The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[ratiocinator]

Then answer even one and prove me wrong.

I don't have to prove a baseless assertion wrong. It's your claim.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

 

[cladking]

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

Because nature doesn't want unfit individuals. Sure it was possible some event will create less "fit" species but this species will suddenly die out. Dogs might have survived without humans but I sure don't know. I'm sure they couldn't have competed with wolves. Any niche "saturated" by wolves would support no dogs.

If humans continue to devolve we will be extinct as well.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

What has what mice think got to do with anything? Do you even know the scope of the theory we are talking about?

They using induction on questions that can not be reduced to abstractions and taxonomies and this is how they got it all wrong.

Meaningless. You really, really need to go back to school and learn something about the theory of evolution.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because nature doesn't want unfit individuals.

Nature does not have a mind, it can't want or not want anything.

Sure it was possible some event will create less "fit" species but this species will suddenly die out.

Fitness applies to individuals (selection actually acts on individual traits) not species. Less fit individuals tend to have fewer offspring than fitter ones, which is how populations evolve. Again, this is evolution 101.

Dogs might have survived without humans but I sure don't know.

Since humans are an important part of dog's environment and one that has now become pretty essential, the idea that they might have evolved without them is bizarre.

If humans continue to devolve we will be extinct as well.

Yet again: evolution does not have a direction. Populations don't "devolve" in that sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because nature doesn't want unfit individuals. Sure it was possible some event will create less "fit" species but this species will suddenly die out. Dogs might have survived without humans but I sure don't know. I'm sure they couldn't have competed with wolves. Any niche "saturated" by wolves would support no dogs.

If humans continue to devolve we will be extinct as well.

And how do you know this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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".

"Survival of the fittest" is not a theory. It is merely a description. And not a very accurate one. It is quite often abused by those that do not understand the sciences and is not used today.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All these posts and so few that are relevant.

None of your posts are based on evidence and are irrelevant.

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.

No, all changes in life are not sudden. You just repeat the claim and show no evidence for your nonsense. Show that dogs are less fit. Show that you understand fitness. Your view of it is flawed.

Why do you keep ignoring everyone that has pointed out that you are perpetuating a belief with no basis in fact?

Why do you NEVER SHOW any evidence supporting your claims?

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.

Probably because you refuse to learn and perpetuate fantasy.

But you can't cite a single example.

Wrong again, as usual. Cited constantly. Cited here.

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

It is a series of baseless conjecture and pretend.

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

Why would I need to in order to demonstrate that you have nothing that is remotely testable. You have no theory.

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.

You are a creationist and you perpetuate your beliefs as fact. You fail to support those beliefs. You clarify with every post that you have no idea about science.

Homo omnisciencis

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

It is made up. It has no value. It explains nothing.

I don't expect you to suddenly understand how wrong you are. You are emotionally and psychology invested in your fantasy to the point that you cannot discern it from reality.

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

There is no devolution in biology. You explain and support your claim that they have evolved to be less fit. Come on guy, you are the one making the claims. The least you could do is show some support for them. I think deep down even you know it is pretend.

Your beliefs are illogical and not supported.[/QUOTE]My belief is Christian and I have not relied on them in response to your nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I want to correct myself. You did cherry pick some examples of change in biology that happen quickly. But no one is claiming those cherry-picked responses do not happen quickly. And you purposefully left out any examples that do occur over long periods of time or showed that they do occur suddenly. For those, you just repeat your failed claim.

 

[cladking]

Since humans are an important part of dog's environment and one that has now become pretty essential, the idea that they might have evolved without them is bizarre.

You not only know how life evolves but you even know how a dog would have evolved under theoretical conditions.

Homo Omnisciencis.

If you understood life then you'd know each individual dog would strive to survive and would naturally gravitate to a niche that would support it. This would not be some mindless thing because nature wants every dog, every animal, to survive. They are given consciousness and equal amounts of fitness to accomplish this.

Even every dog has its day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

And he claims that people do not cite him.

 

[cladking]

And how do you know this?

What exactly?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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".

No one is calling it a theory and you probably do think the moon is made of green cheese. Why not. You believe other, more wild things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

You don't have a wolf and it would not survive in the environment that dogs survive in. Pretending you have a wolf is not a valid or logical response.

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

No it isn't. That is not 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.

Why would a species moving into a new environment necessitate the extinction of the parent population? You have no cart and only an imaginary 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.

Variation in their genetics and the human environment selected for dogs over a long time.

Why have you not addressed the fact that dogs are very successful as a group? That they have greater fitness in their environment than a wolf would. Seems like that would be a slam dunk for your "theory". Just pretend.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Without wolves and people, there would be no dogs. Wolves were the ancestral population and humans were the selection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

She can see wolves from her front porch.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then answer even one and prove me wrong.

The fact that they are baseless is the answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Yet you make claims about something you say you cannot even study or do not have a definition for. Doesn't that fact ever dawn on you? Your working model appears to be "I don't know anything, therefore I know everything".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Variation has been observed. There is no evidence that conscious choice is involved in biological changes observed and explained by the theory of evolution.

 

[cladking]

Why would I need to in order to demonstrate that you have nothing that is remotely testable. You have no theory.

I'm sorry change in species is so complex but did I ever mention every experiment, observation, and test support my theory preferentially to yours.

There are many tests that can be devised to show this but you can't imagine one if you can't even understand my argument.

It is made up. It has no value. It explains nothing.

You showed my point convincingly.

You explain and support your claim that they have evolved to be less fit. Come on guy, you are the one making the claims. The least you could do is show some support for them. I think deep down even you know it is pretend.

Humans are less clever with each generation. We have more and more frailties. Efficiency keeps dropping. Standards for just about everything keep falling. Competency is no longer is valued. Fewer and fewer people can correctly apply their knowledge to the real world. Science is stuck on 1920 and Egyptology in 1880. There are countless factors in play here and some of these things can be reversed rather suddenly but the loss of "intelligence" is "permanent". For a species whose primary niche is in figuring out how to improve it the loss of cleverness is a rather severe problem. The lack of the ability to communicate ideas is rather significant but this is another thing that can be fixed quickly.

I'm hardly suggesting the future for humans is bleak so much as I'm saying current processes are all unsustainable. We need an attitude adjustment more than anything else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Now you believe you know what mice think?

You have no training in science. You clearly do not understand science. Yet somehow you know that scientists have it all wrong. Amazing.

You really have a bone to pick with Egyptologists. They must really have beaten the stuffing out of your pretend.