Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

If the theory of evolution is so obviously wrong, why is it that no one can point out the obvious?

Obviously every single change in species that is actually observed is the result of the imposition of artificial bottlenecks. And almost always based on behavior.

Yet people still believe in survival of the fittest; still believe in gradualism. And still believe in Darwin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Gerd B. Müller.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Speciation does not, DOES NOT occur as the result of bottlenecks, artificial or otherwise. No one and I MEAN NO ONE has demonstrated this to be the case.

It would require that bottleneck be redefined to mean selection and then all would have to see and agree with that redefinition. In the end it is just semantics, so why not call selection, selection?

To me this seems like the sort of thing someone with very little understanding of science, biology, evolution, logic and reason would claim continually without benefit of explanation or support for the claim.

Much like claiming all living things are equally fit. This claim makes no sense and is not backed with any evidence. Never has been. It reveals a level of ignorance to the facts that makes one wonder why someone claiming these things would think they have a position in this discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Gerd B. Müller.

Huh? Nothing happened.

Maybe if I say it louder something magical will occur. That must be it. Or maybe continually repeating the name does the trick.

Gerd B. Müller

GERD B. MÜLLER

GERD B. MÜLLER!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Human beings have gone through at least two bottlenecks in the last 100,000 years. Still Homo sapiens today. No speciation.

Cheetahs went through a bottleneck perhaps 10,000 years ago. The species remains the same based on all the evidence. No speciation.

Corn, cotton, soybeans, etc. have all been artificially selected to favor traits of use to people. No evidence that these things have changed species as a result of this ARTIFICIAL SELECTION. No speciation

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not know of anyone that accepts the theory of evolution espouses a belief in the outdated, poorly worded description "survival of the fittest" used to describe natural selection.

No valid evidence of the existence or practice of such a belief has ever been presented on this thread or this forum.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Gradualism is a conclusion based on the fossil evidence. Of which several examples of both invertebrate and vertebrate evidence have been presented on this forum.

Of course, the anti-science answer is to deny that this evidence has been presented.

Neither Gould nor Eldredge ever claimed that gradualism does not exist and is not in evidence in the fossil record despite claims that they have shown it does not exist.

Gradualism is a reasoned, logical conclusion of the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let's examine dog breeding. This example is of course truncated for brevity.

A breeder (a Homo sapien that likes dogs and breeding them for novel traits, fun or profit) discovers a novel mutation in a pup that the breeder sees some value in. Subsequent to maturation, the breeder breeds this dog to perpetuate and select for the trait the breeder likes. Selection. I repeat SELECTION. Not a bottleneck. There is no evidence that the selection reduces the population of dogs, a particular breed of dog or massively reduces the genetic variation of dogs or a particular breed.

If the trait breeds true due to the selection and breeding, then it will be fixed in a new population of dogs of that breed.

No one has presented evidence that their semantic argument and nay saying has any validity in this idealized example or has application to real world observations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no evidence for insisting that speciation is always or almost always based on a behavior of the ancestral population or individuals within that population.

Where is the evidence supporting this always empty claim?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A little bit about Gerd B. Müller for clarity in this thread. Since it is his name so often invoked as if someone were trying to call up a deity.
Gerd B. Müller - Wikipedia

He has an M.D. and a PhD in zoology. He is a major influence behind the EES. His research has included work on evolutionary novelties and evolution in relation to development. He is a founding member of the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research and published on evolutionary developmental biology.

Even as he challenges the standing theory of evolution , clearly he does not deny evolution or natural explanations for the observations of evolution. I cannot imagine such an intelligent, productive scientist rejects the value of Darwin's contributions to science or thinks that contribution is the root and cause of human evil. Certainly, he gives greater weight to the idea of revising the existing Modern Synthesis, but he isn't claiming evolution isn't real or that science cannot devise theories to explain it. Rejecting the Modern Synthesis and establishing the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis does not establish a literal view of some religious text as the default explanation for observations. Especially when there are a multitude of views that fall into that default category and none of them have any evidence and no reason is offered that they should even be considered, let alone accepted.

Is claiming a part of what Müller claims while selectively rejecting other parts of what he claims cherry picking in support of an ideology? I think so. I think that applies to almost every example of scientist I have seen used on this thread for that purpose.

Is it trying to have your cake and eat it too? I think so. I haven't seen any reason it isn't.

 

[cladking]

Speciation does not, DOES NOT occur as the result of bottlenecks, artificial or otherwise. No one and I MEAN NO ONE has demonstrated this to be the case.

A breeder (a Homo sapien that likes dogs and breeding them for novel traits, fun or profit) discovers a novel mutation in a pup that the breeder sees some value in. Subsequent to maturation, the breeder breeds this dog to perpetuate and select for the trait the breeder likes. Selection. I repeat SELECTION. Not a bottleneck. There is no evidence that the selection reduces the population of dogs, a particular breed of dog or massively reduces the genetic variation of dogs or a particular breed.

I believe you are looking at this from a poor perspective. Every dog the breeder excludes from mating might as well be dead or never born for the purposes of his 'experiment". He is selecting one or two dogs with the traits he desires and these characteristics are quite often related to behavior. If he selected four dogs or six dogs this is no different than a natural bottleneck until such time as the off spring are bred back into the population.

I never suggested that every bottleneck results in speciation. If you select 100 random humans to breed they would never in a million tries create a new species. I am saying that when nature creates a bottleneck it is NOT IN ANY WAY RANDOM in most instances and in NO instances when speciation occurs. I am saying that when nature selects for quirky individuals these individuals are share genes that caused the unusual behavior and it's these genes that result in speciation.

If humans had selected wolves that were funny colors they wouldn't have gotten dogs. they'd have simply created funny colored wolves. But tameness is highly uncharacteristic for wolves so when humans selected "tame wolves" they got "dogs" which for all practical purposes are just tame wolves. By the same token whales are probably just a predecessor species and descended from the few four legged version that liked water. By some means water saved the lives of these individuals who created whales.

I believe most speciation is quite sudden and caused by a few unusual individuals who survive because of their behavior. Obviously there is also mutation and other forces but what doesn't really exist is gradualism caused by survival of the fittest. Yes, there are some highly stable niches that could produce a gradual change under highly unusual conditions but this is not the mechanism for change in species. This is because every individual is equally fit and when conditions change suddenly some will fare better than others but since individuals are equally fit there is no substantial change in the nature of the species.

We have a warped perspective because we don't look at life as consciousness and we don't look at life as individual. "Origin of Species" has no meaning because we do not understand how life originated and there's no such thing as "species". Of course Darwin got everything backward since he looked at the problem under a telescope instead of a microscope. He approached the problem from the back end of a horse hitched to a wagon in front.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to understand "species" without understanding even one single individual of any kind or make. This is why ancient people understood change in species and used the theory to invent agriculture and domesticate animals. Then they invented the means by which humans are best bred and this got confused into religion. You know killing, stealing, and chasing the neighbors for sexual gratification is a sure fire means to ruin the commonweal and future generations. It is a way to devolve into chaos just as we are doing today largely caused by the belief in science which is highly misplaced. "Science" is a method to learn about ourselves and nature. It is not at all suitable to live by. People who understand science do not use it in this way and do not put their trust in Peers or theory. People who understand science know that there are no conclusions and that it is always a work in progress. They know theory derives from experiment and experiment is no way to live. Each man has to find his own way and is well advised to turn to the philosophers or others (including religious individuals) who have put thought into such questions.

We are so confused because Darwin did not employ science. He thought he could solve change in species through observation alone. He couldn't have been more wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe you are looking at this from a poor perspective. Every dog the breeder excludes from mating might as well be dead or never born for the purposes of his 'experiment". He is selecting one or two dogs with the traits he desires and these characteristics are quite often related to behavior. If he selected four dogs or six dogs this is no different than a natural bottleneck until such time as the off spring are bred back into the population.

I never suggested that every bottleneck results in speciation. If you select 100 random humans to breed they would never in a million tries create a new species. I am saying that when nature creates a bottleneck it is NOT IN ANY WAY RANDOM in most instances and in NO instances when speciation occurs. I am saying that when nature selects for quirky individuals these individuals are share genes that caused the unusual behavior and it's these genes that result in speciation.

If humans had selected wolves that were funny colors they wouldn't have gotten dogs. they'd have simply created funny colored wolves. But tameness is highly uncharacteristic for wolves so when humans selected "tame wolves" they got "dogs" which for all practical purposes are just tame wolves. By the same token whales are probably just a predecessor species and descended from the few four legged version that liked water. By some means water saved the lives of these individuals who created whales.

I believe most speciation is quite sudden and caused by a few unusual individuals who survive because of their behavior. Obviously there is also mutation and other forces but what doesn't really exist is gradualism caused by survival of the fittest. Yes, there are some highly stable niches that could produce a gradual change under highly unusual conditions but this is not the mechanism for change in species. This is because every individual is equally fit and when conditions change suddenly some will fare better than others but since individuals are equally fit there is no substantial change in the nature of the species.

We have a warped perspective because we don't look at life as consciousness and we don't look at life as individual. "Origin of Species" has no meaning because we do not understand how life originated and there's no such thing as "species". Of course Darwin got everything backward since he looked at the problem under a telescope instead of a microscope. He approached the problem from the back end of a horse hitched to a wagon in front.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to understand "species" without understanding even one single individual of any kind or make. This is why ancient people understood change in species and used the theory to invent agriculture and domesticate animals. Then they invented the means by which humans are best bred and this got confused into religion. You know killing, stealing, and chasing the neighbors for sexual gratification is a sure fire means to ruin the commonweal and future generations. It is a way to devolve into chaos just as we are doing today largely caused by the belief in science which is highly misplaced. "Science" is a method to learn about ourselves and nature. It is not at all suitable to live by. People who understand science do not use it in this way and do not put their trust in Peers or theory. People who understand science know that there are no conclusions and that it is always a work in progress. They know theory derives from experiment and experiment is no way to live. Each man has to find his own way and is well advised to turn to the philosophers or others (including religious individuals) who have put thought into such questions.

We are so confused because Darwin did not employ science. He thought he could solve change in species through observation alone. He couldn't have been more wrong.

This is rubbish. It isn't fact. It isn't science. It doesn't make sense. This is why we cannot have a reasoned discussion. Semantic arguments and misunderstanding the definition of bottleneck will not serve to make your post here anymore legitimate.

Individual dogs that do not procreate are not indicative of a bottleneck nor can that be described or explained as one. That term has no application in the discussion. End of discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe you are looking at this from a poor perspective. Every dog the breeder excludes from mating might as well be dead or never born for the purposes of his 'experiment". He is selecting one or two dogs with the traits he desires and these characteristics are quite often related to behavior. If he selected four dogs or six dogs this is no different than a natural bottleneck until such time as the off spring are bred back into the population.

I never suggested that every bottleneck results in speciation. If you select 100 random humans to breed they would never in a million tries create a new species. I am saying that when nature creates a bottleneck it is NOT IN ANY WAY RANDOM in most instances and in NO instances when speciation occurs. I am saying that when nature selects for quirky individuals these individuals are share genes that caused the unusual behavior and it's these genes that result in speciation.

If humans had selected wolves that were funny colors they wouldn't have gotten dogs. they'd have simply created funny colored wolves. But tameness is highly uncharacteristic for wolves so when humans selected "tame wolves" they got "dogs" which for all practical purposes are just tame wolves. By the same token whales are probably just a predecessor species and descended from the few four legged version that liked water. By some means water saved the lives of these individuals who created whales.

I believe most speciation is quite sudden and caused by a few unusual individuals who survive because of their behavior. Obviously there is also mutation and other forces but what doesn't really exist is gradualism caused by survival of the fittest. Yes, there are some highly stable niches that could produce a gradual change under highly unusual conditions but this is not the mechanism for change in species. This is because every individual is equally fit and when conditions change suddenly some will fare better than others but since individuals are equally fit there is no substantial change in the nature of the species.

We have a warped perspective because we don't look at life as consciousness and we don't look at life as individual. "Origin of Species" has no meaning because we do not understand how life originated and there's no such thing as "species". Of course Darwin got everything backward since he looked at the problem under a telescope instead of a microscope. He approached the problem from the back end of a horse hitched to a wagon in front.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to understand "species" without understanding even one single individual of any kind or make. This is why ancient people understood change in species and used the theory to invent agriculture and domesticate animals. Then they invented the means by which humans are best bred and this got confused into religion. You know killing, stealing, and chasing the neighbors for sexual gratification is a sure fire means to ruin the commonweal and future generations. It is a way to devolve into chaos just as we are doing today largely caused by the belief in science which is highly misplaced. "Science" is a method to learn about ourselves and nature. It is not at all suitable to live by. People who understand science do not use it in this way and do not put their trust in Peers or theory. People who understand science know that there are no conclusions and that it is always a work in progress. They know theory derives from experiment and experiment is no way to live. Each man has to find his own way and is well advised to turn to the philosophers or others (including religious individuals) who have put thought into such questions.

We are so confused because Darwin did not employ science. He thought he could solve change in species through observation alone. He couldn't have been more wrong.

I am not confused. Don't include me with yourself in that regard. I am not making wild claims I cannot back up. That is your MO.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To clarify for anyone reading here. A genetic bottleneck results from an event that drastically reduces the entire population of a species to the point that the genetic diversity of that species is radically reduced. The individuals of that population that survive the bottleneck are not a new species. Bottlenecks can arise from random natural events like vulcanism, impact events, climate change, etc. They can even arise and there is evidence for them resulting from overhunting by man, but there is no evidence of intent by man or anyone else in the known bottlenecks.

Behavior can be seen as a suite of traits that can be naturally selected, but there is no evidence that individuals, populations or species consciously drive their own evolution. Attempts to see wild fantasy thrive on the fact that our concept and understanding of species is fluid is a gap argument reliant on what we do not know and not on any facts in evidence.

What has been continually referred to on this thread as a bottleneck or microbottleneck by those that do not know the science is natural and artificial selection. Artificial selection is selection carried out by people to breed traits into species that we use for food, fiber or as work animals. Trying to force one scientific term to fit the definition of another is a waste of time and shows nothing but the ignorance of the subject matter by the person doing that. It stretches the use of the terms out of all proportion, context and usefulness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It does not follow that a breeder of dogs would just throw away sound animals simply to chase a novel trait that has expressed in one individual. There is no logical reason to assume that. Even if the breeder did this, the genetic diversity of the breed, population and the species would not be radically reduced. Bottlenecks do not apply to individuals or small subsets of a nearly homogenous population which is what most dog breeds are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no evidence that all living things are conscious. No one on this thread has presented such evidence. There is no means for some organisms to support a consciousness. Bacteria and some other single-celled organisms do not have a nervous system, since that is the result of multi-cellularity. There is no evidence showing consciousness in more complex organisms like arthropods either. The evidence of consciousness is not found in such life. Only evidence that they respond. Consciousness isn't considered a basal trait defining something as living.

I know this won't stop some believers, but at the very least, perhaps they will see the hurdles they have to clear in order support their claims. That is, any that make an attempt to support claims. Some do not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Genetic variation resulting from mutation can be acted on by natural selection and is seen in evolution at all modes from gradualism to punctuation. This is evolution. There is no evidence that speciation is sudden or the result or the result of some group of behavioral off-types that suddenly decide to be a new species.

Even in punctuation, the speciation postulated is only geologically rapid and not sudden at all. Individuals do not choose to suddenly give birth to a new species. That is not represented in any of the evidence.

It would be as if a French family choosing to give birth to a child that speaks Spanish. It doesn't make any sense, there is no conceivable mechanism and no evidence for it.

 

[cladking]

This is rubbish. It isn't fact. It isn't science. It doesn't make sense. This is why we cannot have a reasoned discussion. Semantic arguments and misunderstanding the definition of bottleneck will not serve to make your post here anymore legitimate.

Individual dogs that do not procreate are not indicative of a bottleneck nor can that be described or explained as one. That term has no application in the discussion. End of discussion.

And this shows the tunnel vision. In reality where we and all dogs live ONLY individuals procreate. Species do not and can not.

A dog breeder is intentionally excluding every dog that does not have the desired characteristics. Only the individuals they he culls out to breed can procreate and all other dogs might as well not exist as it concerns the puppies generated. The human created an artificial bottleneck. If he selects numerous individuals at random he merely gets more dogs, but if he selects individuals with similar characteristics he gets more of these characteristics. It is still an artificial bottleneck. Now imagine he selects for a very unusual characteristic from a very large number of dogs; something that is uncharacteristic for dogs and perhaps derives from consciousness such as not liking meat and/ or being chummy with cats. The off spring from these dogs would probably not be dogs at all. The first generation would be almost indistinguishable from dogs but very quickly there would be a massive difference that we call "speciation".

Dogs that eschew meat are not "really" "dogs" any more than any other conscious entity to which we append this word with no referent. Words are mere symbols, placeholders, and referents don't magically pop into existence because we invent a word. Dogs existed before we had a new word and if we never name something because we never find it that thing is still real. By the same token just because the word "unicorn" exists hardly means a herd will be coming around.

All observed change in species is sudden. There is no evidence for gradualism except what we imagine in the fossil record. There is no evidence that one individual is more fit than another merely that every individual is different and most of these differences are genetic and experiential and result from this AND the interplay with consciousness. This is what every experiment ever performed is probably showing and the problem is we have a very very bad paradigm invented by Darwin who used no science at all to some up with his explanations. It's easy to forget just how little real science existed back when Darwin wrote.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And this shows the tunnel vision. In reality where we and all dogs live ONLY individuals procreate. Species do not and can not.

A dog breeder is intentionally excluding every dog that does not have the desired characteristics. Only the individuals they he culls out to breed can procreate and all other dogs might as well not exist as it concerns the puppies generated. The human created an artificial bottleneck. If he selects numerous individuals at random he merely gets more dogs, but if he selects individuals with similar characteristics he gets more of these characteristics. It is still an artificial bottleneck. Now imagine he selects for a very unusual characteristic from a very large number of dogs; something that is uncharacteristic for dogs and perhaps derives from consciousness such as not liking meat and/ or being chummy with cats. The off spring from these dogs would probably not be dogs at all. The first generation would be almost indistinguishable from dogs but very quickly there would be a massive difference that we call "speciation".

Dogs that eschew meat are not "really" "dogs" any more than any other conscious entity to which we append this word with no referent. Words are mere symbols, placeholders, and referents don't magically pop into existence because we invent a word. Dogs existed before we had a new word and if we never name something because we never find it that thing is still real. By the same token just because the word "unicorn" exists hardly means a herd will be coming around.

All observed change in species is sudden. There is no evidence for gradualism except what we imagine in the fossil record. There is no evidence that one individual is more fit than another merely that every individual is different and most of these differences are genetic and experiential and result from this AND the interplay with consciousness. This is what every experiment ever performed is probably showing and the problem is we have a very very bad paradigm invented by Darwin who used no science at all to some up with his explanations. It's easy to forget just how little real science existed back when Darwin wrote.

Like I said, there is no point in trying to establish any sort of rational engagement. I'm just going to add you to my ignore list. Have a great day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If a dog breeder has a litter of pups and selects out one pup to move forward due to the expression of a desirable trait, whether the remaining pups are allowed to breed or not is irrelevant to the description of the process. It is selection. It is not described as or by the term bottleneck. Selection and bottleneck describe different processes in biology. DIFFERENT. I cannot imagine someone trying to force their way into these discussions without a basic understanding of the material that would including knowing what those terms define and describe.

If pups in the litter without the desired trait are never allowed to breed, then their fitness is less than that of the pup that is allowed to breed. Clearly, they are not going to have offspring, so their fitness is zero. Fitness is the quantitative representation of individual reproductive success, so in populations, you see a variation of fitness by phenotype.

Change in living things and in species is variable and not sudden. There is no evidence that it is sudden across the board. That doesn't make any sense at all to claim that. It is a ridiculous claim that change in species is sudden, when the evidence does not support such a wild claim.

Speciation isn't described by the ridiculous scenario of breeding dogs that don't eat meat or like cats. What is that? Good grief. If you breed dogs selecting for a diet without meat, the end result would be a variety of dogs that don't eat meat. They would still be dogs.

Gradualism is supported by the evidence. To say it is not is an example of denial.