The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[tas8831]

Of course, as with everything else, claddy is wrong about life expectancy:

Life expectancy

It has only now turned down.

What - since Jan.1/2020? Because that site was last updated in 2019.
And you have already measured it? Cool - SHOW YOUR WORK.

It will begin a sharp drop and accelerate.

Let's see your work on this.

By mid-century it will be down to 76.5 for men and beyond this it is unpredictable and largely dependent on decisions not yet made.

My goodness! When will they decide to grow a broccas area?

World wide life expectancy will probably continue to increase for many years yet.

But that isn't what you said, is it?

You wrote:

"If we're so damn smart and science is so omniscient than why is life expectancy now decreasing exactly as I predicted 15 years ago?"​

Did you not?
Yes, you did.

My gosh man - I get that you are super old and all that, but do you have this much trouble keeping your unsupported, fantasy-driven assertions straight from day to day? Or are you just a big troll?

Still waiting for your evidence re: all change is sudden - or ANY evidence for ANY of the zany, ridiculous assertions you make.

Or at least an acknowledgement that I met your challenge.

But, given your history, I expected you to do what you have done so far - just ignore it.

 

[tas8831]

Truly a thing to behold - the Expert (but admitted non-expert) on all things, the great scientist (that does not understand or engage in science) - CLADKING!!!

Look on with amazement as he claims mink speciated in one generation, only to refer to foxes after being corrected on his zany claims - with no acknowledgement of his error WHATSOEVER!
Yet STILL implies that he proved his point!

A true wonder !!!!

cladking:
One of the best examples of sudden change in species caused by behavior is a very modern one; 'tame minks'. Minks are hard to raise because they are mean. Someone selected sedate and friendly minks and got a new species in a single generation; SUDDEN! But their fur is no good so they won't go into production probably (at least not soon).

No documentation for this "single generation change"? What a shocker.
...At best, you were thinking of the Fox breeding experiments of Belyaev, which took more than a DOZEN generations for less than 20% of foxes to demonstrate the desired characteristics. NOT a single "SUDDEN" one.

CLADKING: They started with a tiny sample size of foxes....​

​

 

[tas8831]

By George sometimes you seem to get it! This is what Homo Omniosciencis is; "We Who Assume the Conclusion".

Whatever...

Say - I was looking for how many times people have corrected your erroneous claims re: bottlenecks, and I came across a pretty straightforward exchange between us that you bailed on:

Immortal Flame had written:

"Secondly, Darwin never said that populations are stable over the long term - just that they CAN be stable."​

You replied:

"He did in the first edition."​

I responded:

Here you go - prove it. Because, golly, when I did a keyword search, neither "stable" nor "population" shows up...

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
​

You see, that is a link to a searchable, online version of 'On the Origin..., 1st Ed.'
I note that you never even tried to support your assertion - and how easy it would have been for you to actually support a claim for once, right there in black and white, to prove something you had claimed was actually correct.

And...

You ignored it.

Says all anyone needs to know, really.

That thread, of note, also took me to where I was able to, yet again, use your own words to demonstrate that you flip and flop and fib as needed to feed your ego:

You wrote, foolishly:

"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."​

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."​

I actually was able to produce a half dozen cases of you stating explicitly or heavily implying that you had in fact written what you claimed you never had.

And did you acknowledge this?

NOPE.

 

[tas8831]

No real Egyptologist yadda yadda.

Hey bro - came across this amazing claim from you in another thread (one that has been inactive for several months):

If you cut the nerve between the MIDDLE OF THE BRAIN and the visual cortex the individual will not experience "sight". But if you throw a ball at his head he'll catch it.​

Which nerve is that, by the way? The one between the MIDDLE OF THE BRAIN and the visual cortex?

Surely you can recite it from memory, seeing as you are so confident in your knowledge of this one nerve's function.

Tell us all - which nerve is it?

 

[cladking]

Tell us all - which nerve is it?

Into the reptilian brain it is called the optic nerve(s). I don't know what it's called past it but i';m sure you do.

later...

 

[rrobs]

The question of what supposedly happens to souls after death has zero to do with the believability of evolution.

I didn't write that reply in a vacuum, you know.

Somebody asked me why I thought I knew more than church doctrine. I used the typical church idea that the dead really don't die, but float around looking after their living relatives. I merely quoted a few verses that show the dead really are dead, i.e they have no consciousness of anything.

People sure can be picky around here.

 

[rrobs]

You are at a stalemate in your answers. Valjean gave a clear answer. Why you do not understand it is clearly your problem. It was written that Dagda held the sun still for 9 months so that his child with the goddess Boann could be born in Newgrange before anyone was aware that she had a child. For everyone else only one day had passed. With your logic this is as real as any science fact. As a symbolic story it actually a has very interesting meaning of male and female where Newgrange represents the womb and the sun enters at the birth of a new year. As a fact about the history of the earth it has no meaning. The same is true of other religions. The stories of the bible are only meaningful symbolically. They are meaningless or misleading when interpreted as facts about our world.

OK. It's my problem. I'll work on it...or not. Probably not. Actually, for sure not.

 

[rrobs]

I did not.

You can go back and read what I actually said and asked.

Maybe I'm mistaking you for someone else. I had said the churches have screwed up the scriptures in a major way. Somebody came back with the typical response, "who are you to think you know more than anybody else?" I then proceeded to give an example of a typical church doctrine concerning death and the scripture take on the subject, which is completely opposite to the churches. I think I proved my point square on, but I never received a direct response from whoever it was that asked my how I knew more than the churches. That wasn't you?

 

[rrobs]

I don't remember you pointing out some supposed double standard in my reasoning.
Instead, I pointed such out in your reasoning - and you even acknowledged it in post #344

Facetious is the key word there. I think you and I stopped having a meaningful discussion a long time ago. I am simply replying in kind. One thoughtless response deserves another.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see now you are quoting sentence fragments!

Where do you think baby scientists come from. Very few are home grown.

From good schools.

It was known and forgotten. They observed contagion spread even when man was still living in caves. They saw the spray released in a sneeze. They studied the relationship and someone eventually said "shu was spit out and tefnut was sneezed out". Spit [goes] up. sneezes [go] down. We use a handkerchief to spray germs in all directions and keep the doctors and drug companies busy. We are ignorant because we know nothing and operate on what we believe. They KNEW they were ignorant and operated on what they KNEW.

You're messing around.

No, the "ancients" (whoever it is you are referring to, btw) didn't know about micro-organisms.
Like many people before and after them, they noticed that it's probably a good idea to avoid contact with ill people if possible, sure.

But they didn't know about micro organisms.

"Population" exist only in our minds. Only individuals exist.

That's just hilariously false.

A population is a set of individuals.
In biology, it's a closed set of individuals within wich reproduction occurs.

 

[rrobs]

Not merely what I think.

It's a fact.

But I get it. You need to argue against the facts when they don't fit your religious belief.

That's the difference between you and me.

I require my beliefs to match the facts.
You on the other hand, require the facts to match your beliefs.

Facts have a way of changing. Isn't that what scientificos worship, thinking that more time and research gets ever closer to the "facts?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Facts have a way of changing. Isn't that what scientificos worship, thinking that more time and research gets ever closer to the "facts?"

You need to get your projection under control and try to learn what your opponents know. At least a little. Otherwise the wisest course is to politely ask questions when you do not know something. Just for fun try to assume that your beliefs about evolution are incorrect. You will not be far from wrong if you do so.

 

[rrobs]

You need to get your projection under control and try to learn what your opponents know. At least a little. Otherwise the wisest course is to politely ask questions when you do not know something. Just for fun try to assume that your beliefs about evolution are incorrect. You will not be far from wrong if you do so.

Thanks for the advice. I'll go ahead and assume my understanding of evolution is incorrect. After all, what could anyone learn in just one year of college courses, especially when it was so long ago. I admit I've made no attempt to keep up with new evidence. Could you please help me understand the theory of evolution as it stands today? Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the advice. I'll go ahead and assume my understanding of evolution is incorrect. After all, what could anyone learn in just one year of college courses, especially when it was so long ago. I admit I've made no attempt to keep up with new evidence. Could you please help me understand the theory of evolution as it stands today? Thanks.

I will gladly try to answer any questions. And I am sure that others will try to help as well.

 

[gnostic]

But that isn't what you said, is it?

You wrote:


"If we're so damn smart and science is so omniscient than why is life expectancy now decreasing exactly as I predicted 15 years ago?"

Did you not?
Yes, you did.

Yes, that’s another mistake cladking has made, making assumptions that science is “omniscient”.

There is no such things as “omniscience” in science, and I haven’t heard of any scientist making such claim about being “omniscient” or inerrant.

What we called “scientific theory” is only provisionally true, based on the explanation and explanation being tested against available but verifiable evidence.

A scientific theory can be modified or even replaced with alternative theory with stronger evidence.

A scientific theory that can be modified or replaced, demonstrates that it isn’t “omniscient”.

Only religions or philosophies would use words like omniscient or inerrant, and it isn’t scientists.

Once again, it is just cladking being loose with the truth, blaming scientists with strawman arguments and more silly conspiracy theories.

 

[Tiberius]

The scriptures declare the former and your fantasy is the basis for the second.

So you have a book to support the first.

What if I have a book to support the second?

If you only count the first because it's what you already believe, then you aren't finding the truth, you are just finding your biases.

 

[Tiberius]

You absolutely did ask me about the scriptures.

I must have missed that post. Could you quote it, or at least say which number it was?

 

[Bear Wild]

Thanks for the advice. I'll go ahead and assume my understanding of evolution is incorrect. After all, what could anyone learn in just one year of college courses, especially when it was so long ago. I admit I've made no attempt to keep up with new evidence. Could you please help me understand the theory of evolution as it stands today? Thanks.

If you are really serious then we would all like to help.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe I'm mistaking you for someone else. I had said the churches have screwed up the scriptures in a major way. Somebody came back with the typical response, "who are you to think you know more than anybody else?" I then proceeded to give an example of a typical church doctrine concerning death and the scripture take on the subject, which is completely opposite to the churches. I think I proved my point square on, but I never received a direct response from whoever it was that asked my how I knew more than the churches. That wasn't you?

Look at this quoted section. Next to the username, you'll see an arrow pointing upwards. You can click that to go to the post where the quote comes from. if you do that with this chain of posts, you'll see that I was asking about your double standard and not about scripture

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Facetious is the key word there. I think you and I stopped having a meaningful discussion a long time ago. I am simply replying in kind. One thoughtless response deserves another.

The only reason it became meaningless, is because you ran from the point of you using a double standard.

I get it though. It must be though to face the fact that you're being unreasonable.