Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

[leibowde84]

Since like means similar to, I fail to see how populations are similar to insects.

This is a bit ridiculous. "Like" in this context does not mean "similar to", it is providing an example. If I say, "cookies, like oreos, are high in sugar", it means "such as" or "for example". It is the same as saying "cookies, such as oreos, are high in sugar".

In other words, it meant, "populations, such as insects ...".

 

[Zosimus]

First of all, like can never mean such as.

Second, insects are not examples of populations. Insects are a class of invertebrates.

 

[Skwim]

This is a bit ridiculous. "Like" in this context does not mean "similar to", it is providing an example. If I say, "cookies, like oreos, are high in sugar", it means "such as" or "for example". It is the same as saying "cookies, such as oreos, are high in sugar".

In other words, it meant, "populations, such as insects ...".

A note on the grammatical use of "such as" and "like."

"Such as" denotes a specific entity. "Like" denotes a similarity to. If I say "cookies, such as Oreos, are high in sugar" I'm speaking specifically about Oreos. I'm singling them out. Here "cookies" equates to Oreos

If I say "cookies, like Oreos, are high in sugar" I'm not speaking directly about Oreos at all, just those cookies that are similar to Oreos. It's as if I'm saying "cookies, [that are] like Oreos, are high in sugar." Here "cookies" equates to Oreo-like cookies.


.

 

[Segev Moran]

This is actually using the word "probability" incorrectly. Probabilities are not subjective in nature. They are based on statistics and mathematical likelihoods.

Ahhh.. Forget it buddy.. It's a lost fight...
The dude/t doesn't seem to agree on any of the Terms any human ever stated.
As far as Zosimus concerns.. There is nothing real..Everything is one big conspiracy or delusion...
As I Read more and more of his threads and posts.. it just seems s/he are writing things for the sake of annoying people
But we love him/her even if it is so....

 

[Segev Moran]

I see no reason to believe that to be true.

So don't

[/QUOTE]
What evidence do you provide to support the idea that evidence is the only valid reason for believing something?

As only eventual things really work.

Your Media video

Please see the entire video you've just sent.
The theist will say the chances of GOD are very high due to his beliefs.. but he actually ignores the actuall probability.. Just like one can believe he's house won't be broken into.

But the fact is, When not surrendering to the subjective POV, the probability is based on a well formed calculation.

This is a misunderstanding. God either exists or he does not. You cannot determine whether he exists by calculating all the different possibilities, but that does not change the underlying truth that he might exist. That's why I'm agnostic.

The problem starts with defining GOD.
When you say GOD exists.. Which one???
Which GOD?
What is GOD?

Lets go back to the foundations...
In your POV... What is GOD? (Serious question)..
When you say I Don't believe GOD exist.. Which GOD do you mean?

I Can tell you that when I Say GOD, I Mean either.. I Mean that I have no valid reason to believe ANY un-natural / super-natural being...
I Don't believe that we have Souls.. I Don't believe we have a spirit.

I Do believe that there are amazing things that science cannot explain (Yet) and that we have amazing abilities that we are yet to understand let alone use.

I Do believe that some day, teleportation, mind reading, time travel and such will be possible...
But I do know that it is only a belief.. So we might never be able to teleport..
Why do I believe it?
Because as it seems, Every day we are discovering things that make those possibilities SEEM a bit more possible..

Quit playing with your balls. This is not a valid analogy.

Hands off.. No more balls

Aye, and that's why atheism is a self-refuting belief system.

Can't see how you concluded that...
To say, Trust me. trust no one.. would be self-refuting..
To say There is no evidence to something so I'm not believing it to be true.. hmmm

Whatever.

Yey

No, something is either true or not true. It's not a matter of chance. It's a matter of estimating your own subjective degree of belief.

Estimating your level of degree makes in Subjective probability..

The pool is the same?

Yep...

Like this pool?

Yep...
That's exactly the pool i meant...

 

[McBell]

First of all, like can never mean such as.

Second, insects are not examples of populations. Insects are a class of invertebrates.

Thus why you cannot be taken seriously.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Since like means similar to, I fail to see how populations are similar to insects.

Populations and instect have the same relationship as schools and fish. They aren't similar. But a population of any given insect could be similar to a population of any other given species.

Of course not. However, that doesn't stop you from claiming that natural selection preserves beneficial genes and eliminates harmful ones. I have no way of determining whether that is true. It seems more like a tautology than anything else. I guess I'll remain agnostic.

Leaving aside the fact that it is observable it is also logical and necessary by nature. If something continuously succeeds then it means it is successful. There are no genes that are inherently sucessful that are not selected as there are not genes that are unsuccessful that somehow magically make it through. If it succeeds then it is successful. Its a determinate definition that can't really be denied.

Since horses with longer legs run more slowly than do those with shorter legs a "run fast" gene could simply be a shorter-legged horse.

Sure. If having shorter legs is a benefit to a population of horses then the trend would turn to shorter legs.

Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily. Well at least in the case of any living population of wild horses. If you have a population of 50 horses we could do it in about 6 or 7 generations. However then we have to start worrying about inbreeding with such a small population. But when we have thousands upon thousands of organisms in a population it takes several generations to get to the point where all living organisms in that population are descendants of the single gene holder.

I didn't get the point of that, and anyway a lot of it was speculation.

The point is that there isn't a line of evolution where at one end something is more evolved and at the other there is less evolved. Bigger faster and stronger isn't the end goal.

 

[Zosimus]

Populations and instect have the same relationship as schools and fish. They aren't similar. But a population of any given insect could be similar to a population of any other given species.

Regardless, just as populations are not similar to insects so too schools are not similar to fish. One is a subset of the other.

Leaving aside the fact that it is observable it is also logical and necessary by nature. If something continuously succeeds then it means it is successful. There are no genes that are inherently sucessful that are not selected as there are not genes that are unsuccessful that somehow magically make it through. If it succeeds then it is successful. Its a determinate definition that can't really be denied.

First of all, no amount of trying to show that natural selection is true will succeed in showing that it is not a tautology. To show that something is not a tautology, one should show that it is at least thoretically possible that it could be shown false. Second, since many posters here insist that the only valid basis for believing X is evidence for X, making an appeal to logic and necessity is out of scope. Finally, saying that natural selection is determinate definition does not mean that natural selection is not a tautology. In fact, I would be inclined to argue that making natural selection a determinate definition is the same as admitting that it's a tautology.

Sure. If having shorter legs is a benefit to a population of horses then the trend would turn to shorter legs.

No, you are inverting cause and effect. If the population of horses trends towards shorter legs, then having shorter legs will be defined as a benefit to the population of horses.

Yes necessarily. Well at least in the case of any living population of wild horses. If you have a population of 50 horses we could do it in about 6 or 7 generations. However then we have to start worrying about inbreeding with such a small population. But when we have thousands upon thousands of organisms in a population it takes several generations to get to the point where all living organisms in that population are descendants of the single gene holder.

No, even if a shorter-legged horse is born and if those shorter legs are an advantage, it is entirely possible that the advantaged horse will die before breeding because of factors unrelated to speed. The horse might become ill and die. The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong; time and chance happens to them all.

The point is that there isn't a line of evolution where at one end something is more evolved and at the other there is less evolved. Bigger faster and stronger isn't the end goal.

Given that we're discussing natural selection, evolution is out of scope.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Regardless, just as populations are not similar to insects so too schools are not similar to fish. One is a subset of the other.

Agreed. And it has been clarified the misunderstanding from before so I no longer the see the relevance of pointing out that they are not similar.

First of all, no amount of trying to show that natural selection is true will succeed in showing that it is not a tautology. To show that something is not a tautology, one should show that it is at least thoretically possible that it could be shown false. Second, since many posters here insist that the only valid basis for believing X is evidence for X, making an appeal to logic and necessity is out of scope. Finally, saying that natural selection is determinate definition does not mean that natural selection is not a tautology. In fact, I would be inclined to argue that making natural selection a determinate definition is the same as admitting that it's a tautology.

I'm not saying natural selection is a denominate definition. I'm saying what is successful is determined by what has shown success. I suppose that in and of itself is tautology but it doesn't make it wrong. If something is not successful then it will not continue to pass on its genes. Why? Because the only criteria that matters when determining if something is successful is if it is able to pass on its genes.

No, you are inverting cause and effect. If the population of horses trends towards shorter legs, then having shorter legs will be defined as a benefit to the population of horses.

You are the only one that seems to have things reversed. If the population trends towards shorter legs then it is for a reason. Natural selection means those that have the greatest capacity for survival and reproduction do so. If the population trends toward shorter legs it means that somewhere along the way it shows that the gene for shorter legs is more beneficial than having longer ones. Therefore it is a successful gene. Nothing inherent to the short-legged gene is successful except its results within the population.

No, even if a shorter-legged horse is born and if those shorter legs are an advantage, it is entirely possible that the advantaged horse will die before breeding because of factors unrelated to speed. The horse might become ill and die. The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong; time and chance happens to them all.

This is true. No one has denied this. In fact I would wager that nearly half of the potentially successful mutations that have ever happened (or perhaps more than half) have died out without having provided any changes to the population. But some mutants will survive.

Given that we're discussing natural selection, evolution is out of scope.

Nice try but we can't separate the mechanism from the effect. We can't talk about evolution without natural selection. And while we can talk about short term natural selection without talking about evolution we cannot separate it from evolution totally. It is one of the base mechanisms that drives it after all.

 

[Zosimus]

I'm not saying natural selection is a denominate definition. I'm saying what is successful is determined by what has shown success. I suppose that in and of itself is tautology but it doesn't make it wrong. If something is not successful then it will not continue to pass on its genes. Why? Because the only criteria that matters when determining if something is successful is if it is able to pass on its genes.

Since the meaning of the word "tautology" is "something that is always true," I cannot for the life of me understand why you are trying to argue that being a tautology doesn't make something wrong. Well, of COURSE not. The point is not that natural selection is WRONG but that it is not USEFUL. Since natural selection makes no testable predictions, it is fundamentally no different from the theory that tiny invisible fairies exist in the clouds and that they are the cause of precipitation. That may be all well and good, but it doesn't tell us whether it will rain today. Since the tiny fairy rain theory makes no novel testable predictions, it is empirically equivalent to theories of precipitation that do not include tiny fairies. Natural selection is a metaphysical statement. It is fundamentally no different from stating that "All good things come from God."

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Since the meaning of the word "tautology" is "something that is always true," I cannot for the life of me understand why you are trying to argue that being a tautology doesn't make something wrong. Well, of COURSE not. The point is not that natural selection is WRONG but that it is not USEFUL. Since natural selection makes no testable predictions, it is fundamentally no different from the theory that tiny invisible fairies exist in the clouds and that they are the cause of precipitation. That may be all well and good, but it doesn't tell us whether it will rain today. Since the tiny fairy rain theory makes no novel testable predictions, it is empirically equivalent to theories of precipitation that do not include tiny fairies. Natural selection is a metaphysical statement. It is fundamentally no different from stating that "All good things come from God."

It is extremely useful. Natural selection itself is not a tautology.
I had been going with the other definition which is when one repeats itself in simply a different manner of words. It is the successful genes because it is successful.

What I simply mean is that the nature of genes that are successful means that they have had a successful run. There is no inherent 'sucessfullness" to any gene. Natural selection as it is is extremely useful. We have made predictions and have preformed experimentation with it. I don't actually understand the leaps you are making to saying it is useless or it is the same as faeries.

Natural selection is in no way metaphysical. You need to make a powerful argument to set that up.

 

[Zosimus]

It is extremely useful. Natural selection itself is not a tautology.
I had been going with the other definition which is when one repeats itself in simply a different manner of words. It is the successful genes because it is successful.

What I simply mean is that the nature of genes that are successful means that they have had a successful run. There is no inherent 'sucessfullness" to any gene. Natural selection as it is is extremely useful. We have made predictions and have preformed experimentation with it. I don't actually understand the leaps you are making to saying it is useless or it is the same as faeries.

Natural selection is in no way metaphysical. You need to make a powerful argument to set that up.

So genes are beneficial if they lead to greater reproductive success? And greater reproductive success results from beneficial genes?
Sounds circular.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So genes are beneficial if they lead to greater reproductive success? And greater reproductive success results from beneficial genes?
Sounds circular.

Its not circular. Its the definition of beneficial gene. You seemed to have some kind of inclination that there are "good" genes and "bad" genes. You had asked how the "good" genes were so guaranteed to come out on top. I explained numerous times now that the way we determine a "good" gene is if it comes out on top. Simple as that. Now we can go into what genes actually were successful and look into why. At this very very very very very very very basic and elementary step of understanding what it means to be successful and how it is measured allows us to then go forward. That is not the end all to natural selection but one of the most basic parts to it.

 

[Zosimus]

Its not circular. Its the definition of beneficial gene. You seemed to have some kind of inclination that there are "good" genes and "bad" genes. You had asked how the "good" genes were so guaranteed to come out on top. I explained numerous times now that the way we determine a "good" gene is if it comes out on top. Simple as that. Now we can go into what genes actually were successful and look into why. At this very very very very very very very basic and elementary step of understanding what it means to be successful and how it is measured allows us to then go forward. That is not the end all to natural selection but one of the most basic parts to it.

Aye, as I said: It's a system that has no predictive power. You can rationalize after the fact that the genes that survived must have been beneficial somehow, but you cannot predict what genes will be beneficial in the future.

Any theory that does not make novel testable predictions is worthless for scientific purposes.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Aye, as I said: It's a system that has no predictive power. You can rationalize after the fact that the genes that survived must have been beneficial somehow, but you cannot predict what genes will be beneficial in the future.

Any theory that does not make novel testable predictions is worthless for scientific purposes.

False. I was answering a specific misconception you had about how we determined what a successful gene was. I answered. That in and of itself doesn't have any predictive power. However combined with the rest of the tools we have we can have predictive power. Also the mountains of evidences and actual predictions that turned out to be right help as well.

 

[Zosimus]

False. I was answering a specific misconception you had about how we determined what a successful gene was. I answered. That in and of itself doesn't have any predictive power. However combined with the rest of the tools we have we can have predictive power. Also the mountains of evidences and actual predictions that turned out to be right help as well.

This in no way undermines my point: Natural selection is nothing more than a tautology. Claims that it can be tested rely on tacking by disjunction.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This in no way undermines my point: Natural selection is nothing more than a tautology. Claims that it can be tested rely on tacking by disjunction.

It isn't. Natural selection is the observed process in which pressures genetic change. Do you disagree that unfit animals in the wild die?

 

[Zosimus]

It isn't. Natural selection is the observed process in which pressures genetic change. Do you disagree that unfit animals in the wild die?

Without a precise definition of "unfit," I cannot respond to your question.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Without a precise definition of "unfit," I cannot respond to your question.

Do you think that all life on earth exist in their environment independent of capabilities and traits? Or do the traits and capabilities of living things greatly influence their rate of survival? It isn't at trick question. It is as straightforward as I can be.

 

[Zosimus]

Do you think that all life on earth exist in their environment independent of capabilities and traits? Or do the traits and capabilities of living things greatly influence their rate of survival? It isn't at trick question. It is as straightforward as I can be.

Do I believe in cause and effect? Yes, I do.