The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[ImmortalFlame]

Indeed!!

But many such changes have no manifestation in any individual since frequency is irrelevant except in genes that are expressed.

In any case the question is what causes these changes as well as how mutation can be expressed in "populations".

You've already accepted that mutations are the cause.

What we disagree on, I think, is how these mutations proliferate and lead to evolution of the population. You seem to believe natural selection and gradual change are lesser (or nonexistent) in the process, but assert that it is caused by "bottlenecks" which you have yet to meaningfully define or provide an example of. To me, "bottlenecks" just sounds like "natural selection".

 

[cladking]

What causes these bottlenecks? Give me an example.

Anything that wipes out most of a population.

But what causes the most change is when the event selects for an unusual behavior for that species.

We observe EXACTLY this all the time. Wolves are wild and aggressive but if you select out a few of the tamest you get a dog. This is unnatural selection but natural selection works the exact same way. It is a collection of unusual behavior that is bred to create new species and these species are sudden. There were no dogs and then there suddenly were.

Again, you're over-complicating a simple semantic issue. It is simply a fact that evolution is defined as changed in allele frequency at the population level, not an individual level.

You can define anything any way you want but then you are stuck with that definition. I am telling you that part of the reason we can't see the reality of species change is definitions and language. This specific definition isn't that bad but it does imply that we understand the nature and cause of species change. It does facilitate the assumption of the conclusion. Irrelevant and insignificant changes in some allele frequency is not what causes a wolf to give birth to a dog. Indeed, the change in frequency can't be defined from the perspective of the dog's parents. Are we going to say 10% of the wolf's pups are dogs even though once it becomes impossible to mate with wolves EVERY pup will be a dog?

 

[cladking]

Think of "evolution" this way. Every animal is an individual and has individual genes that lead to individual behavior. There's no such thing as a "wolf". There are only individuals that can and sometimes do mate to create offspring which are also individuals. When unusual genes come together the offspring is unusual.

Most change in these groups we call "species" are the result of all individuals arising from parents with the same unusual genes. Most of these new individuals will be able to mate with the other unusual offspring giving rise to a new species.

This is very difficult to see from modern perspective of reductionism and taxonomies. It's very difficult when words are already defined to match our beliefs rather than observation. We must think using words and formatted in terms of our beliefs. This is the way Homo Omnisciencis is. I believe ancient people saw this and used the theory to create agriculture which sustained us when we arose from the rubble of the "Tower of Babel". It is critically important that we come to understand ourselves because there is a new tower of babel event in the near future and this time there is nothing to preserve our science and knowledge nor our ability to sustain ourselves until a new science arises.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Anything that wipes out most of a population.

So you're essentially talking about punctuated equilibrium, then.

But what causes the most change is when the event selects for an unusual behavior for that species.

And how does an event do that?

We observe EXACTLY this all the time. Wolves are wild and aggressive but if you select out a few of the tamest you get a dog. This is unnatural selection but natural selection works the exact same way. It is a collection of unusual behavior that is bred to create new species and these species are sudden. There were no dogs and then there suddenly were.

But dogs are an example of artificial, not natural, selection. Nature does the same thing, only it takes a much longer time to do it can have a variety of selective factors (whereas artificial selective factors are "whatever traits the selectors prefer").

You can define anything any way you want but then you are stuck with that definition.

When discussing a concept, it helps if you can agree on a shared definition of what that concept is.

I am telling you that part of the reason we can't see the reality of species change is definitions and language. This specific definition isn't that bad but it does imply that we understand the nature and cause of species change. It does facilitate the assumption of the conclusion. Irrelevant and insignificant changes in some allele frequency is not what causes a wolf to give birth to a dog. Indeed, the change in frequency can't be defined from the perspective of the dog's parents. Are we going to say 10% of the wolf's pups are dogs even though once it becomes impossible to mate with wolves EVERY pup will be a dog?

I'm not sure you understand the nature of and cause of species change yourself. Nothing you've said contradicts or is out of line with evolution and natural selection. You just appear to be mincing words for no reason whatsoever at this stage.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Think of "evolution" this way. Every animal is an individual and has individual genes that lead to individual behavior. There's no such thing as a "wolf". There are only individuals that can and sometimes do mate to create offspring which are also individuals. When unusual genes come together the offspring is unusual.

Most change in these groups we call "species" are the result of all individuals arising from parents with the same unusual genes. Most of these new individuals will be able to mate with the other unusual offspring giving rise to a new species.

This makes no sense. Are you precluding "unusual" offspring mating with "usual offspring"? And since you reject that there is such a thing as a "wolf" or that "species" is a meaningful label, how exactly do you determine that a "new species" has arisen?

This is very difficult to see from modern perspective of reductionism and taxonomies. It's very difficult when words are already defined to match our beliefs rather than observation. We must think using words and formatted in terms of our beliefs. This is the way Homo Omnisciencis is. I believe ancient people saw this and used the theory to create agriculture which sustained us when we arose from the rubble of the "Tower of Babel". It is critically important that we come to understand ourselves because there is a new tower of babel event in the near future and this time there is nothing to preserve our science and knowledge nor our ability to sustain ourselves until a new science arises.

And what observations are you talking about, specifically?

 

[cladking]

So you're essentially talking about punctuated equilibrium, then.

Yes.

But dogs are an example of artificial, not natural, selection. Nature does the same thing, only it takes a much longer time to do it can have a variety of selective factors (whereas artificial selective factors are "whatever traits the selectors prefer").

This is a belief. You believe nature can change species one individual at a time and you are no correct but survival of the fittest is too slow to cause massive changes in species. "Giraffes" didn't gradually arise.

When discussing a concept, it helps if you can agree on a shared definition of what that concept is.

This is no problem. The problem is few individuals are aware that definitions vary between individuals and that they define and cause the way we think. More importantly they forget that our findings are only true within these definitions.

I'm not sure you understand the nature of and cause of species change yourself. Nothing you've said contradicts or is out of line with evolution and natural selection. You just appear to be mincing words for no reason whatsoever at this stage.

Really!? I'm trying to say that modern science has misinterpreted the evidence and does not understand the major cause of "all" major change in species. By implication I am saying our ancestors had a better understanding of it than we do and used this understanding to create agriculture.

Obviously you're correct that some of this is mostly semantics and definitions but you're the first to recognize it. I believe that if we used the perspective of consciousness and individuals to study "evolution" we'd soon learn a great deal that we don't know. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area and have only a few ideas of where to begin so I just don't know. I do know there are lots of very sharp people working on most of these issues.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a belief. You believe nature can change species one individual at a time and you are no correct but survival of the fittest is too slow to cause massive changes in species. "Giraffes" didn't gradually arise.

Please demonstrate this.

Really!? I'm trying to say that modern science has misinterpreted the evidence and does not understand the major cause of "all" major change in species. By implication I am saying our ancestors had a better understanding of it than we do and used this understanding to create agriculture.

And what is your evidence for this, and what are the actual causes?

Obviously you're correct that some of this is mostly semantics and definitions but you're the first to recognize it. I believe that if we used the perspective of consciousness and individuals to study "evolution" we'd soon learn a great deal that we don't know. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area and have only a few ideas of where to begin so I just don't know. I do know there are lots of very sharp people working on most of these issues.

And what do you think we would learn and why?

 

[cladking]

And what do you think we would learn and why?

It would require decades if not centuries but we would learn our nature, the nature of life, and the nature of consciousness.

Some benefits would be more immediate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It would require decades if not centuries but we would learn our nature, the nature of life, and the nature of consciousness.

Some benefits would be more immediate.

Can you give examples of how we could do this?

 

[cladking]

Can you give examples of how we could do this?

It's largely a matter of education to start. Everybody needs to get more metaphysics at a much younger age and those who show a proclivity to understanding it should be trained as generalists from a much younger age. There are numerous things that can be done more immediately but these are not really on topic and involve things like inventing and standardizing a scientific language and redefining some operative words. It involves things like including chaos theory more broadly in all fields. It would include a seventh step in the scientific method "metaphysical implications". Our species has reached a point where it has become critical to understand what we know, I believe. We are approaching our very own "tower of babel" and this gets more obvious with every passing day. We have replaced a moral code founded in belief with a set of beliefs founded in magical ideas about the omniscience of some rootless and undefined "science". We have no choice but to fix the metaphysics and use more perspectives. I believe it is possible to reinvent ancient science for use by computers.

"Semantics" is important when you're talking about the definitions we use to construct our models. When it comes to communication "semantics" is chiefly about using word games to win a point. "Consciousness" is the most important concept of all but we don't even have a working definition for it and biologists wholly ignore it when talking about change in species! "Rabbits" is nothing but a concept that represents millions and millions of actual real individuals but not one of these is considered. "Rabbit" is a reductionistic word and not a living breathing thing but this concept is a part of our models while "consciousness" is not.

Our science has gone nearly as far as it can. A tool and the job it can do is defined not by the worker but by the nature of the tool. We need to change because we can make only minor modifications to the tool. Even with changes the tool will be obsolete in less than a century.

 

[gnostic]

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.

That’s more in the Abiogenesis territory than in the Evolution camp.

It is about chemical reactions that can turn inorganic matters into organic matters. And that organic matters can become building blocks for living organisms.

What I have problems with are creationists who keep making the same mistakes over and over and over again, confusing Evolution with Abiogenesis.

No matter we can explain the differences between Abiogenesis and Evolution, creationists are incapable of learning their mistakes, and these mistakes get repeated in other threads.

Either creationists are stubbornly ignorant, or they are inherently dishonest...or it could be both.

Anyway...

Abiogenesis is still ongoing researched hypothesis, where there are several different models or versions of Abiogenesis, and science community have yet reached the consensus of which model to be correct one.

At least there have been some promising evidence that support these different models.

The same cannot be said about god creating human from dust in Genesis 2 or from clay or mud from the Qur’an.

Dust cannot naturally transform into a living adult male human, not unless you believe in magic. That’s only possible if you believe in the superstitions of pure myth or fairytale.

And how did god created fishes, birds, reptiles and mammals. Genesis 1 and 2 is sadly lacking in details?

Did god created all these animals by simply saying “Let there be birds” or “Let there be wild and domestic animals”, etc, and then poof, they magically appeared, just like the way God created light?

Is this like magic, or witchcraft, when witches mutter incantation or say a magical word?

How is god creating things (including life) anymore believe than magic and witchcraft?

The purpose of Abiogenesis is finding the natural processes, so you need a fair bit of understanding biochemistry and molecular biology, by looking at how organic matters works, such as cells, genes, chromosomes, nucleic acids (eg DNA, RNA), amino acids (eg proteins, enzymes), etc, then break it down, test it, and so on.

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing.

Before you didn’t understand Abiogenesis, but now, you don’t understand Evolution.

You also make claims that evolution is wrong, but how can you possibly judge it to be wrong, when clearly you don’t even understand the process.

Why don’t try to ask questions and learn from it, instead of making judgement.

Or pick up biology textbook and do a little research or go back to school. It is never too late to learn.

All you are doing is demonstrating to us, that you refuses to learn, and making biased and ignorant judgement without understanding what you are arguing about.

I see this time and time again, creationists making threads and arguing from position ignorance or making circular rationalized assumptions about their belief in books (referring to Bible).

 

[gnostic]

It's largely a matter of education to start. Everybody needs to get more metaphysics at a much younger age and those who show a proclivity to understanding it should be trained as generalists from a much younger age.

Metaphysics is outdated and overrated philosophy.

It was useful in the earlier days of Aristotle to the early modern history, but today, it has become nothing more than useless armchair sophistry.

 

[cladking]

Metaphysics is outdated and overrated philosophy.

Oh!

What word would you have me use to refer to "the basis of science"? Or do you believe science and scientists work through magic or don't need a theoretical basis?

How do you communicate if the other person chooses his own meaning to your sentences and words? Ancient people could see this confusion directly but we can only see it after a thousand attempts to communicate have failed. Maybe we could communicate if you spoke for me and I spoke for you except I seriously doubt you understand what I'm saying. You're saying everything must be based on the best evidences and I am saying that interpretation of "evidences" is based on metaphysics and existing beliefs. I am saying that appearances are always deceiving so Look and See Science is always wrong. Real science is always right but it's only right in terms of its own metaphysics, epistemology, definitions, axioms, and must be held as models formed of beliefs rather than as reality itself. But you don't seem to understand that last sentence no matter how many different ways it is said.

 

[tas8831]

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise,

How so?
This seems like some kind of post hoc fallacy.

but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora?

What are the odds of someone presenting a scenario that nobody actually accepts or has put forth or believes and using that as a foundation to cast doubt?

That is more believable than Genesis?

Yes - well not the strawman version that you put forth.

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another?

I have to laugh when I see statements like this.

Do you really think that when we refer to "observation" in science we mean actually seeing a particular event?

I have never observed Mt. Vesuvius erupting. But I can look at the evidence (not the eyewitness testimony - that is not even necessary) and conclude that yes, Vesuvius erupted.

I have never directly observed DNA mutating, but I have observed the results of DNA sequencing and can "see" the mutations.

"Observe" does not mean what non-science folk think it does.

 

[tas8831]

The problem here is that there is not real evidence that change in complex species is the result of survival of the fittest .

LOL!

This represents the sum total of your "knowledge" re: evolution.

Amazing...

 

[cladking]

I say all children need more metaphysics so they understand not so much the limitations of science but rather its meaning and the meaning of experiment. This applies especially to those who are likely to specialize in science or any scientific related field including even technicians and advanced machine operators. But we need people trained in generalism so we can see where things are going so horribly wrong. We spend billions to make millions of dollars worth of gasahol for instance. The rich get richer and the whole world gets poorer but this is invisible to politicians, economists, meteorologists, and engineers. Companies operate with money pouring out of oner pocket so it can trickle into another. Most products now days should just be bulldozed into landfill right from the factory floor to save the expense of shipping and marketing the garbage. Food is adulterated and corrupted.

Meanwhile, we produce CO2 that Look and See Science says will cause our doom as a corrupt government forces taxpayers to fund infrastructure on the beach when the tide goes out.

Government, companies, and all institutions need people who can make sense of all the processes and characteristics that affect them but the specialists (often lawyers or bankers) who run them can't see this. So year after year we get less and less efficient and spend more and more to do it. This is a far larger cause of CO2 production than all other factors combined. Specialization has led to the collapse of education.

Teaching more metaphysics starting even before first grade can reduce or eliminate much of the problem. People should at least know what the word means by the time they become a specialist. We can't have our bankers and lawyers thinking science is some kind of "white magic". Now "technology" really is magic but it's a magic performed by those who understand theory.

 

[cladking]

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another?

"I have to laugh when I see statements like this.
Do you really think that when we refer to "observation" in science we mean actually seeing a particular event?"




We do see species come directly come into being but people can't really observe it because we see what we believe. Indeed, everytime a species has been born it was seen by people who understood "change in species" or what you call evolution. Tame minks, cats, dogs, pigs, and cattle are a few examples. In a few years we'll even have another new species that will be "tame white tail deer". They'll probably be slower, fatter, smaller, and duller than the current "species".

What good is "observation" when we can't see what's in front of our eyes?

 

[cladking]

LOL!

This represents the sum total of your "knowledge" re: evolution.

Amazing...

Yes!

That's just about it even though I have personally created a few different (transient) species.

Real change in species is far too complex for humans to ever have a complete understanding of the processes and specific events that cause it. This is largely because no two individuals are alike and there's no such thing as "species". It's also because relevant observations are in most cases an impossibility of the highest order.

 

[cladking]

The Bible is derived from people who understood the theory of "evolution" as it actually exists. This is one of the chief reasons the Bible fixates on behavior.

Much of our Theory of Evolution is derived from the ideas of a great Look and See Scientist named Darwin.

 

[metis]

IMO, evolution is just plain old common sense, in that it appears that all material objects tend to change over time, and both genes and life forms are material objects.