The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[gnostic]

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

He committed many the same logical fallacies as creationists have.

It doesn’t help him whenever he bring up the nonexistent Tower of Babel.

 

[rational experiences]

Our brother the theist before science practice lives on earth only after the ice age.

Place to use their theism as a human natural self as old as you are your only real advice.

A human truth don't tell lies.

Thinking is just thinking.

Pretty basic human advice.

Then you have human groups coercing enforcing bullying and mocking other humans. By thought upon stories

Says their thesis real as they use machines to look at information.

Not reality. Any subject is chosen by the human who chooses the subject. Everything you look at already exists.

Ground state just Phi on rock is no life yet men say is Phi for science themes.

Yet it is etched into ground as a melt.

Where Phi ended.

Where it began was in the mind of the human science theists first.

In life science says phi ended atop of crops. Also on the ground. Lied.

When the ground burnt the heavens gases never existed. Cold.

The status we live is because the attack since had cooled. Why it now stops atop crops.

Science causes of fallout had been stopped.

Ignored as rational advice only because science does not want it to end where it stops on crops

They theory it direct to new machine.

Which places it back to ground melt.

Why he got sink holes as a warning. Still ignores his own science notification.

Old pyramid liars caused the same attack. Ground melt in temple steps.

Mind by two men. Old man's image science plus new man's life recorded at the same time.

Where he lied to himself.

 

[Yerda]

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.

I've spent enough time in the kitchen to know that you can do great things with soup.

 

[F1fan]

We discussed this. Each layer virtually contains an entirely new set of life forms.

There have been billions of different species over billions of years. Of course there will be a huge diversity of life.

This is consistent with my theory since species need to arise suddenly to not cross the boundary layers.

You keep using the word theory despite being corrected by others. So you must be using the tabloid magazine definition which means the same as speculation.

And no species don't have to arise suddenly, unless sudden means 100,000 years.

Species tend to go extinct and arise suddenly.

Im not convinced. You claim this but don't offer facts and data. Now there can be extinctions that are rapid if there is a dramatic change in the environment. Bison in the USA were down to about 50 after being in the millions, and this was white hunters. The dinosaurs died off after a meteor hit near the Yucatan. White rhinos, the dodo, the passenger pigeon, to name a few recently.

Species arise to fill niches because if they had to evolve the niche would be gone before they got there.

Wrong. That's not how it works.

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.

Some correct things but on the whole, wrong. You keep referring to nature as if it has consciousness and thought and plans.

Yes there is some small gradual change in species but most of it is random walk and is in no way "directed".

Random walk? But yes, nature doesn't create anything. No direction.

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.

Gods are irrelevant. And evolution doesn't belong in quotes.

I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing with all this. Are you deliberately not educating yourself on evolution so you can think about this issue and come up with your own ideas about how it works? You strike me as a person trying to figure out if you are smart or not.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Maybe some types of fish would be surviving better out of water. But you think there is evolutionary pressure for fishes to become land rovers in some circumstances as they "sense the environment" that may be harmful to their survival? Of course, they'd have to sense this for a long enough time for them to change, morph, or evolve, right?

 

[joelr]

So the guy who said "science changes one funeral at a time" was a conspiracy theorists, eh?

If you cared about what was true you could already have debunked this false belief. First the quote refers to one generation of scientists. We don't need Planck to point out it takes a bit of time, General Relativity started in 1916 was confirmed first in 1926 and still took more experiments for it to become standard. This in no way relates to this discussion. Evolution started in 1860? This actually back up the point entirely? It shows the detractors of evolution were people who couldn't accept it because they built their careers of an alternate belief but eventually the facts won out. That is exactly what happened?
Second this quote is debated and is not related to the process of the acceptance of evolution?
"Whether age influences the readiness to accept new ideas has been empirically criticised. In the case of acceptance of evolution in the years after Darwin's On the Origin of Species, age was a minor factor.[2] On a more specialized scale, it also was a weak factor in accepting cliometrics.[7] A study of when different geologists accepted plate tectonics found that older scientists actually adopted it sooner than younger scientists.["

It's good to know part of the brainwashing is to belittle and marginalize those who don't agree with you.

I know it's almost like we are on a debate forum? How dare I have an opposing view?

 

[joelr]

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.

Ok that clears it up.

 

[joelr]

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.

Your example is a domesticated animal? Wolves did become dogs in unusual circumstances, they were bred? Humans killed wolves for food and started raising the pups and it turns out they are very useful for hunting and protection. Violent breeds were just killed and more docile animals were bred.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog

 

[joelr]

And how do you know that there was no change in the human species in the last 40,000 years that involved only soft tissue as I postulate.

Homo omnisciencis. You know everything because if it really existed some biologist who knows survival of the fittest is real wouldda told you.

There are changes. Eye color has changed in populations and many other things. We are still homo sapiens. The genetic difference is miniscule. We can see a tiny amount of Neandrethal DNA in some Europeans. There are no new species.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

Why are you so obsessed with "survival of the fittest"? It's not the theory, it's a popularisation of it, and not a very good one either because it leads people into the sort of misunderstanding that you continually display here about what "fit" means.

Fitness in evolution is NOT about being strong, healthy, more intelligent, the fastest, or any other absolute characteristic, it is about being a good fit to the prevailing environment.

PLEASE try to get that into your head! Natural selection is a better popularisation but that is also open to misunderstandings when people think that some sort of mind must do the selection.

If you can't understand this, then you should just forget "survival of the fittest" because you don't understand it and it isn't the theory of evolution - just a (rather inaccurate) popularisation.

Change (variation) in individual characteristics, and in particular mutations, are indeed random, but some are a better fit to the environment that others (so are 'fitter' in evolutionary terms) and it's those that survive and reproduce more. Hence the characteristics that aid survival and reproduction in the context of the environment, get reproduced more, and that is what changes populations.

Bottlenecks do happen but they are comparatively rare and are not the main driver of evolution.

Most of the very little gradual change that actually exists is not driven by "survival of the fittest" because all individuals are fit.

All individuals are NOT a good fit to their environment, and that is what fit means in the context of evolution.

It is driven by localized and by very highly localized bottlenecks.

Baseless, evidence-free nonsense.

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.

No idea why you even posted this. Totally irrelevant.

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.

Fitness has nothing to do with weakness (see above). People don't want to believe it, why would they? The theory of evolution (not the pop phrase 'survival of the fittest', that you don't understand) is what we have deduced from the evidence.

Instead of "God's will" it is simply the law of nature that weak, malnourished, and unrepresented individuals perish.

There is no evidence for any god(s) and "weak, malnourished, and unrepresented individuals perish" is NOT what 'survival of the fittest' means.

 

[exchemist]

Maybe some types of fish would be surviving better out of water. But you think there is evolutionary pressure for fishes to become land rovers in some circumstances as they "sense the environment" that may be harmful to their survival? Of course, they'd have to sense this for a long enough time for them to change, morph, or evolve, right?

OK, so now you want to shift the topic to the evolution of tetrapods (vertebrate land animals), right?

I'm not sure why you mention this phrase "sense the environment", as if you are quoting from somewhere. You seem to have made up this phrase yourself. And it's wrong: evolution does not work by organisms sensing the environment.

Look, whether you agree with it or not, you really ought to understand by now how evolution is said to work,There is just no excuse for you not to, when you spend so much of your time on this forum discussing it. But I'll tell you once more, for what must be at least the tenth time you have been told it: it works by those members of a population better adapted to their environment having more offspring and passing on those traits to the next generation. The process is much the same as when animal and plant breeders create new strains by selective breeding, except that it is the environment that is doing the selecting. "Sensing" does not come into it.

Nobody, either, suggests the water became "harmful" to the survival of some of these ancestors of tetrapods, any more than it became "harmful" to the arthropod ancestors of the land-dwelling insects, or the ancestors of land-growing plants. The colonisation of dry land - in all three cases - would most likely have been driven by the advantage of being able to exploit an ecological niche where there was less competition for food and less predation by other species. Those members of the population that could exist a bit longer out of water would have been able to escape from predators in the water and would have found things to eat that nothing else was eating. So they would have had more offspring, who would have inherited this advantage from their parents. And so on, through the generations.

This is not rocket science.

 

[cladking]

I know it's almost like we are on a debate forum?

Is that what the schools teach now? ...Belittle and attack opponents and ignore the argument...


People wanted to believe Darwin, remember. How else would the British condone the treatment of people in their colonies? Part of my theory is people believe what they want to believe and most people wanted to believe the unfit were going to die anyway. Ireland exported more than people during the potato famine; they exported food.

If species change gradually to suit their environment then why aren't there dozens of types of most species? Most species have isolated pockets where members do not interbreed with outsiders. Why don't each of these pockets create highly distinct species? Ring species are weak support for evolution and are accounted for my my theory. Why aren't there aren't there much more divergent examples?

Species arise at bottlenecks and then spread outward, Gradual change does not create the fossil record and is unevidenced.

 

[cladking]

All individuals are NOT a good fit to their environment, and that is what fit means in the context of evolution.

Well, d'uh.

But the individual whom is not a good fit for his environment may have no higher chance of dying under ANY given set of conditions. Even an individual who is less fit and does have a far higher chance of survival might be the only individual that would survive under a different environment. It is not less fit. You can call it anything you want but all individuals are equally fit. A sheep dog in wolf's clothing is the fittest individual around if all wolves not eating out a person's hand die off. This sheepdog may or may not have made a good wolf but when it reproduces with other sheepdogs in wolves clothing they produce DOGS not wolves.

This is the evidence you are ignoring. The people who invented agriculture and dogs knew this but we want to believe something else so when we look at fossils we imagine gradual changes that never existed. Most of change in life at every level is sudden but Darwin held the one change that is not visible mustta been gradual. All change is sudden and Darwin got it wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Blind fish cross-bred with seeing fish can produce seeing offspring! Speculations about how long they've been around are interesting but it didn't take long to produce a seeing fish under experiment. So apparently the mutation lasted for a few and it didn't take long to reproduce with that mutation being significant.
So, as far as abruptly as you use above regarding cave dweller fishes, or not so abruptly, whatever the mutation was, (1) they're still fish, not morphing eventually to anything but fish, and (2) apparently it was a mutation which was strong and lasted and suited their environment so they stayed there.
The mutation lasting didn't have to happen over a long period of time to produce a bevy of blind fish. Evidently they are not too curious, needy, or desirous to come out of the caves, and I'm not sure they would survive if they did. But! research shows that when cross-bred with seeing fishes, their offspring can see. So it can obviously happen rather suddenly. There are questions, however, but it doesn't take long for the crossbred offspring of the blind fish to see.

 

[YoursTrue]

Is that what the schools teach now? ...Belittle and attack opponents and ignore the argument...


People wanted to believe Darwin, remember. How else would the British condone the treatment of people in their colonies? Part of my theory is people believe what they want to believe and most people wanted to believe the unfit were going to die anyway. Ireland exported more than people during the potato famine; they exported food.

If species change gradually to suit their environment then why aren't there dozens of types of most species? Most species have isolated pockets where members do not interbreed with outsiders. Why don't each of these pockets create highly distinct species? Ring species are weak support for evolution and are accounted for my my theory. Why aren't there aren't there much more divergent examples?

Species arise at bottlenecks and then spread outward, Gradual change does not create the fossil record and is unevidenced.

Pardon me for interjecting, but in relation to the other poster's argument, I must say that if I did not have a firm belief in the Bible (not to mean that I can explain how and what date God created the heavens and the earth and other things "hard to understand" in the Scriptures) I would likely (1) not care what Darwin taught much, (2) probably have gone along with the idea of Darwinian evolution, and (3) have no hope for a wonderful life ahead. Oh, and probably be on mind-altering legal drugs.

 

[cladking]

Fitness in evolution is NOT about being strong, healthy, more intelligent, the fastest, or any other absolute characteristic, it is about being a good fit to the prevailing environment.

And AGAIN, it is a circular argument no matter what words you use to name it. Not all individuals are a good match to the environment but they are all fit. You simply choose to believe that evolution is driven by this factor because when you administer almost enough poison to kill any rat a few will survive. This isn't experiment!!! It is a circular argument. Of course the rats that survive produce offspring more tolerant to that poison than the dead rats. This is common sense. But nature doesn't decide to suddenly start increasing the levels highly toxic poisons over geologic time in very many instances. Neither does nature start imbuing some of its predators with ever greater speed because slower ones couldn't catch food. Yes, environments change and individuals and species will tend toi change to reflect such changes but IT ALWAYS happens suddenly even onm the individual level. An unusually fast fox is born and it will begin catching more rabbits and each of them suddenly. But whatever makes the fox fast wil have other repercussions as well AND fox populations might be increasing anyway so catching more prey will be of no preferential benefit to the individual.

Reductionistic science wants to take an impossibly complex phenomenon and reduce it to a soundbite; "survival of the fittest". They got it wrong because every individual is fittest for some environment and biology assumes the conclusion. You can't reduce such complexity without some understanding of every relevant factor and biologists don't even seem to understand all life is INDIVIDUAL and CONSCIOUS.

 

[cladking]

Im not convinced. You claim this but don't offer facts and data.

Every single observable change in life or species is sudden.

Why should I or anybody believe humans or anything else arose gradually over billions of years? We have ancestors who are each different but where is the fossil that shows the transition between these species.

THE FOSSIL DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE THE ANIMAL NEVER EXISTED!!!!!! There are no missing links because they never existed. Species change suddenly at bottlenecks as a result of behavior stemming from consciousness. Even genetic diversity arises at bottlenecks. Species could change as a result of "survival of the fittest" at bottlenecks but this must be exceeding rare because ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE FIT.

 

[F1fan]

Is that what the schools teach now? ...Belittle and attack opponents and ignore the argument...

No, they teach science, and you did not pay attention.

People wanted to believe Darwin, remember. How else would the British condone the treatment of people in their colonies? Part of my theory is people believe what they want to believe and most people wanted to believe the unfit were going to die anyway. Ireland exported more than people during the potato famine; they exported food.

Darwin had nothing to do with the immorality of European Christians as they occupied the lands of indigenous people. Christianity endowed these believers the superiority to kill off indigenous people because they had different languages and less technology. We see this influence of Christianity today in the arrogance and ignorance of believers who have belief in creationism and contempt for science.

f species change gradually to suit their environment then why aren't there dozens of types of most species? Most species have isolated pockets where members do not interbreed with outsiders. Why don't each of these pockets create highly distinct species? Ring species are weak support for evolution and are accounted for my my theory. Why aren't there aren't there much more divergent examples?

This does happen. This is why there are many species of rhinos, elephants, large cats, types of birds, etc. Your lack of study makes you look ______ when you ask questions about things that the educated know are true. Does it even occur to you to fact check your thinking before you post?

And changes ONLY occur when there is sufficient pressures, and some random trait is an advantage. There is no obligation for changes.

 

[F1fan]

Every single observable change in life or species is sudden.

What are you talking about?

Like when a black cat gives birth to a white cat? It's suddenly a white kitten that was born?

Your vague claims here have no details or facts or data that suggests you are onto anything. I suspect you are being vague because you have no actual facts or data to support your beliefs. You exhibit no expertise, so we educated folks defer to actual experts and reject your claims due to insufficient details.

 

[cladking]

Your example is a domesticated animal? Wolves did become dogs in unusual circumstances, they were bred? Humans killed wolves for food and started raising the pups and it turns out they are very useful for hunting and protection. Violent breeds were just killed and more docile animals were bred.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog

Thank you for this.

I would grant that your explanation is possible. My understanding though is that dogs spread worldwide in only a few hundred years which wouldn't be possible if your source is correct. Whatever the case this would have to apply to the entire science of agriculture which also spread over a brief period.

Without more evidence I doubt that it happened this way. Pet wolves would be very dangerous to keep and pet cats even moreso. Who was first to raise a bull from a pet.

I saw a story about some guy who decided to tame deer. The first step was getting one in the bed of his pick-up. Suffice to say it resulted in numerous injuries culminating in nearly being eligible for a darwin award.