The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

But no matter how many times I've challenged believers in Evolution to show a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest" I get nothing

I gave you exactly that and predicted that you'ld dismiss it with a handwave.
You did exactly that.

You are not honest in your request.
That, or you don't actually understand your own request.

I think it's a combination of both: you don't understand what you are asking so you don't recognize it when you get answers, AND you don't plan on being honest about it anyway since you are dogmatically invested in religious "alternatives".

or I get the same irrelevancies about "ring species" or "peppered moths".

Both of which also refute your ignorant claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is wrong with this as an example?

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

It undermines his ignorant claims - and that is off course a problem.

 

[gnostic]

I do not dispute whales came from land animals, I dispute that the changes were gradual AND that they were driven by "survival of the fittest'.

Look, I am not a biologist, nor am I ecology expert, but even I can see that you don't understand Evolution and what it mean by "survival of the fittest".

No, not by “survival of the fittest”, it is driven by changed environment, eg climate change in the regions, the scarcity of resources or food supply (which would increase competition between organisms), the increase or decrease in certain atmospheric gases, changes in terrains, etc, or it could be combination of any of the above

It is the changes in the environment itself that drive (Natural) “Selection”, which is where populations need to adapt to changes or else it cannot sustain the populations, thereby risking possible extinction.

So, the changes in environments are the driving forces for the needs to force selected changes in populations of organisms. Natural Selection (not “survival of the fittest”) is the mechanism for the ability of organisms to changes, passing these changes through genetic information (eg DNA, RNA).

And Valjean is right, physical changes in organisms are seriously limited by the organisms’ own anatomy:

Evolution has to work with what it has, and how something can adapt/evolve is severely constrained by the anatomy and physiology you have to work with.

TagliatelliMonster is also right:

1. "survival of the fittest" is not actually a thing in evolution, but a sensational / popular media catch phrase

The term is often misunderstood, but worse, it is often misused.

And I think you are doing both, because you have already intended to use this phrase to justify your argument (mistaken opinion) that Evolution is about “marching towards perfection”.

Evolution isn’t about striving for perfection, but about adapting enough so that populations can continue to reproduce offspring with better physical traits than previous or current populations.

Survival don’t mean organisms needs to be biggest or strongest or smartest.

For instance, in the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction occurred the larger land animals, particularly larger dinosaurs died off, while smaller dinosaurs - birds - and smaller reptiles and mammals survive, and without the competition from the larger dinosaurs, these mammals, reptiles and birds were able to radiate in diversity.

Being the largest and strongest don’t guarantee survival during extinction-level events.

 

[cladking]

So I'll ask again, where this great insight the the Bible have in biology about species? Do you care to cite the passages?

You believe and interpret every experiment to mean that species change gradually based on "fitness" and that consciousness has no bearing on how these changes occur.

The Bible emphasizes suddenness, behavior, and the choices made by individuals. This is the ancient understanding of "evolution" based on 40,000 years of science. Ironically enough that science was always perfectly matched to its metaphysics while modern science went off the beam in the 19th century.

The Bible and the ancient writing from which it is derived is probably far closer to many truths than modern science.

 

[cladking]

So where are your abundance of "experiments" to support your claims that have organisms change suddenly?

Every experiment ever performed shows all change in all life at all levels is sudden. This includes a few experiments I performed myself and reported and many I cited. Meanwhile I get vague references to e coli, whale fins, and ring species in return. None of these show what they are purported to show. The meaning of all these is either not experimental, not relevant, or open to interpretation.

 

[cladking]

You asked fossil evidence.

I asked for fossil evidence of a gradual change. These simply show three sudden changes.

If they were gradual, then transitional fossils from various time periods with millions of years in between should exist that exhibit stages from the original form to the present one.

"Stages" are the sudden changes.

2. natural selection is supported through observation of extant life,

How many times have I made it clear this is utter nonsense of the highest possible order? I've explained this so a child can understand.

"Consciousness" IS life. Life IS consciousness. The two are merely different perspectives of the same phenomenon. They are mere words but "life" is real and "consciousness" is real. They exist in the concrete world and no amount of ignoring them is relevant to the sudden changes involved. The first corollary to this is that all life is individual. Since consciousness is the tool provided by "God" to succeed and procreate it follows that the observation of change in species must be performed from the perspective of the individual. "Species" is a mere abstraction and abstractions don't evolve at all.

I don't know how to make any of this more clear. You just keep presenting irrelevancies or things that support my position.

Bible right, Darwin wrong.

 

[cladking]

If you claim that bacteria, for example, are "conscious", then you are using a definition of "conscious" that isn't used by the rest of the world.

Any behavior that is dependent on any understanding of the environment demonstrates "consciousness". Certainly plants and e coli are barely "conscious" by any definition.

 

[cladking]

So, the changes in environments are the driving forces for the needs to force selected changes in populations of organisms. Natural Selection (not “survival of the fittest”) is the mechanism for the ability of organisms to changes, passing these changes through genetic information (eg DNA, RNA).

Evidence shows that environments usually stay relatively stable for as long as millions of years and then SUDDENLY change. After the change they support mostly new flora and fauna. I simply am maintaining that most change in species (not that "species" even exists) occurs between these changes and result from behavior and mutation chiefly.

If a niche were to last for a billion years THEN we would see gradual changes in most life. They don't last. Darwin's assumptions were all wrong. This is what experiment, observation, and logic show.

 

[cladking]

I have no doubt that every point in these posts will now be ignored.

The very concept that the Bible might be right and science wrong is revolting to believers in science.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Believability of Evolution

To understand creation/evolution correctly, one may like to read my post #297 in another thread. Agree/disagree, please?

Regards

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I asked for fossil evidence of a gradual change.

Which would be snapshots of the state of a trait with time in between and the traits showing transition from the old to the new, which is exactly what those fossils show.

These simply show three sudden changes.

Yep, just like these photo's of Tom Cruise's face show "sudden aging" instead of gradual aging.

Clearly, one day that kid in the first picture went to sleep and woke up looking like the dude in the second picture. And then a couple years later without aging, he went to sleep and woke up the next day looking like the dude in the last picture.

Yep! Makes perfect sense!




There's really no reason to bother anymore if this is the level of intellectual dishonesty you are going to insist upon.

 

[viole]

But no matter how many times I've challenged believers in Evolution to show a single experiment that shows a gradual change in species.

we are. No need for experiments, nor complicated scientific arguments. All we need is a mirror.

If we weren’t the result of those changes, we wold not be great apes.

Or do you really believe God is so much into apes to make the pinnacle of His creation to be one?

Personally, if I had to design the most important being in whole creation, the very being my only begotten one will need to reincarnate into, I would make sure it is vastly different, and better, and super duper amazingly perfect and in My image, and so incredibly superior than everything else I created, that it will stand out as the pinnacle of my creation power. The worthy being I created the whole Universe for.

For sure, I would not lazily reuse my old design for chimps, even if it was Friday, and i were tired after 5 days of exhausting creation acts. Would you?

ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

This is the ancient understanding of "evolution" based on 40,000 years of science. Ironically enough that science was always perfectly matched to its metaphysics while modern science went off the beam in the 19th century.

There are no ancient science 40,000 years ago, and there are no written language to communicate and explain any “science” around this time...and there are no metaphysics.

You are still spewing this pseudoscience “ancient science” and “ancient language” (a language that even you don’t understand) that don’t exist in this period of history.

Science is an explanation(s) that can be tested...and if you can test it, this explanation qualifies as being “knowledge”.

In most languages, “science” means “knowledge”.

Predictably, you may post up again illustration of those set of prehistoric bunch of symbols that are found in some parts of the world, you would claim there commonalities as a common single language!!!

But if you cannot understand the symbols as to what they say or mean, then how can you possibly and definitively conclude they are language of science or language of metaphysics?

You can’t. You are only guessing as to what they mean, without proving what you’ve claimed. So all you really have, are some unsubstantiated assumptions - speculation, personal opinion, baseless belief.

Nothing you have claimed, have ever been substantiated, and that’s why no one take you seriously. I know that this forum isn’t the only one you have joined over the years.

You have poached this subject with your claim about ancient science and and ancient language in other forums before, and every single ones of them, people have criticized your claims as being unscientific claims with no more merit than conspiracy theory or wishful thinking.

 

[cladking]

If we weren’t the result of those changes, we wold not be great apes.

These are mere words. There's no such thing as species then how can there be great apes or any other kind?

All life is individual. All life is consciousness.

 

[cladking]

There are no ancient science 40,000 years ago, and there are no written language to communicate and explain any “science” around this time...and there are no metaphysics.

More words.

If you don't like "ancient science" because these words offend you or lie outside your knowledge then we can use the word "animal science" which I'll define as the means beavers used to invent dams and termites used to invent agriculture and air conditioned cities. People are often offended by things that lie outside their belief systems like "experiment" or "God". Even "punctuate equilibrium" seems to offend those who believe in gradual change caused by survival of the fittest.

 

[cladking]

In most languages, “science” means “knowledge”.

So does "logos" which once meant the "word of God" or the language of God".

Knowledge > Understanding > Creation is the way it's always been. Beliefs and superstition are usually nonproductive at best and destructive at worst.

But if you cannot understand the symbols as to what they say or mean, then how can you possibly and definitively conclude they are language of science or language of metaphysics?

They break Zipf's Law and have a coherent literal meaning.

So all you really have, are some unsubstantiated assumptions - speculation, personal opinion, baseless belief.

Well yeah, but my theory makes good predictions even where no other does.

 

[cladking]

Every individual makes massive changes over the course of its existence. Even the consciousness makes such sudden changes as the result of new experience and new beliefs. Children have sudden massive growth spurts and then suddenly stop altogether. A mighty oak suddenly begins as a mere acorn. Then it suddenly rots away and provides nutrients to its children and grandchildren who are usually very very much like it but each have a distinct genetic make up which determines its behavior. If only the oaks growing in rocks survive an event then the children of those trees will suddenly be a brand new species.

Ain't nature grand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You believe and interpret every experiment to mean that species change gradually based on "fitness" and that consciousness has no bearing on how these changes occur.

The Bible emphasizes suddenness, behavior, and the choices made by individuals. This is the ancient understanding of "evolution" based on 40,000 years of science. Ironically enough that science was always perfectly matched to its metaphysics while modern science went off the beam in the 19th century.

The Bible and the ancient writing from which it is derived is probably far closer to many truths than modern science.

Sorry, but now you are using an equivocation fallacy. In the context that we are using the term science there was no science then. In fact the word arose in the mid 14th century. The use of the word in Bible verses is actually a poor translation. If you understood the concept of evidence you would see that it is not interpretation, the fact is that all of the scientific evidence supports slow and gradual change.

Would you care to learn what scientific evidence is?

 

[cladking]

Would you care to learn what scientific evidence is?

No. Not at all. Please don't.

the fact is that all of the scientific evidence supports slow and gradual change.

Then why can't you produce one shred of evidence or cite a shred of evidence to support your beliefs?

I don't care what you believe evidence is in this thread. Why not produce something to support a gradual change in a significant species?

Spoiler alert; It's because you can't and you can't because this isn't how change in species occurs. Meanwhile all my evidence stands.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even "punctuate equilibrium" seems to offend those who believe in gradual change

Newsflash: punctuated equilibrium, is gradual.
Maybe you should learn what PE actually is about.............................................................

PE doesn't say that a land animal with feet suddenly pooped out an aquatic whale with flippers.



Where do you get all this nonsense?
Do you make it up on the spot or is there some silly website that's lying to you?