Featured Darwin's Illusion

I tried. There are at least ten pages of the use of that term. I saw that you were corrected on this error earlier. I did not see that you refuted the claim.

 

Biologists, many of them, conjecture as to their conclusions based on "data," so their definitions don't always matter anyway. Unless of course you go along with the theory-conjecture. Then they matter. To some. Or even matter to those who see that they are conjecturing.

 

Perhaps you and others would argue that there is no proof that we exist.

 

No, they do not.

And in fact what you just did was to make an accusation against another. Please prove that they use conjecture. I am very sure that you cannot do that.

 

It depends upon your definition of the word "proof". If you are using the legal definition of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes. we exist. And also by that very same standard evolution is a fact. If you are trying to use the mathematical definition then no. That only apply to math. But let's use the legal definition. If one claims that there is no "proof" of evolution then that person is either very ignorant about the sciences or a liar. There has yet to be found an informed and honest creationist. One can be informed but dishonest or honest but uninformed.

This is why I try to get people to learn the basics. If one goes by the scientific method and scientific evidence then there is no doubt about evolution. It is a fact.

 

How can all individuals be equally fit? Individuals aren't clones of their parents. Siblings aren't identical. How can differences in coloration, body type, vision, speed, coat length, &c all be equally abled?
Do you really think a cheetah born with stubby legs would thrive; that he'd be as reproductively successful as his siblings?

Not just Darwin, everyone believes this, and have been using this method to selectively breed plants and livestock for thousands of years.
Selection -- natural or artificial -- works, and is easily demonstrated. There are no wild dachshunds or maize. They were created -- by human selection.
Natural selection works in exactly the same way, but without the humans.

The basics of natural selection are childishly simple. An (non-creationist) eight year old could understand it. Evolution itself, however, is multi factoral, and can get pretty complicated. Darwin just discovered the eight year old version of it.

As far as I can see, there are only four explanations for your skepticism:
*Your team; your Status Community, doesn't believe it, and you blindly support your team.
*You're intellectually challenged or hopelessly obtuse, unable or unwilling to grasp the concept.
*You're personally incredulous, from ignorance, intellectual laziness, unfamiliarity with the concept or cultural brainwashing.
*You're trolling.

We will respond, as always, with facts and relevant evidence.

The concept is simple, and we've tried to explain it multiple ways, but you seem too obtuse, loyal or blind to grasp it.

So how does this not confer differential fitness? How does this not impact their ability to thrive and breed?

Again! I repeat my question: What is your concept of survival of the fittest?"
You and Yours Truly still haven't explained it. You just launch off on anti-Darwin rants, incredulity and personal faith.
Why do you keep dodging the question? Are you just trolling?

How does this follow, logically?
Sure, there are individuals, but shared traits sort them into different taxonomic categories, the "individual differences" enable natural selection, and consciousness is irrelevant. How can one "think" oneself into change?

 

Don't be obtuse. The concept is simple. Musk oxen born hairless or cheetahs born with stubby legs simply won't survive and pass on their genes.
"Outclasses" is a prejudicial, value-laden term. Differing features confer differential reproductive success, ie: "fitness."
Why do you find this such a difficult concept to grasp or accept?

Species do go extinct, and others survive, adapt to environmental changes, and ramify into new species. Why is that hard to grasp?
There is reason to believe. Perhaps you should review it before you condemn it out-of-hand.
And, for the hundredth time, stop using "proof" It doesn't add to your credulity.

What does a common ancestor have to do with it? You don't need a smoking gun to conclude someone was shot.

What, specifically, are your objections to evolution by natural selection? What alternative do you propose?

 

One who believes the Biblical narrative of magic poofing.

 

In technical discussion, definitions are mutually agreed on, before hand, so everyone understands exactly what his interlocutor means, and noöne's talking past another.
Science doesn't form conclusions from conjecture. They rely on real data and testing. You keep conflating science with religion.

Please explain how conjecture figures into the scientific method.

 

There is not, in the commonly understood sense. Likewise, there's no "proof" the Earth is round or that germs cause disease.
You know this. It's been explained you a hundred times.
All science offers is evidence. When the evidence becomes overwhelming we call it a theory.
It's not like religion, which begins with doctrinal conclusions and just defends them (poorly).

 

You don't want to talk about change is species or how they change but rather about Darwin's beliefs and survival of the fittest.

I've told you repeatedly there is no such thing as "species" or "survival of the fittest". These things are for the same reason "all individuals are equally fit and all life is individual". "Species" is a mnemonic that allows humans to talk about other species. Your understanding of evolution implies every individual isn't quite suited to its environment so every individual is under stress and must have exactly the right attributes in order to thrive and reproduce. Poppycock. There is no such stress and each individual is striving to succeed with the genes it has. Mother Nature nor Darwin aren't cyanide into our cage to see which half survive. Or more accurately, how much has to be dumped in to get half to die. All else being equal every individual has an equal chance of survival.

One doesn't think himself into having different genes, one thinks himself into having an achilles heel. But ONLY homo omnisciencis thinks at all. Animals are happy to be alive with all their differences and despite the fact they all "think" alike. Humans often murder the less fit.

 

Remarkable!!!!

All you have to do is call "Evolution" a "theory" and despite the fact that no experiment exists to support Darwin it becomes as true as the simple fact we know many diseases are caused by bugs.

 

No! It's you who dodge this subject, and noöne's talking about Darwin but you and Yours Truly.

Why am I wasting my time with this? I must be an idiot. Nothing I say has any affect on creationist understanding. They just keep repeating their unsupported rhetoric.

Huh?

 

You can't even agree on the meaning of "survival of the fittest". But believers each agree that it is the cause of Evolution and this term means something different to every observer and every Peer.

 

But it's never been proven....

Please get off this Darwin kick. Darwin's ancient history. He's not the focus of modern biology.

What's this 'experimentation' you keep going on about? What experiments do you want? What facts do you want the experiments to challenge?

Evolution really happened. Life has really changed -- and by the mechanisms described by the ToE.

The evidence is overwhelming. What alternative do you propose?

 

All biologists -- including "Peers," agree on the definition. It's YOU who can't seem to grasp it.
And what/who the heck is a Peer?

 

Where is your experiment? Killing half a cage of rats and showing life adapts to its environment doesn't show that whales returned to the sea through survival of the fittest or that they did it gradually.

 

Show an experiment that demonstrates a gradual change in a major species through survival of the fittest.

All you have is the "fossil record" that you are misinterpreting.

 

No, but we do have a lot of other evidence of whale evolution.

 

Any "experiment" demonstrating gradual change would have to last 10,000 years. Get real.

?: What alternative do you propose?