The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Opinions can influence actions, wouldn't you say? Let's say I have a friend that I greatly appreciate. Hold him in high esteem, knowing what he did for me. Would I hold up that person for ridicule? No! I say resoundingly. I can acknowledgement tactfully his failures, but i wouldn't center on them. Because the positive greatly outweighs the negative. As far as I am concerned.

You are getting information on biology from someone that has no knowledge of biology and invents their own.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By the way, I see your point.

Evolution does not assume that every member of a species is identical. If they were identical, there would be no variation for natural selection to act on and for evolution to occur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you imagine expecting to find more fossils filling in gaps in sudden change. If the change is sudden, what gaps could there be?

It is just ridiculous.

I know. It is impossible to follow his "theory".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know. It is impossible to follow his "theory".

And yet it is also easy, since there is no actual theory to follow. That is the problem when a person pretends and has nothing valid to base their claims on.

I love that prediction though. It was my favorite most funny thing to read tonight.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

This is just getting stupid. Fitness (in the context of evolution) is defined in relation to the environment. The fact that if you changed the environment to fit the individual, it would then be 'fit' when it wasn't before is both totally obvious and totally irrelevant. Evolution happens in an environment and the environment is what influences how populations evolve.

Saying "but this individual would be fit if the environment was different" is not going to change the fact that the environment is what it is and if the individual is not a good fit to it, it will leave fewer offspring than a fit individual would, which is how evolution works.

This is the evidence you are ignoring.

What evidence? You have posted a silly misunderstanding, not evidence.

 

[exchemist]

OK, we're not allowed to say certain things on these forums, and I respect that, however when I was growing up I knew very, v-e-r-y little about the Bible. I knew it was there; I knew people believed it, but I didn't because I had little knowledge of it. In fact, I wound up saying that I did not believe in God, either. It wasn't until later that I began reading and better understanding it. And that -- life could not possibly have just "come about."

It's a shame you don't apply the same methodology to reading even a little about evolution.

The origin of life (abiogenesis), by the way, is outside the scope of the theory of evolution. Please don't confuse the two.

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

I see we can add "circular argument" to the list of things you don't understand.

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.

Well, you actually do get "evolutionary arms races" in which predictors and prey evolve to be better at catching and avoiding be caught and hence put strong selection pressure on each other.

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.

But it might well be, if other factors are unchanged. A fox may be born that is better for some reason at catching rabbits, and if that trait is heritable, it will, over time, tend to spread through the population because the foxes with it will be better fed and tend to leave more offspring. So the individual change happened suddenly but the change to the population takes time (many generations). And that is a relatively small change. It's the accumulation of such small changes that become large changes, so they take even more time.

That's why evolution is gradual, not sudden.

Reductionistic science wants to take an impossibly complex phenomenon and reduce it to a soundbite; "survival of the fittest".

That's actually your mistake (as I've been pointing out). "Survival of the fittest" is NOT the theory of evolution and nobody who knows anything about it would reduce it to that.

They got it wrong because every individual is fittest for some environment and biology assumes the conclusion.

The idea that any individual can be fit in some environment is simply irrelevant to the real world. Where has anybody assumed a conclusion (except for you, of course)?

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.

Nonsense. Why do you think consciousness has anything to do with it? We have a obvious example of evolution playing out in the world today with the arrival of SARS-CoV-2 variants. A virus isn't conscious but it does mutate and a small number of those mutations have given them a survival advantage (made it 'fitter' for its environment) and that has spread through populations (since viruses reproduce very quickly, this can happen in a short time). This is evolution by natural selection in action.

 

[exchemist]

I think we still need to change our perspective to see the errors in "evolution". "Evolution" assumes every individual of a species is identical and any actual differences can be factored out in experiment. I doubt this in the extreme.

This is actually the polar opposite of what evolution says. The original basis of Darwin's hypothesis was variation and natural selection. If all organisms in a population were identical, there would be nothing for the environment to select. The theory relies on organisms in a population not being identical, with some being better adapted to the conditions than others.

 

[cladking]

If all organisms in a population were identical, there would be nothing for the environment to select.

In one breath I'm told fitness doesn't matter and in the next it's the very basis of evolution.

Which is it?

An animal must survive to reproduce therefore the more fit reproduce more but this isn't a circular argument at all.

Fit individuals drive real evolution and all the others are there to serve their betters or to be served to their betters.

I'm seeing a lot of semantical arguments but no evidence. I'm not seeing any logic either because circular arguments are not logic but rather an expression of what individuals want to believe.

 

[cladking]

Opinions can influence actions, wouldn't you say?

Beliefs are the basis of all behavior in human beings and the basis of no behavior in all other life forms.

Back later...

 

[F1fan]

If the experts are so smart why can't they predict which fox will eat which rabbits.

LOL, this is your test for what makes an expert smart? Well, can you predict it? Of cours you can't, so that makes you no smarter than experts. So if exports aren't smart thus their actual theories are wrong, then you are not smart either, then your tabloid magazine theory isn't correct either.

Frankly, your judgment and contempt for experts here is irrelevant.

Why are they wholly incapable of predicting which individual is less fit?

I'm sure they can point out how your beliefs are not fit for this discussion with more educated people.

Don't they have the ability to test a rabbit and a fox? How you you tell if a cunning rabbit that is fast can escape a far more cunning fox that has slowed down a bit but has lots of experience? Your "theory" is vacuous. It is simply assuming the conclusion that dead rabbits can't reproduce so mustta been less fit then new ones. You assume that species change because the ones left behind were left behind. "Survival of the fittest" sounds good but it is not supported. It is an assumption.

Your lack of thinking things through is flawed. I'm not quite sure what you think is being tested, but just a basic understanding of populations of rabbits and foxes allows smart people to realize there are vastly more rabbits than foxes. If you have 100 rabbits and 3 foxes, there's no way to predict which specific rabbit will be targeted and caught. There will be general principles that apply, like babies, or older rabbits, or injured rabbits, etc. But you don't know evolution well enough to understand this. So your criticisms of science is flawed and irrelevant.

"Experts" are only experts. They are not Gods who create reality but humans who are trying to understand it just like everyone else. All opinion is irrelevant to reality and this includes expert opinion.

Yes only experts who went through years of education and experience to understand what is true about how things are. You aren't even an expert. They are still better than you despite your contempt for them.

As a rule expert opinion is most valuable when it is split 60/ 40.

There's no such rule. This is just another bogus thing Chad states from his authority as the King of biology.

The majority are more likely to be more correct. When it is unanimous it is because they share the same assumptions and they might all be wrong. In every case expert opinion is better than anyone else's but it might be wrong. I am trying to list the reasons that expert opinion is wrong about evolution. I suppose I should start listing more reasons now if we agree to disagree about dogs.

Again you think science is like politics or some contest on TV. Wrong again. Get your science right.

 

[F1fan]

An animal must survive to reproduce therefore the more fit reproduce more but this isn't a circular argument at all.

GROUPS of animals. It's not about individuals. If you were the last male on earth, and there were no females, who are you going to breed with?

Fit individuals drive real evolution and all the others are there to serve their betters or to be served to their betters.

What? This sounds like how wolf packs function, but not all animals. I suspect you are speaking from ignorance again. All like animals are either fit to reproduce or they are not.

I'm seeing a lot of semantical arguments but no evidence.

Thanks for the confession.

I'm not seeing any logic either because circular arguments are not logic but rather an expression of what individuals want to believe.

Remember, you have contempt for experts and their work, so naturally you will reject anything you don't like.

 

[ratiocinator]

In one breath I'm told fitness doesn't matter and in the next it's the very basis of evolution.

Which is it?

Who said fitness doesn't matter? What you've been told is that you don't understand what fitness means in terms of evolution.

An animal must survive to reproduce therefore the more fit reproduce more but this isn't a circular argument at all.

If you'd try to understand instead of just garbling what you're being told and refusing to take any notice of people when they tell you you've got things wrong, then we might get somewhere.

There is no circularity. Some individuals are better suited to survive and reproduce in the environment than others - this is effectively random variation. Those ones who are better suited to survival a reproduction in the environment tend to survive and reproduce more (amazing, isn't it!?) and the traits they carry that give them the advantage are passed on and spread through the population. See? No circularity at all.

Fit individuals drive real evolution and all the others are there to serve their betters or to be served to their betters.

Where on earth did you get this nonsense? You still seem to be thinking like this has been designed and that individuals have designated roles.

I'm seeing a lot of semantical arguments but no evidence.

There is plentiful evidence but at the moment you are still struggling to even grasp the basic principles.

I'm not seeing any logic either because circular arguments are not logic but rather an expression of what individuals want to believe.

There is no circularity. You don't even seem to understand what circularity means, and as you obviously don't understand what people are telling you about evolution, you're not (yet) in a position to even know if it's circular or not (even if you did understand circularity).

 

[cladking]

I might never catch up with this threaf.

There is no circularity. Some individuals are better suited to survive and reproduce in the environment than others - this is effectively random variation. Those ones who are better suited to survival a reproduction in the environment tend to survive and reproduce more (amazing, isn't it!?) and the traits they carry that give them the advantage are passed on and spread through the population. See? No circularity at all.

Of course it's circular because you are merely assuming less well suited individuals are less likely to survive. Obviously fit individuals living in a less optimal environment than fit individuals living in an optimal environment have fewer off spring on average but it doesn't matter who produces the next individual, it will still be fit. Fitness within a given environment merely assures that it's your off spring who will be fit. It does not ensure that the off spring will be best suited nor does it lead to change in species unless there is some gradual change in the environment. I am showing that in fact changes in environment tend to be very sudden as well. This is what the fossil record shows, new groups of species with each succeeding layer and era. Species rarely change very much within layers because gradual change and "survival of the fittest" is not what drives change in species. All observed change is sudden and this applies to individuals, species, layers, and eras. We are imagining that changes are gradual and we can't see them because of all the missing links. But most of these missing links never even existed just as there never existed anything between homo sapiens and homo omnisciencis. Typically the survivors in a bottleneck will be the last individuals of that species.

Again I'm not suggesting there is no gradual change but merely that all gradual change is a random walk and is generally mostly insignificant. Important and massive changes in all life and all species are the result of bottlenecks.

Forget the missing links because they don't exist.

 

[cladking]

Remember, you have contempt for experts and their work, so naturally you will reject anything you don't like.

No. I think experts are sometimes wrong especially when they all agree.

Again you think science is like politics or some contest on TV. Wrong again. Get your science right.

Anyone who believes that "peer review" is part of knowledge, understanding, creation are the ones who believe reality is subject to vote. Anyone who uncritically accepts doctrine and expert opinion are the ones who believe in "settled science". Politics and (in) science is your problem, not mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I might never catch up with this threaf.



Of course it's circular because you are merely assuming less well suited individuals are less likely to survive.

What makes you think that is an assumption? It is a testable observation. In fact it is such a trite and obvious observation that man people complain about it. But you have demonstrated why it needs to be tested.

Obviously fit individuals living in a less optimal environment than fit individuals living in an optimal environment have fewer off spring on average but it doesn't matter who produces the next individual, it will still be fit. Fitness within a given environment merely assures that it's your off spring who will be fit. It does not ensure that the off spring will be best suited nor does it lead to change in species unless there is some gradual change in the environment. I am showing that in fact changes in environment tend to be very sudden as well. This is what the fossil record shows, new groups of species with each succeeding layer and era. Species rarely change very much within layers because gradual change and "survival of the fittest" is not what drives change in species. All observed change is sudden and this applies to individuals, species, layers, and eras. We are imagining that changes are gradual and we can't see them because of all the missing links. But most of these missing links never even existed just as there never existed anything between homo sapiens and homo omnisciencis. Typically the survivors in a bottleneck will be the last individuals of that species.

Well that was a world record self contradiction. And then another. and another.

And once again, no, not all observed change is "sudden". Though it would help if you define that term properly. We can see transitional forms existing long after there initial replacements first show up. Tiktaalik is a very good example. At that time there were no good transitional fossils from sea life to land life. It was the first clear transitional form found. But later on older species that were even more adapted to land life were found. Your idea is once again akin to denying the existence of Europeans since Americans are descended from Europeans.

Again I'm not suggesting there is no gradual change but merely that all gradual change is a random walk and is generally mostly insignificant. Important and massive changes in all life and all species are the result of bottlenecks.

Of course quite a few changes are going to appear after bottlenecks. They do two things. They are very heavy selection events. They clear the board of quite a few species. That allows new ones to develop. But those changes tend to be only "sudden" in geologic time. This is why you need to define "sudden". On an evolutionary timescale those changes do not appear to be sudden.

Forget the missing links because they don't exist.

Wrong again. There have been so many transitional forms found that the term "missing link" is only used by creationists. Perhaps you would care to define that term as you use it and then we could show whether it has been "found" or not.

By the way, why do you focus only on the fossil evidence?

 

[cladking]

I have heard that plants respond to types of music, but frankly I doubt they are conscious in the thinking and pondering sense. They are reacting. And not evolving except maybe the music knocked them out of existence.

I believe all life is conscious. This being said I also believe that many life form and individuals have a highly limited consciousness. Tree roots, for instance change directions before hitting obstructions and bacteria are known to act in concert. In many species "consciousness" is little more than a weak will to thrive and survive. Yew trees tend to release their pollen not when most violently shaken but rather when wind velocity is most erratic. This would tend to spread the pollen over a wider area and assure much lower velocity of the pollen when it gets to the intended target.

Modern science, modern experiment tends to show all the old assumption are nonsense as any two year old knows. What isn't so obvious is the nature of "intelligence" and consciousness. Since modern humans don't understand the nature of consciousness we can't see its vital importance in all life and all change in life. Consciousness is life and life is consciousness. Other life forms all know this but homo omnisciencis is the odd man out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe all life is conscious. This being said I also believe that many life form and individuals have a highly limited consciousness. Tree roots, for instance change directions before hitting obstructions and bacteria are known to act in concert. In many species "consciousness" is little more than a weak will to thrive and survive. Yew trees tend to release their pollen not when most violently shaken but rather when wind velocity is most erratic. This would tend to spread the pollen over a wider area and assure much lower velocity of the pollen when it gets to the intended target.

Modern science, modern experiment tends to show all the old assumption are nonsense as any two year old knows. What isn't so obvious is the nature of "intelligence" and consciousness. Since modern humans don't understand the nature of consciousness we can't see its vital importance in all life and all change in life. Consciousness is life and life is consciousness. Other life forms all know this but homo omnisciencis is the odd man out.

And how would you test properly for intelligence? Do you even know what a proper test is in the sciences? Here is a hint, if it involves confirmation bias it is not a proper test.

 

[cladking]

OK, we're not allowed to say certain things on these forums, and I respect that, however when I was growing up I knew very, v-e-r-y little about the Bible. I knew it was there; I knew people believed it, but I didn't because I had little knowledge of it. In fact, I wound up saying that I did not believe in God, either. It wasn't until later that I began reading and better understanding it. And that -- life could not possibly have just "come about."

My "religion" has changed dozens of times. For many years I was highly anti-religion. I have been a few religions, atheist, agnostic, and a few people haven't thought of.

Now I'm content to just not know and to ponder the nature of humanity and consciousness. Something began reality because even though logic of reality is composed can exist in nothingness, nothing can come into existence through logic alone unless it is axiomatic that time is logical. Even if I could show that time can create energy which can be converted into matter we still couldn't know if God is Time or created time. We couldn't know that our axiom was reality or just the handiest way to create new gadgets.

Humans know the tiniest fraction of .000001% of everything there is to know but they still believe in the study of change in life with no understanding of the nature of life or how it arose. All they have to do is google it or wait for the Word to be handed down from Peers.

I think it's hilarious that the Bible may be more correct than Peers on some issues and possibly far more.

 

[cladking]

Evolution does not assume that every member of a species is identical. If they were identical, there would be no variation for natural selection to act on and for evolution to occur.

If that were true then why is the consciousness of any individual at all factored into why dinosaurs all died?

Why do you believe consciousness cancels itself out if you don't understand what it is?