Why is evolution even still a debate?

[cladking]

Write a scientific paper to the experts and let them know they have no idea what they're talking about and all their work is wrong, then show that your work is right.
That's how you challenge scientific findings.

Every experiment and observation already shows I am right.

When science is wrong even the child can point and say that the king is naked. He doesn't need to also weave a new set of clothes that fit him as I have done.

The king is supposed to cover himself though now days they take a bow instead. Everyone believes their excrement has a pleasing odor.

 

[cladking]

A classic example is a population of salamanders surrounding California's central valley. They migrated around the central barrier preventing them from contact with any other salamanders but those on either side of them. The second illustration represents different variations of salamanders. The periwinkle ones are a little different from the magenta ones, but the two subpopulations can still mate. Then, some periwinkle ones migrate into the blue region and change a little along the way, being able to mate with the periwinkle population. Eventually, the teal and then the green varieties evolve, just when the salamanders have completed the migration around the valley. Guess what? The magenta and green varieties are too different from one another to produce viable offspring together. They are different species of salamander. Yet all other neighboring populations can still interbreed. This is gradual change leading to speciation:

Very interesting. I had missed it.

I do not find it in the least surprising that these animals changed independently of one another. I would assume the niches are significantly varied such that they had to change to adapt. But you've presented no evidence that any of these changes were "gradual".

My theory simply suggests that the specific individuals which migrated to the new environments were more suitable to that environment based on their behavior and consciousness. In effect the choice to migrate acted as an artificial bottleneck and the "survivors", the emigrants, bred a brand new species.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Every experiment and observation already shows I am right.

When science is wrong even the child can point and say that the king is naked. He doesn't need to also weave a new set of clothes that fit him as I have done.

The king is supposed to cover himself though now days they take a bow instead. Everyone believes their excrement has a pleasing odor.

If it's that obvious, then you should really do what I suggested. Why haven't you?

 

[F1fan]

I saw it when someone posted it last year. I forget my exact response but essentially it supports my theory of sudden change and the necessity of a niche before such change can occur. Many new species awaken to find there is no niche and they die out, typically as juveniles.

By “your theory” you mean a guess that has no evidence. I keep waiting for you to provide facts and a coherent explanation that supports a conclusion of the claims you keep making.

Why aren’t you providing this? Where is your scholarship?

 

[F1fan]

Every experiment and observation already shows I am right.

Let’s see the confirmation by reputable scientists and references. Can you provide that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Language is not a living thing. It evolves. Species and individuals do not.

/facepalm

You choose to deconstruct it wrong.

Or maybe, just maybe, you are expressing yourself extremely poorly.

All change in all life is "sudden"

Explain exactly what you mean by that.
For example, whale ancestors were land mammals.

By "sudden" do you mean that one day a land mammal with feet gave birth to a sea mammal with fins and that that gave rise to a whole new species of sea mammals with fins?

and change in species is driven primarily by the massive genetic differences between the survoivors of bottlenecks and typical members of the species.

What "massive" genetic differences?

There are 7 billion humans on earth today. None of which have "massive genetic differences".
If we kill 6.999 billion of them, then only 100.000 will remain. Quite a bottleneck.
What "massive" genetic differences?
Such differences would necessarily have to already exist before the great death event.

So what are you talking about?

Secondarily change is caused by mutation

?????
What is meant by "secondarily"?
And to get back to those mythical "massive genetic differences" you mentioned before... how do those differences come about, if not through mutation?

There are numerous other causes

You haven't even begun to mention ANY cause here, aside from some very vague word salad things that don't even make any sense.

but for the main part there is NO SUCH THING AS SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST BECAUSE ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE FIT

That is in direct contradiction with what you said earlier concerning "survivors of bottlenecks".

and change is driven by behavior determined by consciousness AND experience.

Bare assertion. Evidence for this wild claim?

I no longer believe you are sincere in your purported inability to understand the above paragraph. You choose to deconstruct the words wrong. Youi choose to maintain faith in your religion instead of even considering Darwin and Evolution are simply wrong.

1. I don't have a religion
2. mainstream biology is science, not a religion
3. I'm asking questions to clarify your nonsense, but either you refuse to answer or instead of clarifying you are making it even less sensical.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've been asking for years for any evidence at all that change is gradual and based on survival of the fittest.

Pick up a freshman biology 101 book.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NO!

Yes.

My theory is already "proven" by every experiment and observation

Claiming it, does not make it so.

Remember the sudden change in peppered moths and the sudden changes in the whale?

Yes, I remember.
I also remember explaining to you how utterly absurd your position was by posting 3 pictures of Tom Cruise's face of various stages of his life: one as a kid, one as an adolescent and one as a 50- year old.
And I explained to you how your comment about the transitional whale fossils were as absurd as saying that those 3 pictures "prove" that Tom cruise as a kid one day went to sleep and woke up the next morning as an adolescent. And how aging isn't "gradual" but sudden "because look at the pictures!!!!!"




Unsurprisingly, you never replied to that post and instead completely ignored it. As I predicted as well. I'm such a prophet.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You couldn't be more wrong.

You have faith and believe that "Science" and its Priest/ Peers are right until proven otherwise but this is not how real science works.

No.

I don't need faith when evidence is available.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Every experiment and observation already shows I am right.

The great thing about science is it isn't what you see. We are well aware of individual biases and prejudices. Thus science mandates replication. Other people have to check your work and see for themselves.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why can't anyone show any experiment that shows a gradual change or that any change was caused by survival of the fittest?

A better question would be why aren't you able to accept the evidence when it is given?

Maybe, just maybe, it's because they are wrong

Another, more plausible, option is that you are either intellectually dishonest or your understand of evolution is so lacking that you wouldn't be able to recognize evidence if it came up and hit you upside the head....


Let's do an experiment here.

What WOULD you consider evidence?
When you ask for such evidence, what is it that you expect to see?
Give a specific example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Write a scientific paper to the experts and let them know they have no idea what they're talking about and all their work is wrong, then show that your work is right.
That's how you challenge scientific findings.

 

[cladking]

Where is your scholarship?

"Scholarship" by definition is building on the work of those who came before.

It's impossible to build on the "theory of evolution" because it is wrong.

 

[cladking]

What "massive" genetic differences?

The ones that allowed them to survive a bottleneck.

If we kill 6.999 billion of them, then only 100.000 will remain. Quite a bottleneck.
What "massive" genetic differences?

Nature doesn't pick 6 billion individuals to kill. 6 billion individuals engage in behavior that nature suddenly doesn't allow.

The few survivors exhibit some "strange" behavior that allows them to survive. Think timid wolf.

1. I don't have a religion

You practice "scientism".

2. mainstream biology is science, not a religion

To the degree biology is a science it is probably largely correct.

3. I'm asking questions to clarify your nonsense, but either you refuse to answer or instead of clarifying you are making it even less sensical.

If you continue this tactic I'll stop responding. I am not your student and I do not want to hear anything you think you know about biology. I am interested in ANYTHING relevant to the discussion but to date you rarely have said anything relevant. Believers just lecture rather than address what non-believers are saying. You believe in evolution and that's fine. I never stand between anyone and their religion.

 

[cladking]

I don't need faith when evidence is available.

Then what evidence do you have for gradual change? Survival of the fittest?

 

[cladking]

The great thing about science is it isn't what you see. We are well aware of individual biases and prejudices. Thus science mandates replication. Other people have to check your work and see for themselves.

Well... ...experiment needs to be repeatable, certainly.

The problem here is not real science, it is the extrapolation of observation to apply to things that are not observable. I'm sorry if this is hard to understand but you can't just look at a fossil and see a gradual change in it. You would have to find a series of datable fossils each showing subtle changes that accumulate over a long period of time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The ones that allowed them to survive a bottleneck.

Repeating the claim does not answer the question.
Give an example of a species within which there are "massive genetic differences" and point out those differences.

Nature doesn't pick 6 billion individuals to kill. 6 billion individuals engage in behavior that nature suddenly doesn't allow. The few survivors exhibit some "strange" behavior that allows them to survive. Think timid wolf.

I don't care one bit how they are killed for which reason. It is irrelevant to the question I'm asking.
The question concerns your comment about "massive genetic differences".
These differences would necessarily have to exist BEFORE the great death event - whatever that event is.

So show me a species within which there are individuals with "massive genetic differences" while still belonging to the same species.

You practice "scientism".

/facepalm

If you continue this tactic I'll stop responding. I am not your student and I do not want to hear anything you think you know about biology.

Student? What the heck are you on about???

You made claims about "massive genetic differences".
I'm asking you to explain and support that claim. I even gave you hypothetical scenario to facilitate your explanation. You, as expected I'll add, went on a tangent that was neither here nor there, which had nothing to do with the question asked.

Meanwhile, you've still not clarified anything nor provided any useful answers.

So let's try this again....
What "massive genetic differences"?

Can you point me to a single species within which there are individuals with "massive" genetic differences compared to their peers?

What do you mean exactly by "massive genetic differences"?
And how do they come about?
Can you give examples?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well... ...experiment needs to be repeatable, certainly.

The problem here is not real science, it is the extrapolation of observation to apply to things that are not observable. I'm sorry if this is hard to understand but you can't just look at a fossil and see a gradual change in it. You would have to find a series of datable fossils each showing subtle changes that accumulate over a long period of time.

It's not hard for me to understand. You've well demonstrated you don't know how science works.
And guess what? We've found datable fossils that show subtle changes over hundreds of thousands of years. It took about 2 million years, for example, just to get from homo habilis to us.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem here is not real science, it is the extrapolation of observation to apply to things that are not observable. I'm sorry if this is hard to understand but you can't just look at a fossil and see a gradual change in it. You would have to find a series of datable fossils each showing subtle changes that accumulate over a long period of time.

You mean a series like these ones here?

Plain denial in 3...2....1.....

 

[cladking]

I don't care one bit how they are killed for which reason. It is irrelevant to the question I'm asking.
The question concerns your comment about "massive genetic differences".
These differences would necessarily have to exist BEFORE the great death event - whatever that event is.

I've told you countless times that the massive differences are in behavior and behavior has massive differences because it is driven by consciousness and experience. Individuals which share unusual behavior have genetic differences at their root. All individuals, and all life is individual, is consciousness.

Please write this down and quit asking.

Nature selects for behavior, not fitness to cause speciation.