The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

Hence species can change at a bottleneck but a bottleneck is not required for species to change or for speciation events.

You continue to ignore everything. You ignored my question.

This is very frustrating trying to communicate with the devout.

 

[ratiocinator]

You continue to ignore everything.

Like what? You don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about. I (and others) have pointed out your misunderstandings and where you've made incoherent or baseless assertions and you just ignore us and repeat yourself.

You ignored my question.

What question? I addressed the only question you asked in the post and you've ignored the answer.

This is very frustrating trying to communicate with the devout.

Think what it's like trying to communicate with with somebody who doesn't understand science in general, doesn't know what a theory is, doesn't understand the theory he's trying to criticise, and is devout in his belief too.

As I keep saying - you need to learn something about the real theory you're trying to criticise, about science in general, what a scientific theory is, and what constitutes scientific evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Bottlenecks do not cause speciation.

Species do not decide to consciously become a new species by changing their behavior.

Fitness does not cause speciation.

Biological fitness is not a measure of an individuals general health, strength or vigor.

There is no such thing as Homo ominisciensis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Niches cannot simultaneously change very little and change a lot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no evidence of an ancient science.

There is no evidence of an ancient language.

Claims of these are just pretend.

 

[cladking]

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

Yes. I agree.

But generally such events are local so the flora and fauna will repopulate the area and be very similar to exactly what had already been there. Look at Mount St Helens for example.

Obviously an entire population could be eradicated in a local event but as a rule these events don't affect the entire planet. It is entirely within the realm of reason that there is some unknown periodic event that affects the planet and, obviously, ice ages have a dramatic effect on many many niches.

 

[cladking]

Niches cannot simultaneously change very little and change a lot.

Life is not a mathematical function. No part of life (species) exist as such a function. There are discontinuities and changes that affect every species in very different ways. The affect of a change on a species can have a severe impact on another species; if foxes lack rabbits to eat they might begin eating something else entirely. You are trying to reduce reality to equations but life is far too complex to be reduced. Life is consciousness but all consciousness must adapt to changes. You are merely imagining that counting rabbits or gazing at fossils is like an "experiment". It is most assuredly not. When you dig up a missing link you see proof of evolution but that's not the way real science works.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines ejected 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere and had a measurable reduction in global temperature.
Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo

Evidence supports that the Chicxulub impact changed global conditions so widely and rapidly that the dinosaurs became extinct opening up niches for the evolution and radiation of mammals.
Chicxulub crater - Wikipedia

Volcanos and meteor impacts can have a wide effect on global conditions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Niches cannot simultaneously change very little and change a lot.

Claiming both is nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Observing fossils is science. Observing natural experiments is science. Counting species or individuals within a species to understand populations dynamics is science.

Anyone claiming differently is wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In case it was missed.

Bottlenecks do not cause speciation.

Species do not decide to consciously become a new species by changing their behavior.

Fitness does not cause speciation.

Biological fitness is not a measure of an individuals general health, strength or vigor.

There is no such thing as Homo ominisciensis.

Additionally.

Science is look and see. Experiments are controlled look and see.

 

[cladking]

Niches cannot simultaneously change very little and change a lot.

What would you call cockroaches still living in and eating filth after a nuclear bomb has eradicated almost everything else? Until all the buildings collapsed the roaches would hardly be affected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Niches cannot simultaneously change very little and change a lot.

Pretend scenarios about nuclear cockroaches do not explain how someone can simultaneously hold that internally contradictory view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How can someone deny they have a theory and claim they have a theory?

It cannot be both.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How can look and see Egyptology be a thing and look and see science cannot?

 

[tas8831]

Niches cannot simultaneously change very little and change a lot.

Claiming both is nonsense.

Sort of like claiming ALL biological change occurs in a nanosecond.. or maybe like 2 generations.

 

[F1fan]

What would you call cockroaches still living in and eating filth after a nuclear bomb has eradicated almost everything else? Until all the buildings collapsed the roaches would hardly be affected.

Are you referring to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or both?

And present your evidence this happened.

 

[F1fan]

How can someone deny they have a theory and claim they have a theory?

It cannot be both.

Perhaps he has a theory that he doesn't have a theory.

 

[cladking]

There were two threads on evolution going a while back and I might not have posted about upside down flies here.

I once spent a couple generations swatting flies. Five six times a day I'd kill every fly visible in a small area. These things aren't dumb and they have genes that will save them. A few flies have genes that make them land on the bottom sides of things when the tops are deadly. Eventually I got flies that all landed on the bottoms of the furniture.

This didn't last because it was a highly localized event. But even 20 years later I'd wager more would land on the bottoms sooner because those genes are more concentrated.

Life will out because life is consciousness and all life has the desire to survive. Life will find a way because every individual is conscious and every individual is equally fit. I'm sure any fly upside down before my arrival didn't thrive as well as the ones crawling in the sugar bowl.

 

[F1fan]

There were two threads on evolution going a while back and I might not have posted about upside down flies here.

I once spent a couple generations swatting flies. Five six times a day I'd kill every fly visible in a small area. These things aren't dumb and they have genes that will save them. A few flies have genes that make them land on the bottom sides of things when the tops are deadly. Eventually I got flies that all landed on the bottoms of the furniture.

This didn't last because it was a highly localized event. But even 20 years later I'd wager more would land on the bottoms sooner because those genes are more concentrated.

Life will out because life is consciousness and all life has the desire to survive. Life will find a way because every individual is conscious and every individual is equally fit. I'm sure any fly upside down before my arrival didn't thrive as well as the ones crawling in the sugar bowl.

Just clean your house and none will be fit to survive. But as soon as you leave a door open too long, and some jelly on the countertop, here you go again. All the same flies. They are quite successful.