The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

He has never supported any claim he has made. He assumes everything he claims is fact even when it is repeatedly demonstrated that he is wrong.

I am not certain he is a creationist. Or at least not like those we usually see in these debates.

The claims are pretend cars with pretend windows going in circles.

 

[cladking]

Just nonsense from someone clearly unfamiliar with science.

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

I repeat it is not an observation it is "Look and See Science".

All REAL SCIENCE devolves from experiment, NOT PEERS. And NOT OBSERVATION.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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 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.



Respond to dogs. Respond top one single point.



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.



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.



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.

You ignore evidence. It is not an assumption. You said you didn't have a theory. Now you are back claiming you have one. You really don't. How could someone so divorced from science, evidence, reason, and logic produce a theory with the robust power to unseat the theory of evolution? They couldn't. You haven't. You can't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I repeat it is not an observation it is "Look and See Science".

All REAL SCIENCE devolves from experiment, NOT PEERS. And NOT OBSERVATION.

Back to your fable of look and see.

Seriously, am I just feeding into a delusion? I have wonder at this point. Perhaps it is best to put you on ignore and let this go. I have serious doubts about the benefits of trying to engage someone so caught up in being wrong about everything.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Look at fossil lineages and their time frames. There is the evidence you are asking for. Everyone else knows this except you.

My theory works better to explain observation and experiment.

Chad, you have no theory. You have no hypothesis. Your simplistic claims do not account for many observations and experiments, so we throw them out.

You are not being truthful when you use these words the wrong way. If you cannot get science right why are you trying to argue science?

 

[F1fan]

I repeat it is not an observation it is "Look and See Science".

Observation IS seeing. So what's the problem?

All REAL SCIENCE devolves from experiment, NOT PEERS. And NOT OBSERVATION.

This is incomprehensible.

If you can't get science right, don't argue against science.

 

[cladking]

There is plentiful evidence for the views I (and others here) are putting forward.

Of course there is. I didn't say biologists were stupid. I said they were wrong.

There is simply more evidence and a far broader array of evidence to support my theory.

We have evidence, you have nothing but baseless storytelling.

You have interpretation of the fossil evidence. This is not based in experiment. It is Look and See Science and might just as well be poetry or literature.

Alas poor Yorick.

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.

It is now the only thing in the "public domain" unless you go to the dark web. Search engines are beginning to return only doctrine. This is the onset of a new dark ages unless sanity can regain control.

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

How about them dogs, eh?

There are thousands of pieces and logic that favor my theory. But we can't get past the very first one.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

You don't have a theory and you haven't cited any evidence for your fantasies. Regarding dogs, there is no evidence of a bottleneck (I don't think you have any idea what that means in this context, either), there is no reason to think the change was particularly sudden, and behaviour didn't drive the change, that's totally back to front. Certain behaviours were selected for because they were 'fitter' when the environment included close contact with humans.

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.

Simply nonsense. The evolution of dogs is perfectly consistent with the standard evolutionary theory and all the other evidence that supports it. The problem (again) is that you don't understand what you're trying to criticise, so you have no idea at all what would falsify it and what obviously doesn't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you are going to keep butchering the meaning of "fittest," then this conversation is going to continue to go no where.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is simply more evidence and a far broader array of evidence to support my theory.

Where? And you still haven't presented a scientific theory.

You have interpretation of the fossil evidence.

The fossil evidence supports the theory.

This is not based in experiment.

We have experimental evidence too. There is also other evidence, by far the most comprehensive is from genetics.

It is Look and See Science and might just as well be poetry or literature.

Silly statement.

It is now the only thing in the "public domain" unless you go to the dark web. Search engines are beginning to return only doctrine. This is the onset of a new dark ages unless sanity can regain control.

Also silly - and false.

 

[ratiocinator]

All REAL SCIENCE devolves from experiment, NOT PEERS. And NOT OBSERVATION.

Simply false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 been given evidence. But once again you need to ask properly if you want more details you need to ask properly. Just look at all of the errors in this one small part of your post. You claimed to have a theory, but you yourself refuted that claim by ignoring a reasonable demand. If you want details avoid a Gish Gallop. Do not make claims that you cannot support and put the burden of proof upon you.

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.

You do not seem to understand the concept of "evidence" You only made claims. And you keep forgetting that you proved that you do not have a theory. Once again, a Gish Gallop only merits short corrections. If you want details focus.

Respond to dogs. Respond top one single point.

Are you still going on about your nonsensical pointless claims about dogs?

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.

Oh my. Just because you do not appear to understand simple concepts does not mean that there is some supernatural ability in those that do. No need for
name calling. Let's try to avoid that.

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.

Okay so you know nothing at all about the topic. Variation occurs naturally. You have about100 mutations on the DNA that you got from your parents. This is not "speculation" this is observation. And it is not "at birth". The variations that you have occurred in the bodies of your parents. Why didn't you admit that you do not understand that you do not know where variation comes from?

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.

If you do not understand something you should ask questions. My sentence made perfect sense. But you may not be allowing yourself to understand.

And once again if you want details you need to ask questions properly. That means not as part of one of your typical Gish Gallops.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He has never supported any claim he has made. He assumes everything he claims is fact even when it is repeatedly demonstrated that he is wrong.

I am not certain he is a creationist. Or at least not like those we usually see in these debates.

The claims are pretend cars with pretend windows going in circles.

He may not be a classic one. But his "reasoning" is almost identical.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He may not be a classic one. But his "reasoning" is almost identical.

Which is to say there is little or no reasoning.

I think I am going to bow out of further debate here. The claims I am seeing are getting more and more outrageous and further and further divorced from reality. I want to stick around and address this nonsense, but I think there is more going on here and I no longer want to be a part of a discussion with some people. I think it is hurting them more than helping them.

I may get sucked back in, since there are so many false claims being made that should be addressed. But I wonder now about the basis for making those claims. That coupled with the invention of new terms that have no meaning and reason being ignored seems to indicate something I don't think I can help with.

This is just my decision. I could be wrong. I am not advising anyone else to do anything.

 

[cladking]

Observation IS seeing. So what's the problem?

ROFL.

As I've said many times the schools are failing and nowhere is this more obvious than in their treatment of metaphysics.

Looking isn't even seeing and seeing is not observation. "Observation" requires scientific detachment and the application of what is known. It is helpful to proper observation to be able to see anomalies. In Ancient Language "observation" was called "heka". It is very ironic and poetic that we translate this word as "magic". Nobody can look and see reality. We each catch only glimpses and we must have the appropriate beliefs and models to even catch a glimpse. Reality is very complex because everything in the universe is doing the same jig and modern humans are out of step. Even those rocks have to fall downhill.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ROFL.

As I've said many times the schools are failing and nowhere is this more obvious than in their treatment of metaphysics.

Looking isn't even seeing and seeing is not observation. "Observation" requires scientific detachment and the application of what is known. It is helpful to proper observation to be able to see anomalies. In Ancient Language "observation" was called "heka". It is very ironic and poetic that we translate this word as "magic". Nobody can look and see reality. We each catch only glimpses and we must have the appropriate beliefs and models to even catch a glimpse. Reality is very complex because everything in the universe is doing the same jig and modern humans are out of step. Even those rocks have to fall downhill.

I KNOW. It is shocking. It is almost as if they put no value at all upon beliefs without any evidence.

 

[cladking]

Look at fossil lineages and their time frames. There is the evidence you are asking for. Everyone else knows this except you.

We discussed this. Each layer virtually contains an entirely new set of life forms. This is consistent with my theory since species need to arise suddenly to not cross the boundary layers. Species tend to go extinct and arise suddenly. Species arise to fill niches because if they had to evolve the niche would be gone before they got there. All life on all levels is in a constant state of flux and species occur when some part of the environment is relatively stable. Individuals and species adapt and change to suit the environment but these changes are generally not gradual because as an environment changes to favor a change in existing species it creates new species to occupy the niche negating the need for another to adapt gradually.

Yes there is some small gradual change in species but most of it is random walk and is in no way "directed". It is not driven by "survival of the fittest per se but more the existence of minor localized bottlenecks which introduce more diversity in the genetic make up. Most of the very little gradual change that actually exists is not driven by "survival of the fittest" because all individuals are fit. It is driven by localized and by very highly localized bottlenecks. Entire human families can be wiped out in floods or volcanic eruptions. Such events are highly localized but even the fastest runners or best swimmers are not going to survive. If they did survive then their off spring would be no less likely to live by rivers or mountains they would merely tend to be faster or better swimmers. It has no significant effect on species.

We are merely misinterpreting evidence. People want to believe the fit survive and species are continually becoming more fit. It makes more sense when the weak are killed or dispossessed. Instead of "God's will" it is simply the law of nature that weak, malnourished, and unrepresented individuals perish. It's good for the species. Of course everyone will deny it but people want to believe and all modern people believe exactly what they want and then they always prove their beliefs.

Real "evolution" is impossibly complex and the most important factor is not "fitness" but rather consciousness.

 

[cladking]

I KNOW. It is shocking. It is almost as if they put no value at all upon beliefs without any evidence.

Indeed.

It's almost as if they put no weight at all on experiment as well.

They put so little weight on consciousness they never bothered to define it and they argue about whether or not other life forms even have it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed.

It's almost as if they put no weight at all on experiment as well.

They put so little weight on consciousness they never bothered to define it and they argue about whether or not other life forms even have it.

You lack a proper understanding of experiment too. And prediction. You seem to think that experiment occurs only in the laboratory.

You don't even seem to be able to define "consciousness" so you are hardly have a valid complaint.

Tell us what you mean and we may be able to tell you if scientist can test for that or not.

 

[gnostic]

I repeat it is not an observation it is "Look and See Science".

All REAL SCIENCE devolves from experiment, NOT PEERS. And NOT OBSERVATION.

Experiments are OBSERVATIONS, cladking!!!

Are you too stubbornly ignorant to understand that?

But observations aren't just about looking or seeing. Observations about finding evidence, whether the evidence are in the labs (experiments) or in the fields.

Evidence that can be:

• observed or detected
• quantified (eg count the evidence)
• measured
• tested (eg comparing & analyzing independent evidence)
• analyzed (eg finding or studying the properties of the evidence)

As someone have already tried to explain to you much earlier, not all evidence can be obtained through experiments, like in astronomy and Earth science, where it is not possible bring the evidence to the labs, eg discovering stars or galaxies cannot be repeated in the labs.

With a galaxy. You would use optical or radio astronomy to find them, studying their properties, to count or measure or analyze that everything can be counted or measured or analyzed.

In various fields of Earth science, it is not possible to carry out experiments, such as the seismic or volcanic activities, where you have to investigate in the fields.

The points are that there are limits as to what experiments can be done in the labs. And other times, scientists must go to the sources or rely on devices and technologies to go to the sources.

Examples of the later, unmanned space missions to other planets (Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc) in our Solar System, like using orbiter, landers or rovers to Mars. Rovers and landers can allow scientists to study the surface of Mars, up-close, to detect, measure and analyze physical and chemical features that are not possible with telescopes back on Earth. And you certainly cannot perform experiments in the labs what are on Mars.

Unmanned crafts (eg Pioneer and Voyagers) were sent to do flybys around planets beyond Mars. Both Voyagers are now in travelling interstellar space.