Guided evolution?

[cladking]

Why do you have such a fixation on direct observation? It is not required to confirm evolution.

...And just to be clear "observation" is almost not even a part of science at all. Experiment is paramount. Our science can be characterized as observation > experiment but this is merely to differentiate it from ancient science that was observation > logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you mention one bit of it. I don't need no stinkin' links or detailed research; just mention one thing you believe supports a gradual change in any species.

I gave you specific examples. You ignored it.

Darwin specifically proposed that populations over the long term were stable thereby slamming the door on the actual cause of change in species. The very word "evolution" assumes the conclusion. Obviously someone sought a descriptive term but people are misled by it because the reality is all life changes and all change is sudden. People don't get married over billions of years and no off spring ever required millions of years to emerge, hatch, or be born. People die and species change but nothing "evolves". There isn't even such a thing as "species" because all life is individual.

No, Darwin thought that was the case, but he appeared to be open to occasional "rapid change". But why do you refer back to Darwin? We have learned quite a bit since his days. He got the basics right but some of his details were wrong.

You believe you can reduce reality to words and statistics and induce reality. This is a religion rather than science because all true science is based on experiment not looking and seeing.

No, no, no. You do not understand either science or religion. Religions are generally faith based. Faith is not allowed in the science. Just because you personally do not understand the science does not make it a religion. People have tried to help you to learn, but you refuse to do so. It is hard to help someone that won't let himself be helped.

 

[Subduction Zone]

...And just to be clear "observation" is almost not even a part of science at all. Experiment is paramount. Our science can be characterized as observation > experiment but this is merely to differentiate it from ancient science that was observation > logic.

Observation is key to the sciences. One cannot have an experiment without observation. But then you do not even appear to understand the scientific method. I offered to discuss the concept with you but you ran away. Do you want to try to see why your post was utter nonsense? Here is a short explanation, an experiment without observation is worthless. You would have no way to know the results without observation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree. What is your stinking evidence?

I already posted it for you. At this point you have to learn what is and what is not evidence to demand any. People may offer some to you, but since you denied obvious evidence you disqualified yourself from making demands.

Would you care to learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[cladking]

I gave you specific examples. You ignored it.

What was one of those examples. Did I laugh at a silly 2 minute video? Do you still believe that was evidence of a slow change? Why?

But why do you refer back to Darwin?

It was Look and See Science and nothing has changed. Still there is no experimental justification.

Faith is not allowed in the science.

You should tell scientists who believe in laws of nature or the 3% of physicists who believe an airplane can't take off from a conveyor belt moving toward it.

Anyone who believes science is correct or is the only possible explanation for reality is a mystic. About 95% of physicists including the vast majority of theoretical physicists are mystics. Curiously I suspect those who believe math underlies reality are actually pretty close to being right but then I don't know and I don't believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was one of those examples. Did I laugh at a silly 2 minute video? Do you still believe that was evidence of a slow change? Why?



It was Look and See Science and nothing has changed. Still there is no experimental justification.



You should tell scientists who believe in laws of nature or the 3% of physicists who believe an airplane can't take off from a conveyor belt moving toward it.

Anyone who believes science is correct or is the only possible explanation for reality is a mystic. About 95% of physicists including the vast majority of theoretical physicists are mystics. Curiously I suspect those who believe math underlies reality are actually pretty close to being right but then I don't know and I don't believe.

Sorry, you disqualified yourself. Let's go over the basics first. Then you can ask questions. I will be referring back to the lessons when I explain how something is evidence or not.

EDIT: And you do not understand the "Plane on a conveyor belt" problem. The wording is extremely important. I can give you two different wordings of the meme and one would allow the plane to take off, one would not. Most people do not know what the original said. So they get it wrong.

And once again, just because you do not understand the math does not make a physicist a "mystic". I doubt if you could understand the math that would keep an airplane from taking off.

 

[ratiocinator]

How many such million year long changes have you directly observed?

You don't need millions of years to observe gradual change - you can observe small changes over short time-scales. It also depends of the length of a generation of the type of organism involved. Short generations make it easier to observe change.

I am aware of no "genetics" prior to the mastodon a mere 10,000 years ago.

The evidence for evolution (common descent) is written in the genes of all existing species.

No matter what words you use to say it it is an ASSUMPTION and it is FALSE.

Baseless and false assertion.

Anyone can "look and see" survival of the fittest but nobody has any evidence of gradual change caused by it. It is just another circular argument.

It's not circular - it's pretty much a truism: those organisms that have traits that make them more likely to survive and reproduce in the context of the population's environment tend to survive and reproduce more than those who have traits that make them less likely to survive and reproduce in the population's environment. It's hardly rocket science or difficult to understand or believe - it's a statement of the bleedin' obvious.

If there were such a thing as survival of the fittest it would be more accurately called "survival of the most conscious" but this isn't how things work.

It's obvious you have no grasp of the concept you're criticising.

All change occurs suddenly and you have no evidence or experiment that shows otherwise.

I suppose it depends what you mean by change. A single mutation will happen suddenly (in one individual at conception) but it's not going to cause a huge change in the organism - maybe a change of colouration - the peppered moth would be a good example. More gradual change can be observed spread out over geographical distance as well as time, see ring species.

Why is it that people who deny evolution simply refuse to learn anything about it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You simply ignore the fact all known change is sudden and continue on with a belief in "evolution" driven by "survival of the fittest" that occurs over a very long time.

Please demonstrate this supposed "fact".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if there were pink striped unicorns how would you include that?

By coming up with evidence to demonstrate these unicorns exist and what role they play in whatever phenomenon they show up in. Until then, why include them or even assume they exist?

If there were a unified field theory to explain how gravity works, what would that be?

If I would be able to answer that, I'ld be in line for a nobel.

Indeed! And you know science is on the wrong track when it fails to make good prediction like an accelerating universe.

Which theory are you accusing here of not being able to make good predictions?
I thought the conversation was about biological evolution. What are you doing yapping about an "accelerating universe"?

Yes! Ideally!

No. By definition.
That IS what the word "theory" means in science.

But few people understand

Who?
Typically, it's anti-science folks, like creationists, who don't seem to comprehend scientific jargon.

this and take theory as gospel no matter how badly it fails to make prediction.

If you say so. I don't know who you are talking about, nor what supposed theory you are referring to.

So, you don't believe in the laws of physics?

I accept the laws of physics based on the evidence.

I don't know what you mean by "to believe in" when talking about the laws of physics.

Before I bother to look this up

LOL!!!
You weren't even aware of this?



Sounds like the ultimate confirmation that you haven't done your homework.

are you claiming this fossil proves there was a gradual change?

Don't be foolish.
I was replying to your silly claim that evolution doesn't make predictions.
Not only does it make millions upon millions of predictions concerning what we should and shouldn't see in extant DNA, it can even be used to accurately predict the age, location and traits of previously unknown fossils.

I'm sure it doesn't but I'll play along.

You are "sure" about lots of things that are brutally incorrect. This due to your willful ignorance on the matter.

Exactly!

You just can't see arguments against evolution.

You haven't given any. All you do is make empty claims.
All bark and no bite.

 

[gnostic]

...And just to be clear "observation" is almost not even a part of science at all. Experiment is paramount. Our science can be characterized as observation > experiment but this is merely to differentiate it from ancient science that was observation > logic.

Clearly, you still don’t understand at all.

Logic alone isn’t enough in science, because not everyone think or reason the same ways, and people can make mistakes.

That’s why with modern physical sciences and natural sciences, it require the mean of testing the explanations, testing the logic (logic also include maths, eg equations, variables, constants), testing the predictions.

And the only mean of testing in science, is through observations.

Observations include discovering evidence through experimentations or through fieldworks.

Experiments are conducted in controlled environments, like in laboratories, but not all evidence can be discovered in the labs. Other evidence required going out in the field, to physically find them.

Observation mean the following:

• the ability to observe, directly or indirectly;
• the ability to quantify (eg counting);
• the ability to measure (eg measuring mass, volume, spatial dimensions, temporal dimension (eg time), speed, voltage, current, power, energy, etc);
• the ability to test (eg comparing an evidence against other evidence, or verifying/refuting, etc)

Observations don’t just mean looking with eyes, because some things in life cannot be seen with the eyes, that’s why we use devices, equipment or tools to assist with observations, whether we use the microscope, telescope, multimeter, oscillator, mass spectrometer, etc.

Observations is also not just about looking, but also about counting, measuring, comparing, etc, so any measurement and any quantity are recorded and compared as DATA.

Data that can gleamed from the evidence, will allow scientists, researchers or engineers, to help determine if the evidence support/verify or refute/debunk any statement or model.

Evidence and data can provide the necessary information if the model (eg hypothesis or theory) is science or not science.

OBSERVATIONS = EVIDENCE​

Don’t get me wrong, cladking, logic is useful in science, but logic WITHOUT OBSERVATIONS, isn’t science.

What you don’t seem to understand is that experiments are form of observations. You cannot do experiments, without observing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I haven't put a lot of thought into finding evidence for "evolution" because I never really "believed" in it.

There's your problem, right there.

Willful ignorance.
Basically, you just said that your evidence against evolution, is that you don't believe it.

But I could look. This is really outside my paygrade; let a biologist find real evidence.

They already did.
But you aren't interested, as you have just acknowledged in the previous quote.

 

[cladking]

Logic alone isn’t enough in science, because not everyone think or reason the same ways, and people can make mistakes.

You're not paying attention. I said we speak a different kinds of language and are superstitious bumpkins. Do you think bees are "intelligent" or superstitious?

Ancient Language was logical just like nature so could be used to deduce how things work.

 

[gnostic]

You're not paying attention. I said we speak a different kinds of language and are superstitious bumpkins. Do you think bees are "intelligent" or superstitious?

Ancient Language was logical just like nature so could be used to deduce how things work.

And as I told you many times before, science required more than one’s logic, it required evidence to objectively and independently if it is true or not true.

And as I have told you more than times than I can recall, you don’t even read this imaginary “Ancient Language”, so how can you possibly know what the Ancients say or write to be logical or not.

I know for fact that you cannot read any language other than English, so you saying that you know what the ancients means and they are logical, only demonstrating you are just barking empty nonsense about the ancient language this or ancient language that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're not paying attention. I said we speak a different kinds of language and are superstitious bumpkins. Do you think bees are "intelligent" or superstitious?

Ancient Language was logical just like nature so could be used to deduce how things work.

Your use of a false dichotomy illustrates that you are not reasoning logically.

 

[cladking]

Your use of a false dichotomy illustrates that you are not reasoning logically.

This is just unreal. It's like living in the twilight zone. I address every single point people raise and no one has ever yet suggested any evidence whatsoever for a gradual change in species. A few have made my point by showing rapid changes in species but they are mute on gradual change. Meanwhile I have presented hundreds of facts and lots of logic to show species change suddenly and they each tell me it's not evidence because it doesn't appear in a biology book as a coherent argument against "evolution". This is a new theory so it can't appear in a biology book until somebody writes it but facts are still facts and logic is still logic.

There is no false dichotomy.

Bees are:

1.,= stupid
2.,= ignorant
3.,= unconscious
4., = simple creatures made by God or nature to be swatter and sprayed (in no particular order)
5.,= intelligent
6.,= survive through their individual consciousness
7.,= Part of a great plan or a niche since birds have to eat too.
8.,= superstitious because they are wholly ignorant
9.,= evolve through survival of the fittest
10.,= act solely on instinct
11.,= act principally on their knowledge
12.,= act on beliefs
12.,= act on their knowledge as determined by their genes expressed in reality
14.,= don't really exist because all "bees" are individuals
15.,= are under God's protection
16 I could go on like this all day because there are countless billions of beliefs about what you call "bees" and most of these beliefs are "false". They are based on assumptions. They are based on passages from the Bible and ill conceived experiment. They are based on human knowledge derived from experience or proper experiment. But the one thing certain is every individual has a definition for "bee" and by definition every definition is wrong because every definition is composed of words that must be parsed to be understood! The greatest experts on bees simply have less error (more agreement really) in their definition while dolts may not even know enough to avoid trying to catch them.

I'm merely trying to show your definitions and perspectives are in error. Your assumptions (about evolution) are most probably in error. All life comes from individuals and the nature of every individual springs from the nature of the specific individuals from which it sprang. All life is conscious and it is consciousness that drives this change since in all meaningful ways consciousness drives "fitness". At least it would drive "fitness" if you must define what keeps something alive as "fitness".

This is all in English, right. I haven't completely lapsed into Ancient Language or something? Why is my every point and every rebuttal to your "argument" being ignored? Why is my every question ignored? Why are we not even able to communicate?

Bees do not even exist and the set of things we call "bees" are each conscious and knowledgeable. They have no word, no dance, and no body language that means "belief" or "thought". They don't experience thought. Their language is representative, metaphysical, and digital just like pyramid builders. What is so damn hard about addressing this argument? Why do you see illogic, false dichotomies, and nonsense in every other argument but your own?

The problem here is that in order to see things from my perspective you have to suspend all your cherished beliefs in human omniscience. You have to admit that everything you read in every textbook is only true within the set of definitions, axioms, and experiment design that show it. You're afraid of the truth because of the implications and because we all spend a lifetime becoming our beliefs. This is why change comes one funeral at a time. Nobody will part with their beliefs. So we use semantical arguments and word play to shout down those who won't agree with doctrine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is just unreal. It's like living in the twilight zone. I address every single point people raise and no one has ever yet suggested any evidence whatsoever for a gradual change in species. A few have made my point by showing rapid changes in species but they are mute on gradual change. Meanwhile I have presented hundreds of facts and lots of logic to show species change suddenly and they each tell me it's not evidence because it doesn't appear in a biology book as a coherent argument against "evolution". This is a new theory so it can't appear in a biology book until somebody writes it but facts are still facts and logic is still logic.

There is no false dichotomy.

Bees are:

1.,= stupid
2.,= ignorant
3.,= unconscious
4., = simple creatures made by God or nature to be swatter and sprayed (in no particular order)
5.,= intelligent
6.,= survive through their individual consciousness
7.,= Part of a great plan or a niche since birds have to eat too.
8.,= superstitious because they are wholly ignorant
9.,= evolve through survival of the fittest
10.,= act solely on instinct
11.,= act principally on their knowledge
12.,= act on beliefs
12.,= act on their knowledge as determined by their genes expressed in reality
14.,= don't really exist because all "bees" are individuals
15.,= are under God's protection
16 I could go on like this all day because there are countless billions of beliefs about what you call "bees" and most of these beliefs are "false". They are based on assumptions. They are based on passages from the Bible and ill conceived experiment. They are based on human knowledge derived from experience or proper experiment. But the one thing certain is every individual has a definition for "bee" and by definition every definition is wrong! The greatest experts on bees simply have less error in their definition while dolts may not even know to avoid trying to catch them.

I'm merely trying to show you definitions and perspectives are in error. Your assumptions (about evolution) are most probably in error. All life comes from individuals and the nature of every individual springs from the nature of the specific individuals from which it sprang. All life is conscious and it is consciousness that drives evolution since in all meaningful ways consciousness drives "fitness". At least it would drove "fitness" if you must define what keeps something alive as "fitness".

This is all in English, right. I haven't completely lapsed into Ancient Language or something? Why is my every point and every rebuttal to your "argument" being ignored? Why is my every question ignored? Why are we not even able to communicate?

Bees do not even exist and the set of things we call bees are conscious and knowledgeable. They have no word, no dance, and no body language that means "belief" or "thought". They don't experience thought. Their language is representative, metaphysical, and digital just like pyramid builders. What is so damn hard about addressing this argument? Why do you see illogic, false dichotomies, and nonsense in every other argument but your own?

The problem here is that in order to see things from my perspective you have to suspend all your cherished beliefs in human omniscience. You have to admit that everything you read in every textbook is only true within the set of definitions, axioms, and experiment design that shows it. You're afraid of the truth because of the implications and because we all spend a lifetime becoming our beliefs. This is why change comes one funeral at a time. Nobody will part with their beliefs. So we use semantical arguments and word play to shout down those who won't agree with doctrine.

LOL! Don't accuse others of your shortcomings.

If you do not understand something try to ask reasonable questions.

 

[ratiocinator]

I address every single point people raise and no one has ever yet suggested any evidence whatsoever for a gradual change in species.

Simply false.

 

[cladking]

At least it would drive "fitness" if you must define what keeps something alive as "fitness".

It is neither fitness nor consciousness that keeps an individual alive. It is knowledge derived from experience and his genes. One individual may appear less fit to a biologist because the conditions under which that individual will thrive do not obtain. What is so complex about this? The more diversity in the genes of a species the more likely it will survive a bottleneck and the more likely the survivors will be "unusual" compared to those which perished. These individuals create a set of individuals very different than the individuals which died. There is no species at all and this is just a term used as a mnemonic so we don't have to name all the animals. Everything changes and no two identical things exist. Reality is in constant flux and determined by past events. There are no laws of nature or God driving this so far as has be seen in experiment. The future is unpredictable because the events that cause it have never happened yet.

Is this English?

 

[cladking]

Simply false.

Why don't you try to find a single fact or argument I haven't addressed 100 times. As long as you have a project like this why not look for a single instance where someone addressed the my actual argument?

 

[ratiocinator]

Why don't you try to find a single fact or argument I haven't addressed 100 times.

I haven't seen you address any of the actual science or real evidence. For example, you completely ignored my last reply (#167).

The main problem seems to be that you have no understanding of the theory of evolution (you certainly don't understand what "survival of the fittest" means - otherwise you wouldn't have suggested "survival of the most conscious" as an alternative) or the evidence that supports it.