular argument dependent on semantics and interpretation.

How would dogs have evolved without humans?

Use facts.

Be sure to explain why wolves didn't evolve into dogs well before humans came about and formed communities?

 

[cladking]

It never happened like that and what made some wolves more 'tame' was (effectively) random variation.

And what makes you believe there's such a thing as "random variation". You are distilling what is the basis of life (consciousness) into a statistical probability and thereby ignoring the individuals who sired dogs. You are ignoring life itself to explain the changes in its various manifestations. The variability in behavior does not cancel out as it would need to to use reductionistic science. This is leading us astray.

 

[cladking]

Baseless assertion.

Then answer even one and prove me wrong.

 

[cladking]

This idea is not part of the current understanding.

Nonsense!!!!

I've never seen any biologist speculate what a mouse was thinking as it was given a dose of a deadly poison strong enough to kill almost any mouse. They do not consider individuals at all and sometimes not even species as when they refer to "mammals" *(which also don't even exist).

They're using induction on questions that can not be reduced to abstractions and taxonomies and this is how they got it all wrong. They have a far better excuse for being wrong than Egyptologists who have no excuse of any kind.

 

[ratiocinator]

Horse > cart. You have a circular argument.

Baseless nonsense.

If only the fit survive then the survivors are more fit.

It's not that only the fit survive, it's that they survive more frequently, but the point I was making has sailed right over your head. You obviously don't understand what 'fit' means in terms of evolution. It is not defined by being stronger or more intelligent, or by any other particular traits that always make something fitter. What makes something 'fitter' is being more suited to its environment.

I've lost count of how many times I've pointed this our to you now. This is a basic, basic concept in evolution and your failure to grasp it highlights how completely ignorant of the theory you actually are.

You can't credibly argue against something you don't understand.