The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rational experiences]

Learning is an applied human concept that says, I learn from my chosen mistakes.

Learning was never about being given new advice.

Science then said to self there is nothing new......except in one only mind status....to be made consciously more aware in the acts of destruction/conversion and transformation via the communicator to mind artificial machine cause.

What a mind could never observe its own self in a nuclear reactor....yet the conditions to see vision and to be given mind information via the presence of metallic radiation changed mass communicators.

Why science aware consciousness such as Hawkings said you want the machine to take life away from self ownership on Earth....as radiation inference, mass.

For when a male mind seeks information and talks directly about it, in its owned natural form...where it exists and how it exists, its own no comparison to any other body....for the term word said one description, one mass of words to own ONE word what it was defined as.

And we are not in that science use of worded information...as natural.

For we exist already total and whole.

So when you say to a male, have a think about thinking as one instant placement in your consciousness.

You look at a huge detailed natural bio form life living exactly in the same one moment as you peruse information by the billions of its diverse presence.

You live on a gas alight planetary movement that you said allows for 12 hours of natural light.

And think all day long in a timed shifting conscious awareness....which is not relative to your bio natural diverse research.

One mind, one thought, an instant self expression to have totalled and detailed diversity by what instant known conscious use, to tell conscious self information, a thought.

Why science in conscious self presence says instant as consciousness.

When every single natural self presence in existing in the same atmospheric natural mass that bio existence owns, water and oxygen and microbes which has no factual or actual term of reference in science reaction and machine.

Why the stories of science were defined to be Satanism by definition of original and first science themes O maths as Mass and O one planet of stone.

 

[Bear Wild]

I never said one way or the other regarding Genesis being the answer. I am simply asserting that evolution is most assuredly not the answer either. At least we don't have any scientific proof it is the answer, since, as you said, we do not have enough time to observe one genus becoming another. The best we can do is to infer it, and that is not true science. That is why evolution is a theory. Do have any idea on how many scientific theories have been later proven wrong?

You did make this quote "If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here." You have made a clear comment of the superiority of genesis. You also keep making the mistake of stating we don't have scientific proof. Proof is for mathematics not science. The best we can do with science is show the supportive evidence which has been done in the theory of evolution. And you still do not get the concept that genus is man made. We have more than enough evidence that their is significant change in animals and plants which shows the process of evolution. Your hang up on the word genus shows total lack of understanding of species. Many bacteria have been relocated in respect to their genus.

Do you even have an opinion on genesis one way or another? I would love to hear your better explanation that fits the evidence and not just imagination. If no better explanation then evolution remains the only theory that fits the evidence.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Which in human reality is a male saying and all my own beliefs about my thoughts are totally correct, as an argument, for the sake of arguing.

And then you would ask that scientist, so why argue if you claim you are 100 per cent correct as a thinker. And also if you are 100 per cent as that thinker, then experimentation would not even be chosen....as living self proof of your own egotism in its expressed living conditions...…….science.

As the Sun is a natural body existing in space, and the Earth is a natural body existing in space, the male who said all you talk about is what you observe naturally and then the rest is purely theory and conjecture....as the reality that science is a liar.

And if you do not want to quote this argument in self mind, then ask why males in archaeology were driven as humans, lives, minds and in detailed self motivation to prove that human living conditions ended up deep inside of Planet earth along with all of the scientific implements that proved that science did it.

With males today researching those artefacts claiming it alien to what they understand today. And alien by science detailed studies is extra UFO mass metallic radiation not of any particle.

Story of a male scientist....I am aware.

The back drop of the Earth natural atmospheric gas mass is burning yet it sits in cold space.

The back drop of the Earth natural atmospheric gas mass is attacked every day by science caused incoming EXTRA UFO mass...so increased irradiation is the back drop in space.

Consciousness, just conscious as a male, and a life living inside of that gas mass atmosphere, communicated psyche information from the other side of the Earth atmosphere in space....science, all conditions, thoughts reasonings and rational belief, made in the life and self presence a bio conscious self.

Plus all of his own bio conscious previous thought about themes....all the time just living on a natural Planet that moves around the body of the Sun, as per known by his own applied choices to observe and study.

For you are not some other form of self....yet so many science selves either claim that God told them or an alien did...or maybe an angel did...when the whole time they told their own selves, by first as that human and male giving them a titled description in his own psyche.

So a male became his own status a God in a science quotation..for first he had to as that human give a long and very detailed description of everything that he observed, to say self was correct, to then begin his own changes to natural.

So science was always human taught to be our Destroyer as a very simple fact of human life.

Which in human reality is a male saying and all my own beliefs about my thoughts are totally correct, as an argument, for the sake of arguing.

The above is NOT a complete or coherent thought. Nor is the rest of what you wrote. If you want to try again, but this time in COMPREHENSIBLE ENGLISH, I'd be happy to respond.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Population or individuals aside (something which I never averred one way or another), the fact is there has been no observation of one genus evolving into another.

I've already explained that that's not what evolution does. Evolution produces variation WITHIN the taxa - it doesn't produce changes of one taxa INTO another.

Do you understand? I explained this quite clearly in the very post you are quoting - why didn't you read it?

 

[exchemist]

You do know there is not an insignificant number of scientists that do not accept evolution? What you really want me to do is "learn" that your version is the correct one and the others don't count. If that is your idea of science, I'd suggest you learn what science actually says.

This is quite false. The number of scientists working in the relevant fields who do not accept evolution is vanishingly tiny.

I have a science education. By the look of it, you don't. And I do know what science says. I made two specific points:

1) As you have been told before, theories in science can never be proved. This is basic. If you claim otherwise, show us a reference from a reputable source to back this up.

2) I pointed out you do not need to observe a phenomenon directly in order to develop a perfectly good theory about it. I gave three examples: the lifecycle of stars, the existence of molecules and plate tectonics. Do you claim these are not scientific theories? If you accept them, then you accept you can have theories that don't rely on observing the phenomenon directly. If you do not accept them as theories, you should say so. Which is it?

 

[exchemist]

I see what you did there.

The problem here is that there is not real evidence that change in complex species is the result of survival of the fittest or that there is any substantial change in species that is gradual. All observed change in species is sudden just as all observed change in living individuals is sudden.

This is completely false. There are well-known examples of survival of the fittest producing a change in a population. Peppered moth? And the fossil record is full of evidence that shows progressive change. Archaeopteryx?

As for sudden observed change in individuals, this sounds completely mad. What are you talking about?

 

[ChristineM]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. 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.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, 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? That is more believable than Genesis?

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. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

As yet god magic has to be shown, in fact, showing a god exists at all would be a good start

As for a chemical explanation, well no one was there to see it but given what is known about conditions at the time it is the most likely explanation. Also considering that experiments have shown the possibility of those conditions (and similar conditions) being the catalyst for life are valid. I understand that at least 2 experiments have been successful in creating life and many more have created the prerequisites for life

Its not a matter of belief but the most probable result of conditions. So it it more believable that an unevidenced omnipotent and genocidal maniac created life to kill it or that conditions favoured life arising.

Speaking of favoured, the second law of thermodynamics predicts the conditions for life will be right for life for only a relitively short time in the time span of the universe. That time is now!

You disparage guessing in science but guess that god dun it wiv magic?

If one does not want to learn then it is an easy get out to say must be as described by bronze age authors in the bible i favour, none of the other religious accounts of creation or scientific understanding but just the one i favour.

 

[cladking]

This is completely false. There are well-known examples of survival of the fittest producing a change in a population. Peppered moth? And the fossil record is full of evidence that shows progressive change. Archaeopteryx?

As for sudden observed change in individuals, this sounds completely mad. What are you talking about?

Science refuses even to see a connection between a butterfly and a hurricane.

I didn't say it was impossible for a species to make a small change as a result of survival of the fittest. I said most change is caused by other things. This is what we actually observe.

Looking and Seeing that change has occurred in fossils is not the same as knowing its cause.

It's funny how those who believe in "science" can see the faith in religious people but can't see their own assumptions and beliefs.

Reality exists. Science is a mere tool. All life is individual. All things that exist are interrelated.

Bad belief kills and no belief is a good belief. We act upon and can see only our own beliefs.

 

[exchemist]

Science refuses even to see a connection between a butterfly and a hurricane.

I didn't say it was impossible for a species to make a small change as a result of survival of the fittest. I said most change is caused by other things. This is what we actually observe.

Looking and Seeing that change has occurred in fossils is not the same as knowing its cause.

It's funny how those who believe in "science" can see the faith in religious people but can't see their own assumptions and beliefs.

Reality exists. Science is a mere tool. All life is individual. All things that exist are interrelated.

Bad belief kills and no belief is a good belief. We act upon and can see only our own beliefs.

No. You said ALL observed change is sudden. And you said that there is "not real evidence that change in complex species is the result of survival of the fittest". Both statements are nonsense.

The progression of fossils through geological time is evidence, whether you like to admit it or not.

 

[cladking]

This is completely false. There are well-known examples of survival of the fittest producing a change in a population. Peppered moth? And the fossil record is full of evidence that shows progressive change. Archaeopteryx?

As for sudden observed change in individuals, this sounds completely mad. What are you talking about?

All life is individual so there is no such thing as "a population" or a "species". These are merely terms we use to study what we see but these terms have no meaning and no study has meaning outside of the definitions. You are claiming off springs of peppered moths can have vastly different characteristics than their parents and grandparents as a result of killing the weak, or unadaptable in the lab. I'd hardly be surprised. This is even reported to happen in nature in simple species. Given that every species has countless genes for which their is no known purpose there is an implication that species may be far more adaptable than apparent by looking at individuals. ie- Some individuals can survive almost any insult at all and conditions can favor off spring that display a trait arising from unknown or observable forces. To then conclude that some mysterious "mother nature" favors individuals that are stronger, smarter, faster, or more resistant to an imposed condition and extrapolate this to all observations is simply Look and See Science. Archaeopteryx didn't die out because its color didn't change as it flitted about in the street lights. WYSIWYG and all observed change in life is sudden. Why does science propose that change in groups of animal (which aren't even "real" because every animal is different) occur gradually? What basis is there for extrapolating changes in the lab to changes 80,000,000 years ago? Science is incapable of showing how even one of these ancient changes occurred or even one individual was eradicated or another spared to father slightly different off spring.

 

[cladking]

No. You said ALL observed change is sudden. And you said that there is "not real evidence that change in complex species is the result of survival of the fittest". Both statements are nonsense.

The progression of fossils through geological time is evidence, whether you like to admit it or not.

All observed change in all life is sudden. Individuals come and go just like species. These comings and goings occur in the blink of the eye. Why would change in species be an ongoing process that requires millions of years to make significant changes? There is no evidence it happens this way. Species obviously change but the mechanism has nothing to do with the notion that the weak and slow are eradicated or that the strong and the fast are promoted. This only causes a healthier species and not a change in species.

Change is real. Evolution is bunk. "Darwin" was the origin of "Look and See Science".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All life is individual so there is no such thing as "a population" or a "species". These are merely terms we use to study what we see but these terms have no meaning and no study has meaning outside of the definitions.

In some ways, you are correct. But species and populations do have some practical basis when discussing the development and divergence of living organisms, and it is only through understanding large-scale changes at the level of population or species that we can truly understand how evolution works. An individual mutation may have no bearing whatsoever on the changes of allele frequency within a given population, for example.

You are claiming off springs of peppered moths can have vastly different characteristics than their parents and grandparents as a result of killing the weak, or unadaptable in the lab. I'd hardly be surprised. This is even reported to happen in nature in simple species.

It's reported to happen in all species.

Given that every species has countless genes for which their is no known purpose there is an implication that species may be far more adaptable than apparent by looking at individuals. ie- Some individuals can survive almost any insult at all and conditions can favor off spring that display a trait arising from unknown or observable forces. To then conclude that some mysterious "mother nature" favors individuals that are stronger, smarter, faster, or more resistant to an imposed condition and extrapolate this to all observations is simply Look and See Science.

This argument makes no sense.

Do you or do you not understand the tautological truism that mutations that increase the rate to survive and/or reproduce with result in an increased chance of surviving and/or reproducing?

Archaeopteryx didn't die out because its color didn't change as it flitted about in the street lights. WYSIWYG and all observed change in life is sudden.

Nonsense, and meaningless, since "sudden" is undefined. Huge changes can occur as a result of punctuated equilibrium, but it can also result from gradual change which is exactly what we observe in the fossil record.

Why does science propose that change in groups of animal (which aren't even "real" because every animal is different) occur gradually?

Because it's what we observe in nature and in the fossil record.

What basis is there for extrapolating changes in the lab to changes 80,000,000 years ago?

Because it's the exact same process simply expressed over short periods of time with high degrees of selective pressure vs. longer periods of time with lesser (or varying) degrees of selective pressure.

Science is incapable of showing how even one of these ancient changes occurred or even one individual was eradicated or another spared to father slightly different off spring.

See the truism above. What exactly do you not understand about natural selection?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

All observed change in all life is sudden.

Define "sudden".

Individuals come and go just like species.

This is irrelevant when talking about change in allele frequency at the population level.

These comings and goings occur in the blink of the eye.

Also irrelevant.

Why would change in species be an ongoing process that requires millions of years to make significant changes?

It doesn't necessarily "require" it. Again, there is punctuated equilibrium, but when you consider how environmentally-enforced selective pressures work and what we observe in the fossil record, it is clear that a great deal of change happens gradually through said selective pressures.

There is no evidence it happens this way.

Except all of the evidence.

Species obviously change but the mechanism has nothing to do with the notion that the weak and slow are eradicated or that the strong and the fast are promoted.

Ignoring for a moment that this is a dramatic over-simplification of natural selection, what mechanism do you propose produces this change?

This only causes a healthier species and not a change in species.

False. It's not about "health", it's about survival. Changes add up, and sometimes these changes can result in speciation. This isn't too complicated to wrap your head around once you accept that the only real difference between one species or another is DNA. With enough change in the DNA, one population of organisms can diversify into two populations that are no longer capable of interbreeding. This is what is considered speciation, and it is directly observed both in the lab and in nature.

 

[Heyo]

Change is real. Evolution is bunk. "Darwin" was the origin of "Look and See Science".

Even if the mechanisms don't work as stated, evolution is still a model with predictive power. It predicted many of the fossils later found, it predicted the finding of DNA, it predicted the adaptation of germs.
Can we agree at least on that?

 

[exchemist]

All observed change in all life is sudden. Individuals come and go just like species. These comings and goings occur in the blink of the eye. Why would change in species be an ongoing process that requires millions of years to make significant changes? There is no evidence it happens this way. Species obviously change but the mechanism has nothing to do with the notion that the weak and slow are eradicated or that the strong and the fast are promoted. This only causes a healthier species and not a change in species.

Change is real. Evolution is bunk. "Darwin" was the origin of "Look and See Science".

There is a huge amount of evidence, from several independent fields of science. Nobody said anything about "eradicating the weak and the slow", by the way. That is not how it works.

 

[cladking]

Do you or do you not understand the tautological truism that mutations that increase the rate to survive and/or reproduce with result in an increased chance of surviving and/or reproducing?

Of course I believe it but then I also believe that "mutation" is one of the leading causes of change in species.

Nonsense, and meaningless, since "sudden" is undefined. Huge changes can occur as a result of punctuated equilibrium, but it can also result from gradual change which is exactly what we observe in the fossil record.

I said "in the blink of an eye". This is literally the case where life changes to death and can be at gestation dependent on your DEFINITIONS. Change is literally even faster if you use definitions to show that the off spring of an individual is different than the parent, just as a mutation can literally occur faster than a blink. Most change in species occurs over less than a single generation and usually much less. Rarely will major change require hundreds of years.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course I believe it but then I also believe that "mutation" is one of the leading causes of change in species.

Okay, but how exactly does mutation lead to changes without selective pressure?

I said "in the blink of an eye". This is literally the case where life changes to death and can be at gestation dependent on your DEFINITIONS. Change is literally even faster if you use definitions to show that the off spring of an individual is different than the parent, just as a mutation can literally occur faster than a blink. Most change in species occurs over less than a single generation and usually much less. Rarely will major change require hundreds of years.

Please provide an example of speciation that happened in a single generation.

 

[cladking]

Ignoring for a moment that this is a dramatic over-simplification of natural selection, what mechanism do you propose produces this change?

Most change occurs as the result of population bottlenecks arising from events that favor specific behavior. When the specific behavior is typical to the species the resultant new species is very similar to its parents but when the behavior is less typical they are dissimilar to the parents. Of course near extinction events that favor typical behavior are rare.

False. It's not about "health", it's about survival.

Only individuals survive or have off spring. You need to maintain a single perspective.

 

[cladking]

Even if the mechanisms don't work as stated, evolution is still a model with predictive power. It predicted many of the fossils later found, it predicted the finding of DNA, it predicted the adaptation of germs.
Can we agree at least on that?

Generally, yes. Every properly crafted experiment is still valid.

But "evolution" is still highly flawed. It still leads us to see what is not there and not see what is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Most change occurs as the result of population bottlenecks arising from events that favor specific behavior. When the specific behavior is typical to the species the resultant new species is very similar to its parents but when the behavior is less typical they are dissimilar to the parents. Of course near extinction events that favor typical behavior are rare.

Do you have any evidence that this is true of "most change", and what mechanism do you propose produces these selective bottlenecks?

Only individuals survive or have off spring. You need to maintain a single perspective.

But only the genes carrying on and proliferating lead to changes in allele frequency at a population level. It's meaningless to discuss evolution at an individual level, because that's not the level at which evolution occurs.