The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

What exactly?

" I'm sure they couldn't have competed with wolves. Any niche "saturated" by wolves would support no dogs."

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Stilton actually. Yum!

 

[gnostic]

Then answer even one and prove me wrong.

That’s now it work.

You are the claimant of many absurd claims, therefore the burden of proof falls on your shoulders. You cannot shift the burdens upon others.

You are asking people to prove something claims of yours which don’t exist, like the Tower of Babel, the Nephilim, the Homo omnisciensis, the single Ancient Language, metaphysics existing 40,000 years ago, the sudden change of every life (species).

There are no needs for anyone to disprove nonexistent things.​

It is not up to us to prove what you believe to be wrong. It is your responsibility to prove these beliefs of yours, right and real. Which you haven’t done.

All anyone have seen from you, you replying on circular reasoning, confirmation bias to your own claims, trying to shift the burden of proof, and layer upon layer of misinformation about science, history and language.

The only people fooling themselves with unsubstantiated beliefs & fantasies are you and your own.

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

You have focused on animals that have consciousness when you talking about organisms evolving.

What about evolution of plants or fungi or bacteria?

These don’t have consciousness, and yet they lived, survived, thrived, adapted to their environment, hence they have all evolved.

So clearly not every life have consciousness. Not every organisms required to think. Not even animals required thinking process and consciousness.

For instances. How about corals?

These corals are defined as animals, as marine invertebrates.

Corals have tentacles, mouths, stomachs and digestive system, and yet no brains. And without brains, no consciousness and thinking process.

But here is the kicker, despite not having brains, corals do have nervous systems.

Starfishes are another marine invertebrates with nervous systems, but no brains. Despite the “fish” appended at the end, they are not fishes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They, however, still showing they are fishes.

Did you expect that fishes would spontaneously change into something else? The theory of evolution does not support such spontaneous change. There are no reports of fish turning into other animals that are not fish. So, the logical conclusion is that you do not understand the theory of evolution and are confusing it with claims of magic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It worked out nicely that the blind fish survived in their particular areas, but likely they would not survive where they need eyes to see. Being killed by their environment, genetics being genetics, of course.

The natural selection of an environment without light driving the evolution of a species through the loss of a needless trait.

 

[rational experiences]

Did I though?

Humans are not machines or computers. We do obey the laws of probability however.

Motivation first.
Natural human.

Poses both questions and answers for self.

Stands on planet earth he said is God.
Lives inside a heavens.

Both own pre conditions reactive natural purpose. Nothing to do with you. You live to survive until you don't.

You thesis about mechanical movement was to copy to build machines.

Reasoning reactive causes natural outcomes naturally.

So your machine becomes a fake God with human purpose only.

The stone mass is sealed. Water had sealed it.

You live inside water heavens. You claim water is holy it protects above me below me.

You ignore all advice. So you pretend you are a God. You pretend you are the consciousness god as design built by you is then controlled by your thoughts.

Reason says your machine as a design is harmless. Cannot react.

So from a mechanical reactive God body your machine no longer owns God which you mechanical thought upon.

The designer builder operator then is the danger. Men who invented the status human sciences. As you react the machine not reactive with what other God earth mass you out inside of it.

So twice you attack earths nature. Then you use it as a resource.

What's left by mechanical cause first not equal what you live and survive within as consciousness status mechanical inferred heavens

Control history your thoughts your taking from God the earth to reproduce science. God is hence sciences baby. O earth. The only body you personally claim I controlled.

Man scientist destroys his science baby made new sink holes.

Proof you lie.

 

[rational experiences]

Where did he make that claim? And I suggest that you edit your post. Saying that someone lied is a big no no.

Humans experience is lived we learnt humans lie.

The term quantum mechanics infers machination by design.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

This really isn't a difficult concept. Populations evolve according to their environments. If you take way a huge influence from that environment, then it's very unlikely that the same changes would occur. If you change the selection pressures, you'll almost certainty get a different result.

Homo Omnisciencis.

Childish.

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.

But you wouldn't have any dogs because there would be no selection advantage for wolves to become dog-like.

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.

This just looks like baseless fantasy. Where is the first hint of any evidence for this?

 

[ratiocinator]

NO! I believe you can't understand difference in mouse "fitness" without first understanding how and why they think.

Yet again you show total ignorance of what 'fitness' means in the context of evolution.

 

[exchemist]

They, however, still showing they are fishes.

Eh? They have evolved different ways of sensing the environment. That is the point. There is no evolutionary pressure for them to stop being fishes.

 

[F1fan]

It worked out nicely that the blind fish survived in their particular areas, but likely they would not survive where they need eyes to see. Being killed by their environment, genetics being genetics, of course.

But you do realize these species of cave dwellers didn't go blind and move into caves abruptly, yes? It's not like selling your city house and moving abruptly to the suburbs. There were many small changes that occurred over time in thousands of generations, and what you will find today is the result of millions of years of evolution. Any fish species you find will be a product of their population being pressured by their environment to be what it is today. It amazes me how many different species there are, and their sizes, and their population size, and their diets that all work with other species to create a balance in nature.

Right now there is concern about how humans are over fishing populations of desirable fish, and how this causes a crisis in the balance. Knowing how the balance of nature works is important to the long term viability of humanity. Climate change is causing a crisis in many ways, and we are destined to have more problems if we don't address our behavior and how it impacts nature.

 

[cladking]

This really isn't a difficult concept. Populations evolve according to their environments. If you take way a huge influence from that environment, then it's very unlikely that the same changes would occur. If you change the selection pressures, you'll almost certainty get a different result.

You are still assuming that the change occurs gradually. You are assuming the conclusion. If I am correct that most change (especially dramatic change) is sudden then it's impossible to predict what would happen to dogs in any hypothetical environment. Of course suggesting dogs can't compete with wolves in the real world is a no-brainer. If they survived it would be in isolated pockets.

But you wouldn't have any dogs because there would be no selection advantage for wolves to become dog-like.

I think you are again assuming you are correct. There is no "selection advantage" and no "survival of the fittest". Wolves would only become dog like in a most unusual circumstance if I am correct. Some event would have to kill every wolf in the world that exhibits normal behavior while sparing some or all of the wolves that are tame. These surviving wolves would suddenly breed into dogs. Perhaps we can think of the survivors as sheepdogs in wolves clothing.

This is not difficult to understand but you have still failed to address it. Instead you act as though you have every answer because that's what someone told you and call me names. I don't mind the names at all but why won't you address the argument? I said that much human progress is the result of people bouncing ideas off of one another but that's exactly what happens when you see my ideas: They bounce right off.

This just looks like baseless fantasy. Where is the first hint of any evidence for this?

Every single experiment and observation is the evidence to support it. Oddly enough every other life form in the entire cosmos probably knows this to its very core. Conscioousness is the driver of change in species through behavior that occurs before a bottleneck. All behavior is the result of genes and consciousness. "Consciousness", of course, involves experience and learning. We homo omnisciencis can't see this directly as did homo sapiens and other life forms. We experience thought which is the comparison of input to beliefs. It is language (thinking) that hides reality from us. We must experience reality vicariously through science and models.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are still assuming that the change occurs gradually. You are assuming the conclusion. If I am correct that most change (especially dramatic change) is sudden then it's impossible to predict what would happen to dogs in any hypothetical environment. Of course suggesting dogs can't compete with wolves in the real world is a no-brainer. If they survived it would be in isolated pockets.

You are still misusing the word "assume". It is not an assumption that evolution is a slow process. It is a conclusion drawn upon observation and evidence.

I think you are again assuming you are correct. There is no "selection advantage" and no "survival of the fittest". Wolves would only become dog like in a most unusual circumstance if I am correct. Some event would have to kill every wolf in the world that exhibits normal behavior while sparing some or all of the wolves that are tame. These surviving wolves would suddenly breed into dogs. Perhaps we can think of the survivors as sheepdogs in wolves clothing.

Again, this is contradicted by observation and evidence. Also you do not appear to understand how evolution works. Your argument amounts to saying "If Americans came from Europeans why are there still Europeans".

This is not difficult to understand but you have still failed to address it. Instead you act as though you have every answer because that's what someone told you and call me names. I don't mind the names at all but why won't you address the argument? I said that much human progress is the result of people bouncing ideas off of one another but that's exactly what happens when you see my ideas: They bounce right off.

I do believe that all of your posts have been addressed. But if you disagree you should take one subject and go over it in detail. When you make posts loaded with errors, like this one, you will only get quick rebuttals without much in the way of details.

Every single experiment and observation is the evidence to support it. Oddly enough every other life form in the entire cosmos probably knows this to its very core. Conscioousness is the driver of change in species through behavior that occurs before a bottleneck. All behavior is the result of genes and consciousness. "Consciousness", of course, involves experience and learning. We homo omnisciencis can't see this directly as did homo sapiens and other life forms. We experience thought which is the comparison of input to beliefs. It is language (thinking) that hides reality from us. We must experience reality vicariously through science and models.

Facepalm city!! Life does not have to know it any more than a rock has to know to fall down. And no, there is no consciousness needed before a bottleneck. Once again, two of the main driving forces are variation and selection. Variation causes new traits to be added. No consciousness necessary. Selection weeds out the bad traits and less efficient ones. No consciousness necessary. A bottleneck event is an event of extreme selection so there can be large changes in a population due to it. No consciousness necessary.

 

[ratiocinator]

You are still assuming that the change occurs gradually. You are assuming the conclusion.

Nonsense. There is plentiful evidence for the views I (and others here) are putting forward. Your total ignorance of the theory and its evidence does not make them assumptions.

If I am correct that most change (especially dramatic change) is sudden then it's impossible to predict what would happen to dogs in any hypothetical environment.

You have no evidence. You've just invented a fantasy.

This is not difficult to understand but you have still failed to address it. Instead you act as though you have every answer because that's what someone told you and call me names.

There is no need to address a baseless fantasy - that is basic logic (burden of proof). Until and unless you give us some reason to reject the copious evidence for the current theory of evolution and take your, so far, utterly baseless claims seriously, there is no case to answer.

We have evidence, you have nothing but baseless storytelling.

Instead you act as though you have every answer because that's what someone told you...

It's not because somebody told me (that's what you're trying to get away with), it's because there is evidence - and it's in the public domain.

I don't mind the names at all but why won't you address the argument?

What argument? You haven't made an argument. All you've done is make baseless claims.

Every single experiment and observation is the evidence to support it.

This being the most outrageously silly claim of all. Name a single observation or experiment that supports your nonsense.

Conscioousness is the driver of change in species through behavior that occurs before a bottleneck. All behavior is the result of genes and consciousness. "Consciousness", of course, involves experience and learning. We homo omnisciencis can't see this directly as did homo sapiens and other life forms. We experience thought which is the comparison of input to beliefs. It is language (thinking) that hides reality from us. We must experience reality vicariously through science and models.

More unsupported fantasy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are still assuming that the change occurs gradually. You are assuming the conclusion. If I am correct that most change (especially dramatic change) is sudden then it's impossible to predict what would happen to dogs in any hypothetical environment. Of course suggesting dogs can't compete with wolves in the real world is a no-brainer. If they survived it would be in isolated pockets.



I think you are again assuming you are correct. There is no "selection advantage" and no "survival of the fittest". Wolves would only become dog like in a most unusual circumstance if I am correct. Some event would have to kill every wolf in the world that exhibits normal behavior while sparing some or all of the wolves that are tame. These surviving wolves would suddenly breed into dogs. Perhaps we can think of the survivors as sheepdogs in wolves clothing.

This is not difficult to understand but you have still failed to address it. Instead you act as though you have every answer because that's what someone told you and call me names. I don't mind the names at all but why won't you address the argument? I said that much human progress is the result of people bouncing ideas off of one another but that's exactly what happens when you see my ideas: They bounce right off.



Every single experiment and observation is the evidence to support it. Oddly enough every other life form in the entire cosmos probably knows this to its very core. Conscioousness is the driver of change in species through behavior that occurs before a bottleneck. All behavior is the result of genes and consciousness. "Consciousness", of course, involves experience and learning. We homo omnisciencis can't see this directly as did homo sapiens and other life forms. We experience thought which is the comparison of input to beliefs. It is language (thinking) that hides reality from us. We must experience reality vicariously through science and models.

Just nonsense from someone clearly unfamiliar with science.

Gradual change is not, I REPEAT, NOT AN ASSUMPTION, it is an observation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are still assuming that the change occurs gradually. You are assuming the conclusion. If I am correct that most change (especially dramatic change) is sudden then it's impossible to predict what would happen to dogs in any hypothetical environment. Of course suggesting dogs can't compete with wolves in the real world is a no-brainer. If they survived it would be in isolated pockets.



I think you are again assuming you are correct. There is no "selection advantage" and no "survival of the fittest". Wolves would only become dog like in a most unusual circumstance if I am correct. Some event would have to kill every wolf in the world that exhibits normal behavior while sparing some or all of the wolves that are tame. These surviving wolves would suddenly breed into dogs. Perhaps we can think of the survivors as sheepdogs in wolves clothing.

This is not difficult to understand but you have still failed to address it. Instead you act as though you have every answer because that's what someone told you and call me names. I don't mind the names at all but why won't you address the argument? I said that much human progress is the result of people bouncing ideas off of one another but that's exactly what happens when you see my ideas: They bounce right off.



Every single experiment and observation is the evidence to support it. Oddly enough every other life form in the entire cosmos probably knows this to its very core. Conscioousness is the driver of change in species through behavior that occurs before a bottleneck. All behavior is the result of genes and consciousness. "Consciousness", of course, involves experience and learning. We homo omnisciencis can't see this directly as did homo sapiens and other life forms. We experience thought which is the comparison of input to beliefs. It is language (thinking) that hides reality from us. We must experience reality vicariously through science and models.

(especially dramatic change) Hilarious! Dramatic change is by definition sudden.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just nonsense from someone clearly unfamiliar with science.

Gradual change is not, I REPEAT, NOT AN ASSUMPTION, it is an observation.

Am I mistaken or has he never supported his claim of "assumption".

Creationists seem to think that is a magic word that will enable them to win a debate. It is almost like listening to a sovereign citizen arguing with the police. Though those arguments often have a very satisfactory conclusion (breaking class, amazing high pitched screams, too bad that they finally seem to have realized that a driver's window (oops I meant "traveler's window) opened up only two inches is not a sufficient barrier against law enforcement.

 

[F1fan]

You are still assuming that the change occurs gradually. You are assuming the conclusion. If I am correct that most change (especially dramatic change) is sudden then it's impossible to predict what would happen to dogs in any hypothetical environment. Of course suggesting dogs can't compete with wolves in the real world is a no-brainer. If they survived it would be in isolated pockets.

What is sudden? Like 100,000 years (because the universe is over 13 billion years old)? I've not seen you offer any evidence, nor any examples that actually illustrate what you mean.

Give us examples of this happening, and the evidence to back it.

What you keep saying makes me wonder if you're referring to punctuated equilibrium. I doubt you know what this is, Steven Gould wrote about it.

 

[cladking]

It is not an assumption that evolution is a slow process. It is a conclusion drawn upon observation and evidence.

I've asked for evidence to support this assumption a thousand times but all I get is evidence that better supports my theory or that supports both theories about equally. My theory works better to explain observation and experiment.

You have no evidence. You've just invented a fantasy.

You keep saying that and then ignoring the evidence I cite. we're still hung up on dogs, remember? They hugely different than wolves and appeared suddenly at a bottleneck created by behavior EXACTLY AS MY THEORY PREDICTS. Address THIS and I have lots more evidence that I will repeat. Every dog on earth says the same thing; "there is no such thing as survival of the fittest". They are (g)God given proof that you are utterly wrong.

I do believe that all of your posts have been addressed.

Respond to dogs. Respond top one single point.

And no, there is no consciousness needed before a bottleneck.

Science does't even have a definition for "consciousness" but you know that consciousness has no role in life and change in life.

Homo omnisciencis, indeed.

Variation causes new traits to be added.

Where do you think variation comes from? Rocks?

There are no two identical things in existence yet you can't imagine how variation occurs in individuals other than what one receives at birth.

. A bottleneck event is an event of extreme selection so there can be large changes in a population due to it.

Nonsense. It looks like a sentence I might construct except it conveys no meaning. A bottleneck by defionition is an extreme change in population. It is my contentiuon that when selection facvors highly unusual behavior change in species occurs. "Change in species" is sudden and caused by behavior. ...Sheepdogs in wolves clothing. Life is consciousness and all consciousness is individual caused by genetics and experience.