The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[ratiocinator]

As usual the problem is that reality is infinitely more complex than humans perceive it to be.

It might well be, but that doesn't mean that we should dismiss evidence based, well tested theories.

If it were as simple as we believe then we could make predictions but nobody can.

We're very good at making predictions in any number of fields and we can, to an extent, make predictions from the theory of evolution. It can tell us the sorts of things we should find, for example, in genetics and the fossil record, and what we wouldn't expect to find. What it can't do is tell us exactly how a population will evolve because that depends, to a certain extent, on random variations.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is not irrelevant because it is the unfit and sickly that both populate new niches AND that cause speciation. It is the least fit who are generally the parents of a new species. Without the unfit there would be no living relative left of a species and life could die out on an entire planet. Few species would survive bottlenecks without the unfit.

The fit eat well and procreate more but the unfit chart new territory and invent new processes and technology that allow the species to continue, expand, and evolve. Nature has a place for everybody and even the sick and lame nourish prey species.

Reality is more complex than our little minds and primitive science can imagine.

Just repeating your misunderstanding over and over again, is not going to make it any less absurd. You really do need to understand what 'fit' means in terms of evolution. Those that are unfit, by definition, are the ones that don't survive and reproduce and don't contribute to future generations.

Bottlenecks are comparatively rare. Your obsession with them is bizarre and leads me to believe that you don't have any better idea of what the term means than you do about 'fitness'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If the experts are so smart why can't they predict which fox will eat which rabbits. Why are they wholly incapable of predicting which individual is less fit? 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.

"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.

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

Um yes. Because "fitness" = reproductive success.
It's kinda hard to reproduce when you're dead.

 

[cladking]

Um yes. Because "fitness" = reproductive success.
It's kinda hard to reproduce when you're dead.

It's exceedingly difficult for the 99.9% of individuals from before a bottleneck to reproduce what with being dead and all.

Somehow I doubt you're starting to understand my theory even if you are using the right words finally.

 

[cladking]

Bottlenecks are comparatively rare.

Like, duh.

This is when species change. If bottlenecks were common the fossil record would be such a hodge podge we'd still be trying to make sense of it. We'd still be trying to work out the general outlines of almost all species.

 

[ratiocinator]

Somehow I doubt you're starting to understand my theory even if you are using the right words finally.

Seriously, you don't have a theory - at least you haven't posted anything remotely like a scientific theory here. Strings of misunderstandings and baseless assertions do not a theory make.

This is when species change. If bottlenecks were common the fossil record would be such a hodge podge we'd still be trying to make sense of it. We'd still be trying to work out the general outlines of almost all species.

Species may well change at a bottleneck but there is no need for a bottleneck for species to change. The fossil record is patchy because fossilisation is rare, it has nothing to do with bottlenecks.

You're just making absurd baseless assertions again.

 

[cladking]

It might well be, but that doesn't mean that we should dismiss evidence based, well tested theories.

Evidence should never be dismissed.

We should try to remember reality is complex as we make our pronouncements of what's what and how species arise.

So why are you dismissing all the evidence that supports my theory? Why do so called scientists dismiss evidence that preerentially supports my theory to theirs as mere "anomalies".

Ancient science and modern science as well progress chiefly through the observation and consideration of anomalies. There's no such thing as a "mere" anomaly. There are only mere scientists.

 

[cladking]

Strings of misunderstandings and baseless assertions do not a theory make.

You are so fixated on your belief in "survival of the fittest" that you can't admit it is fundamental to your belief. You play semantics instead of addressing the argument. You are free to call it anything you want from "natural selection" to "toadstools" but I am going to call it what I always have even back when I sortta half believed in the "Theory of Evolution".

Your argument is circular no matter if you call it "assuming the conclusion" or "putting the cart before the horse". Peers and words have no effect on reality and communication is the art of trying to understand each other NOT trying to not understand.

 

[ratiocinator]

Evidence should never be dismissed.

Indeed.

We should try to remember reality is complex as we make our pronouncements of what's what and how species arise.

We approach this the same way as any other theory in science. We look at the evidence, formulate hypotheses, and test them. That's how we arrived at the current theory of evolution.

So why are you dismissing all the evidence that supports my theory?

You have not posted a theory or any evidence that contradicts the current theory. You've just posted baseless assertions and misunderstanding.

Why do so called scientists dismiss evidence that preerentially supports my theory to theirs as mere "anomalies".

I haven't even seen you post any anomalies. Every actual correct fact I've seen you post is a perfect fit with the current theory.

 

[cladking]

Species may well change at a bottleneck but there is no need for a bottleneck for species to change. The fossil record is patchy because fossilisation is rare, it has nothing to do with bottlenecks.

I missed this. This looks like real progress.

If you agree that speciation could occur at bottlenecks how do you propose to falsify this?

 

[ratiocinator]

You are so fixated on your belief in "survival of the fittest" that you can't admit it is fundamental to your belief.

*sigh* Yet again: 'survival of the fittest' is nothing but a popularisation and one that you obviously don't understand.

Your argument is circular no matter if you call it "assuming the conclusion" or "putting the cart before the horse".

You keep on asserting this but you've never actually pointed out any circularity (except in your own misunderstanding). You really should stop making a fool of yourself, and learn something about the actual theory of evolution.

If you agree that speciation could occur at bottlenecks how do you propose to falsify this?

Why would I falsify something I've said? A bottleneck is normally caused by a sudden change in the environment that severely reduces the population size. The change in the environment and the small population size may well cause changes in the frequency of alleles (or even eliminate some) and may well change the criteria for 'fitness'. Hence species can change at a bottleneck but a bottleneck is not required for species to change or for speciation events.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sorry, but it has to do with cognitive ability (thinking), instinct, teaching how to build. We were talking about difference of consciousness. Birds don't have the same cognitive ability that humans do. I actually learned that in biology while being taught evolution and that part I believe!

And you believe "that part" .... why?
How is that so different from the "other parts" you don't accept?

 

[SkepticThinker]

• As far as kinds, birds are not humans. And while it's not a modern textbook, the health laws are fitting about not touching dead bodies. God knew. And related that information to the Israelites. Modern biology and medical procedures"discovered" that law fairly recently.

The Bible doesn't contain anything that the people living at the time wouldn't/couldn't have known.
There is nothing in there that would have needed to come from a "higher source." There is nothing in there that demonstrates any of it came from God(s).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually, since reading your post again now, there is nothing in biological research that proves evolution. Chemicals can bind, separate, or combine, but it does not prove or demonstrate evolution. And nothing in fossil evidence that proves evolution either insofar as biology goes. To say that a bonobo is something like 98-99% of human dna is not proof of evolution. It is proof that a bonobo has 98-99% similar dna to a human. Now if it were 100%, that would take a different turn.

Ooops, you're saying nonsensical things again.

So you've gone back to disbelieving that patterns of genetic similarities don't demonstrate relatedness, which means that you're back to saying that sharing more DNA with your mother than with your great-grandfather doesn't demonstrate that you're more closely related to your mother than your great-grandfather.
Which means, you've gone back to denying reality.
You really should make up your mind, because your cognitive dissonance is showing again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's exceedingly difficult for the 99.9% of individuals from before a bottleneck to reproduce what with being dead and all.

Somehow I doubt you're starting to understand my theory even if you are using the right words finally.

Your "theory" that you tried to tell me isn't a "theory" but is also a "theory" doesn't make any sense and it's not demonstrable in any way, otherwise you would have demonstrated it 87 pages ago.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To repeat. A bottleneck does not cause speciation. Bottlenecks do not select for behavior traits or any other traits. A bottleneck is a drastic reduction in a population along with the associated reduction in genetic diversity of that population.

To further repeat. Fitness is not a cause of speciation. There is nothing in the science of biology that claims fitness causes speciation.

A niche is the biotic and abiotic space in which a species can exist. They change. The expand. They contract. New niches form. Old niches disappear.

Biology is very complex. Some people do not understand that complexity and have little or no understanding of what we have learned about biology. I do not know why someone would not even bother to learn what is known and choose to fabricate biology from scratch without any logic or reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory of evolution was formulated, because populations are not static. Darwin observed this and wrote an entire book containing all the evidence he had accumulated to the time of publication to show that populations are not static. To claim otherwise is hysterical.

Niches change. It makes no sense to claim they don't change that much and then claim they don't last long and all new niches regular form. Yet, that dichotomy is being argued here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no such thing as Homo omnisciensis.

There is no such defamatory as "look and see" science. All science is about looking at the world and seeing what is happening.

Controlled laboratory experiments are not the only means that scientists use to look at the natural world and see what is happening. There are experiments that are running in nature that can be observed. These natural experiments provide much knowledge about the world around us. A natural experiment lead to a greater understanding of disease etiology and medical advancements in the treatment of epidemics. The failure to understand this is the failure to understand science.

Fitness is a measure of reproductive success and does not cause speciation.

Population bottlenecks are a reduction in populations and genetic variation in populations. They do not cause speciation.

Niches can remain stable. Niches can disappear. They can change shape and size. New niches can form.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All change in life is not sudden. No one has shown this to be remotely correct.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

conditions in the environment can change rapidly, due to things like volcanic irruptions, asteroid/comet impacts. The source of the punctuated equilibrium model...