Fascinating!

[ecco]

Grief! Which, again, has nothing to do w/ my post.

He believed there must be a reasoning power — ie., Intelligence— as the source of the universe!

I just cannot understand why you would want to lend credence to someone who said Christianity was naive and childish.

If Einstein was right about "reasoning power" then he was probably right about Christianity being naive and childish. So, I guess you also believe that Christianity is naive and childish.

 

[cladking]

Have you ever asked yourself why it is only the scientists who study evolution-related fields that are wrong? How can it be that most scientists get educated and do research and come up with "good" science but the ones who get educated and do research in evolution-related fields are guilty of producing "bad" science?

The irony is that if I'm right religious beliefs are often more reflective of reality than scientific "conclusions".

 

[ecco]

I had to move out of a house once because I couldn't eradicate these things.

But I tried so hard it constituted a local population bottleneck.

By the time I moved out there weren't many of them but they were the fastest and smartest ones I ever saw. Some of them (I didn't actually name them) could make a fool out of me.

Yeah. I can believe that.

 

[ecco]

The irony is that if I'm right religious beliefs are often more reflective of reality than scientific "conclusions".

IF

 

[cladking]

IF

All "ifs" are big "ifs".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never said nor tried to imply that there is no change in species over time. There are MANY causes of species change. One of the bigger ones is localized bottlenecks. These primarily merely serve to introduce a more diverse array of genes to a species which leads to more diverse behavior and a greater probability of surviving any sort of extinction level event but they can also introduce new adaptations from the off spring.

I am now certain that you do not understand what a population bottleneck is. It is a rapid reduction in the size of the population along with a reduction--not an increase--in genetic diversity. All of what you post here is nothing claimed by science.

I am uncertain what form a local bottleneck might take. I suppose it is possible, but it would hardly be significant unless it was some k-selected, sessile and very rare species. The point that there would be less genetic diversity through an elimination of alleles would still be the result. The possibility of speciation occurring would be incredibly slim under the circumstances.

To my knowledge there is no contradicting experiment. If you know of any I'm very interested.

What experiment? Contradicting what?

Nature is remarkable isn't it?

Not remarkable enough to accomplish anything the way you have described it.

Everything is perspective.

I'm looking at experimental results and modern knowledge (to the degree I understand it) from a perspective relatively devoid of beliefs and founded on definitions that reflect that reality.

It sure was hard not to use the word "ancient science" in that last sentence.

I have no idea what you are talking about. It sounds made up. Everything is the reflection of a shadow of reality or something like that. So we might as well not bother to observe, discover and learn, because we can never know if it is real???

I really don't know too much about science. I am a metaphysician. Science is losing its ties to its own metaphysics and as such is no longer science at all in many many cases. This is why we get newspapers full of soup of the day science generated by Look and See Science. This isn't to say Biology is full of crackpots and wannabees or that all of its work is suspect. But EVERY area not founded on experiment is subject to being founded on its assumptions. Most of the assumptions of Darwin are founded in language and belief and biology has failed to root them all out.

So you have a belief system that you really like and you make claims based on this evidence that you generate through your belief. Does that sound about right? It sounds like that to me.

I know you claim to be relating these assumptions, but all I keep seeing is your mention of them with no detail describing what they are.

I can tell you that a lot of claims you make are not supported by observation or experimentation and would not qualify for consideration as science. A fair portion of those claims cannot be tested and some are incorrect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you can show this, if you can show any species slowly came into being over a long period of time then you are correct and I am wrong.

I was expecting you to show us that all speciation happens rapidly. It is a reasonable expectation, since you made the claim.

No experiment has ever shown any species to come into being over an extremely long period of time. Observation is interpreted to mean this is how species arise.

No contrived experiment, of course. There are none known to have run into the 10's or 100's of thousands of years. Before 300,000 years ago, there would have been no Homo sapiens scientists to devise the experiments, let alone the fact that science did not exist back then. However, observation of evidence in the fossil record, radiometric dating, comparative morphology, phylogenetics, molecular clocks and host of other evidence from various scientific disciplines all point to speciation occurring over long periods of time. Using estimates of the number of species to have ever existed, gives a potential of three or four species evolving per year on average, but most of this goes unobserved for lack of ability to predict which, where and when.

Observation without experiment is Look and See Science.

Observation is part of science. Whether from contrived experiments or natural experiments. Natural experiments have resulted in significant discoveries with proven practical application. It just seems like you have made up a category with little utility and can chuck anything into that you disagree with for no consistent reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We don't even have a working definition of "consciousness" or understand what it is. I am suggesting it is the basis of all life and by extension the basis of change in life and we can't even directly observe it without a working definition. You are simply ignoring my points.

I have ignored nothing you have posted. All you are suggesting is some speculation that is unfounded. You are suggesting a belief system.

The irony is sublime. The we think our thoughts and thinks about what we thought and then compare that to what we see to create our belief systems. We see what we expect. We see what we believe to be true but at the exact same time we are blind to what we don't believe. Our consciousness selects what we see and since we adopt our beliefs and models through intent, we see exactly what we choose to see and nothing else. Most people don't even realize they are doing it all the time.

Word salad.

It's because of selectivity that experiment forms the basis of science.

It is because variables can be controlled and experimental units can be randomized that experiments form the basis of science.

It was the basis by intent and not because God invented science and we discovered it.

Science was invented by mankind and that is all the evidence indicates.

Religious people dreamed up the ideas many centuries ago to exclude belief from out understanding of nature but 19th century scientists started adding it back and we've gotten farther and farther from reality.

I have no idea what this means. It does not have a factual basis that I can find.

Many scientists don't even believe reality exists because they can't seem to find it anywhere.

A meaningless statement of belief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It means (in this case) that if you can't define and know something about the mechanism that cause change in species then you won't understand change in species.

All I know is that what you claim causes speciation is not known to cause speciation and you have been incorrect in your attempts to name a mechanism.

It you look at something from the edge it is almost invisable

Only if it has length and with with no depth.

Nonsense!

No. Denying that is nonsense. Intermediate forms have been demonstrated. Perhaps you are unaware of this, since you did say you do not know much about science.

What would you expect to have been found over the last 200 years of fossil digging if there were fifteen different species that comprise what we call the "horse"? You are assuming a continuity that all experiment and observation can be interpreted to mean does not exist. If we had a few individual of each of these species they could not interbreed in most cases because none of them are actually "horses". Indeed, it's quite possible that some are not even ancestors to horses but they look like they fit between two of the actual ancestors.

You are assuming that people set out to find fossils that fit a preconceived notion of what horse evolution should look like. This is nonsense. Fossils were discovered, examined, hypotheses made, experiments run and conclusions based on the evidence of those observations were used to develop a phylogeny.

What does "You are assuming a continuity that all experiment and observation can be interpreted to mean does not exist" mean? It is not anything I am assuming.

It can be very likely that some are not direct ancestors to the horse, but that does not change the picture of horse evolution that is shown and known.

You can take a baby, a toddler, a small child, a large child, a teenager, a young adult and a fully mature adult, each from a different family and still use them to illustrate human growth from child to adult.

As new fossils and observations arise, the evolution of the horse can be refined, but it is important to note that cousin fossils that illustrate the characters post-divergence are as good as direct ancestors for use in describing evolution of a phylogeny. It is the shared and derived traits that are significant and not necessarily establishment of direct ancestry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is one of the faulty assumptions.

Since it has been demonstrated, it is not an assumption. It is not faulty either.

Any extinction level event that wipes out random members of a population is very unlikely to cause speciation.

It is also not called extinction, if it only kills some of a population or species.

The survivors will just mate and restore previous population levels over time.

Having survivors excludes it as an example of extinction.

Another assumption we make is that that survivors are "random" representatives of the species (or fit representatives).

If there are survivors from a population, then there was no extinction event. However, species that avoid extinction do so on the basis of some characteristic that distances them from extinction and this distancing could be the result of random chance, as well.

A new species arises when the sudden change in environment causes a selection of genes to be preserved which are not representative of most members of that species.

The change in environment does not cause a selection from some third party source. The environment does the selection. That is correct. Those that are selected would have traits favored by the environmental change that takes place. They would constitute a new population of the species.

Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance.

The selection is based on the environment. It is not random.

Genes are expressed in behavior because all consciousness has "free will" and the survivors will breed a new species with no missing links (exactly like the fossil record shows).

Genes that control behavior express in the form of the behavior.

We make assumptions based on how things seem to us and then we elevate these assumptions to the level of gospel.

That does sound like what you have done here so far. Your behavior guiding gene expression and speciation is a fine example of that. It is speculation with no basis in observation.

We see everything in terms of our beliefs and assumptions always lead right back around to that assumption itself. Humans have been a circular argument ever since we started using modern language and now we are introducing our assumptions to "science" without ever realizing that it's not even still science at all after assumptions are introduced.

Another example of your assumptions being turned into facts that are contradicted by observation and evidence.

Darwin led us away from science and that is true whether he was right or wrong.

That is false. Darwin was the epicenter for new branches of science and laid the groundwork for completely novel directions for existing science.

The theory of evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.

You do make one cogent point that I think deserves some merit and exposition. It is entirely possible that an individual or population with the optimal fitness under the direction of natural selection could be extirpated by random chance and their position subsumed by individuals and populations with somewhat less fitness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Was it perfect humans that compiled the books of the New Testament? No. It has "flawed" humans just like you and me. There was great discussion back then about which books should be included and which should not. If a Bishop, and strong Jesus supporter, named Marcion prevailed, we would not be having any discussions today about the validity of evolution. As it turned out, the majority wanted to keep close ties with the Jews. They labelled Marcion a heretic and tried to eliminate him from history.

Deeje assumes that viewing Genesis as an allegory and accepting the theory and evidence of evolution is denying creation. She simply does not understand and has a very limited scope of the basis of Christianity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Isn't it cool and convincing that people that do nit understand how little they understand think that writing something and then writing "FACT" after it makes it so?

It is, sadly, a very common phenomenon and becoming more common by the day. There must be a major in it at Dunning Kruger University.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do tell!


Was it claimed that he extinction causes speciation? No it was not. I sense some... misrepresentation .

So no change at all over time.

How does your assertion work for all those extinct critters we see in the fossil record?


Even during/after an extinction event?

So, a K-T extinction-type event only killed the less fit?

A literal explosion only kills the less fit?

Cool.


LOL!

Here we go with the woo - and ZERO actual support will be forthcoming, just constant unyielding reiterations of the same unsupported assertions...

A new species with no missing links... Just like that... Because of "consciousness" and "free will."

Cool fantasy pseudoscience.

Providing there is evidence in its support.

You are so wise, how can you possibly be expected to provide any real evidence???


Nothing you have written indicates to me that you know much of anything about science in general, so forgive me if I lump your claims in with those of the YECs and fundies and science denialists...

His understanding of the concepts and definitions is entirely flawed and he is using that misunderstanding to make claims that do not make much sense. He does not understand extinction, genetic bottleneck, natural selection, fitness, or speciation. Among others. His claims about Darwin are another matter and he completely misrepresents him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Name calling is even more futile.
Isn't discussion better than labeling someone?

I like discussion better. To optimize that, it is best to determine who is here to discuss and who is here to pump up their ego by beating up on others.

 

[cladking]

I am now certain that you do not understand what a population bottleneck is. It is a rapid reduction in the size of the population along with a reduction--not an increase--in genetic diversity. All of what you post here is nothing claimed by science.

If all the beavers that like water in a small area are suddenly wiped out then the surviving beavers will breed something different. There's a good chance that whatever they breed won't like water as much as the beavers that died. It's a safe bet they will be different and less safe bet they won't like water as much. But these off spring will be quite a bit different and if they can mate with beavers immigrating to the region they will have a new set of genes that didn't exist before (at least not expressed in that way). It will increase the diversity of the gene pool and improve the odds of the survival of a "beaver like" descendants in the event something causes a global population bottleneck caused by eliminating beavers which like water in the future.

I believe it's not claimed by science because they have taken a poor perspective for observation and interpretation of experiment.

Before 300,000 years ago, there would have been no Homo sapiens scientists to devise the experiments, let alone the fact that science did not exist back then.

All animals (other than modern humans) are scientists.

The human race appeared 40,000 years ago when a mutation caused a closer connection between the speech center and higher brain functions allowing complex language. It is complex language that defines the human race by allowing the generational accumulation of knowledge. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Beavers invented dam building through theory founded on observation and the natural logic of the beaver brain. Humans accumulated so much knowledge that our metaphysical language became overly complex and too few people could speak it. This caused us to use a pidgin form of the Ancient Language that was like modern language; deconstructable. Individuals must "grow" a new speech center (broccas area) to translate the now analog higher brain functions with the still digital speech center near the ears. The human race changed from homo sapiens to homo omnisciencis virtually overnight. Individuals changed overnight but the species started the change in 3200 BC and it was nearly complete by the "tower of babel" about 2000 BC. There were small pockets of the old race for some centuries (perhaps as late as 1400 BC)(they are called "Nephilim" in the Bible).

Animals and ancient man see the world only in terms of what they understand and we see it in terms of what we believe. Ancient science would have been very weak and very ineffective (it was poor at generating technology), but when you see the world in terms of what you know, then the anomalies jump out at you. Most scientific progress is still the result of studying anomalies.

You should know by now I don't agree with science about anything that can't be derived from experiment. If it's not shown experimentally then it is no more than partially true and might not be true at all.

I have no horse in this race. Part of the reason I care at all is that we are being misled on this and it is extremely important. Ancient scientists share my "beliefs" on this subject but it should be noted they had no beliefs at all and that this was the ancient THEORY that led to the creation of agriculture. It was agriculture that allowed the survival of homo omnisciencis after the collapse of the tower. Without it we would have probably become extinct.

 

[cladking]

I was expecting you to show us that all speciation happens rapidly. It is a reasonable expectation, since you made the claim.

EVERYTHING concerning life and ALL of its changes are very sudden.

Why don't you show something that is gradual?

It just seems like you have made up a category with little utility and can chuck anything into that you disagree with for no consistent reason.

Everything not founded in experiment is chucked.

Theory that makes good prediction and doesn't contradict experiment is sound science even without proper experiment.

 

[cladking]

The selection is based on the environment. It is not random.

This is an assumption.

It is my contention that the events that cause speciation select behavior.

Another example of your assumptions being turned into facts that are contradicted by observation and evidence.

No! This is a simple fact that has been shown countless times in many types of experiment. Indeed, it was so obvious to the inventors of science that they devised the concept of experiment to keep science tied to reality. Modern people do not understand metaphysics and this includes most scientists today.

You do make one cogent point that I think deserves some merit and exposition. It is entirely possible that an individual or population with the optimal fitness under the direction of natural selection could be extirpated by random chance and their position subsumed by individuals and populations with somewhat less fitness.

Indeed! And this is the cause of most speciation. Killing off the sick and weak has very little effect on the nature of a species. Survival is related principally to consciousness and behavior except where it is mostly random events. "Survival of the fittest" isn't even "real" except in the lab and usually under controlled conditions.

 

[ecco]

If all the beavers that like water in a small area are suddenly wiped out then the surviving beavers will breed something different. There's a good chance that whatever they breed won't like water as much as the beavers that died. It's a safe bet they will be different and less safe bet they won't like water as much.

Seriously?

Ancient scientists share my "beliefs" on this subject but it should be noted they had no beliefs at all

Seriously?

 

[Revoltingest]

And when corrected errors are ignored or expounded upon?

That's how conversations sometimes go.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If all the beavers that like water in a small area are suddenly wiped out then the surviving beavers will breed something different. There's a good chance that whatever they breed won't like water as much as the beavers that died. It's a safe bet they will be different and less safe bet they won't like water as much. But these off spring will be quite a bit different and if they can mate with beavers immigrating to the region they will have a new set of genes that didn't exist before (at least not expressed in that way). It will increase the diversity of the gene pool and improve the odds of the survival of a "beaver like" descendants in the event something causes a global population bottleneck caused by eliminating beavers which like water in the future.

Since beavers are terrestrial aquatic mammals, that would be all beavers that get eliminated and there would be no beavers to breed and reproduce anything in your scenario.

However, if a mutation occurs in a portion of the beaver population that results in individuals with traits that allow them to move further from water for longer and something happens to beaver habitat to render it unlivable. Those with this novel variation have a chance to survive and reproduce. If further variation occurs that optimizes the previous variation, then it is possible that a completely terrestrial beaver population could form. Having new variation, these 'terrestrial' beavers would be different from their ancestors. The first generations with the initial variation would be transitional between ancestral aquatic beavers and later generations with further optimization from mutation and natural selection. They would be different.

You are assuming a dichotomy in beaver populations that does not currently exist. Beavers are found where there is standing and moving fresh water in large volume. There are no dry land populations that persistently live away from water along with those that persistently do live with water.

You still do not seem to have a firm grasp of these concepts, including population bottleneck.

I believe it's not claimed by science because they have taken a poor perspective for observation and interpretation of experiment.

It is not claimed by science, because it has no factual basis to be considered.

All animals (other than modern humans) are scientists.

A meaningless statement reliant on redefining scientist to mean something it does not.

The human race appeared 40,000 years ago when a mutation caused a closer connection between the speech center and higher brain functions allowing complex language. It is complex language that defines the human race by allowing the generational accumulation of knowledge. We all stand on the shoulders of giants.[/QUOTE]The evidence supports the conclusion that Homo sapiens evolved about 300 to 350 thousand years ago. You do not seem to know much about human origins and history.

Beavers invented dam building through theory founded on observation and the natural logic of the beaver brain.

What the f? Beaver behavior derives from a suite of genetically based traits that evolved over time. Dam building, like nest making in birds is a behavioral trait that evolved through natural selection. Unless you have evidence of these advanced, super beavers that refutes the roll of natural selection in beaver behavior.

Humans accumulated so much knowledge that our metaphysical language became overly complex and too few people could speak it. This caused us to use a pidgin form of the Ancient Language that was like modern language; deconstructable. Individuals must "grow" a new speech center (broccas area) to translate the now analog higher brain functions with the still digital speech center near the ears. The human race changed from homo sapiens to homo omnisciencis virtually overnight. Individuals changed overnight but the species started the change in 3200 BC and it was nearly complete by the "tower of babel" about 2000 BC. There were small pockets of the old race for some centuries (perhaps as late as 1400 BC)(they are called "Nephilim" in the Bible).

Animals and ancient man see the world only in terms of what they understand and we see it in terms of what we believe.

You can believe as you see fit, but I have no reason to give this any consideration. It looks contrived and, frankly, useless in describing or explaining anything.

Ancient science would have been very weak and very ineffective (it was poor at generating technology), but when you see the world in terms of what you know, then the anomalies jump out at you.

It is difficult to understand what this means. It seems circular and meaningless as near as I can tell. It is true that there are underpinnings of science observed in the activity of so called primitive people, both historically and now, but you do not seem to be establishing that as an explanation of anything.

Most scientific progress is still the result of studying anomalies.

Most scientific progress is the result of observing nature.

You should know by now I don't agree with science about anything that can't be derived from experiment.

Arbitrary exclusion of valid observation is going to be big problem for you, but that is your business. Observation of natural experiments has successfully been established for longer than experimental science and has yeilded practical and useful results. All that beaver biology that you used to make your analogy was the result of looking at beavers in the wild and seeing what they do. You may not agree with it, but that did not stop you from using it. All this means to me is that you do not understand science.

If it's not shown experimentally then it is no more than partially true and might not be true at all.

There is no evidence to support this and much to contradict and show that such an idea can be discarded as unfounded.

I have no horse in this race. Part of the reason I care at all is that we are being misled on this and it is extremely important.

This is nothing that you have demonstrated. Claiming a thing does not make that thing suddenly true. The only people that are misleading anyone are those like you that create your facts.

Ancient scientists share my "beliefs" on this subject but it should be noted they had no beliefs at all and that this was the ancient THEORY that led to the creation of agriculture.

Unfounded and unsupported claims can be dismissed without further consideration. There is evidence that populations of humans dating back 50,000 years, had beliefs.

You really do not do justice to the observational cognitive skills of our ancestors. What they achieved was not magic. They observed and learned. They did not run controlled experiments, but were still able to succeed by trial and error. By little improvements over time.

It was agriculture that allowed the survival of homo omnisciencis after the collapse of the tower.

A made up species surviving a made up calamity, saved by corn.

Without it we would have probably become extinct.

Another empty claim.