1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Guided evolution?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Eddi, Mar 2, 2021.

  1. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    3,548
    Ratings:
    +2,373
    Religion:
    none
    Nonsense. Fitness is defined as traits that aid survival in the context of the environment of the population. You can call the genome 'knowledge' if you want to stretch the definition almost to breaking point, but it isn't knowledge in any normal sense of the word. The ability to acquire and use knowledge may contribute to fitness, however, whereas a single individual's knowledge may keep it alive in a particular instance, it is irrelevant to evolution and fitness.

    Fitness isn't absolute - it is relative to the current environment of the population. This is well understood by biologists.

    You seem to be struggling to describe a situation in which the environment suddenly changes and there may be individuals with certain traits that then become a good fit to the new situation. Again, this is basic and well understood.
     
  2. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,859
    Ratings:
    +273
    Religion:
    not applicable
    I'm sorry. This wasn't fair to you. I have addressed this argument many times before and neglected to do it this time. While "ring species" are the best evidence for gradual change they fall far short of proof or even solidly supporting a gradual change.

    "The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins remarks that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension".[2]"

    Space and time are hardly the same thing. Humans experience space and time but their definitions are arbitrary. Not even a line can exist without points yet points are not even a "dimension" since they have no dimensions. Ironically (it's probably causative) we believe all of space and time arose from a point. There aren't enough exclamation points left in my computer for that last sentence.

    Even if space and time are exactly how the average scientist thinks they are the fact is no scientist and no God fearer believes they are the same thing or comparable in any way whatsoever. There are many things that lay out very similarly on a graph when plotted for both space and time but no known force in the universe, no process, and no event tie them together. In other words "ring species" is merely an interpretation of why "species" that are separated go their own way. (see what I did there)(maybe I really am speaking Ancient Language now days). That they "evolve" is an interpretation of the fact they become different. I believe a better interpretation is that it is an accumulation of mutations and localized bottlenecks. You call this "survival of the fittest" but I call it simply change and most change is random while bottlenecks are caused by random events that cause often massive change. Why should any "species" that is greatly separated from its origin through numerous points and over long periods be sufficiently like the original population (which has also changed) that they can breed? The observation supports a gradual change but there are other logical and observable explanations.

    What we really need to find to prove my point is the new species and the old species living side by side. This is exemplified by chihuahuas and wolves. One is an annoying little animal that yips and yaps while nibbling at your ankle and the other is an intelligent and dangerous predator that can take down buffalo. This shows how species arise; population bottlenecks. Dogs were created from tame wolves just as the ancients created many species for human purposes. They imposed population bottlenecks on species in order to try to get a product that was useful. Frequently the parent species has become extinct but this wasn't necessarily direct human influence.

    We still create things in the lab exactly as nature creates its wonders; through "artificial" population bottlenecks. The only difference is that nature has more imagination and a far larger toolbelt to create.

    "Ring species" certainly can be interpreted to support the idea of gradual change but other explanations exist. Don't forget as well that nature is in a constant state of flux and no two identical things exist. Every single time a rabbit dies or is born the definition of "rabbit" is a little different. There is ongoing change in species and for the main part it is very very gradual and very very random. While "survival of the fittest" does play some role there is no gradual change that becomes a massive change, there is no "evolution" and therefore there is no "survival of the fittest as its cause. All individuals are for all practical purposes equally fit though they are each unique and each thrive under different conditions. There is no right way to be a rabbit or a bee and having fitter genes can never save an individual from death because every individual has the genes he got from his parents.

    Our perspective of the nature of change is species is highly flawed and a product of our beliefs and definitions while being out of touch with the reality of how life exists and the causation of the changes over generations.
     
  3. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    3,548
    Ratings:
    +2,373
    Religion:
    none
    Science doesn't do proof. Rings species are illustrative of the concept. Species come under selection pressure and change as their environment changes. Environments can change over space or time. The principle is the same. There is also plentiful evidence of the rate of change (over time) in both genetics and the fossil record but until you get a better grasp of the subject, you're unlikely to appreciate or understand it.

    Wow - there aren't enough exclamation points left in my computer to emphasise just how clearly this shows your ignorance of so many aspects of science. I have no idea who you think the 'we' refers to who think "all of space and time arose from a point" - people who are ignorant of science, perhaps?

    No, it's an explanation (a scientific theory) of why they become different. A theory backed up by copious evidence.

    Meaningless waffle. Mutations don't just accumulate for no reason. Either they aid survival and reproduction (in the context of the environment) and therefore tend to spread through the population, hinder survival and reproduction and therefore tend to die out, or are neutral to survival and may spread to some subset of the population. That's called 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest'. Bottleneck has a particular meaning in the context of evolution (a reduction in the size of a population that limits genetic diversity). They happen but are by no means necessary to evolution.

    The rest of what you post is similarly riddled with waffle, misunderstanding and simple ignorance of the actual science. You really do need to learn something of the theory, and more about science and evidence in general.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,859
    Ratings:
    +273
    Religion:
    not applicable
    And I maintain it is illustrative of my theory.

    It is not a "theory". By definition all theories are experimental results. You have no experiment and no theory. Calling evolution a theory doesn't give it an experimental underpinning. This goes many times over when every observation shows no support for "evolution". You have semantics and beliefs.

    This is like a joke.

    Every single mutation that spreads through a population affects every single mutation that follows. BY DEFINITION a species is an accumulation of all of its genes.

    It's hard to think and espouse beliefs at the same time, isn't it.
     
  5. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    3,548
    Ratings:
    +2,373
    Religion:
    none
    You don't appear to have a theory.

    False on both counts. The second sentence shows that you have no idea what a scientific theory is.

    False. Multiple experiments support the theory. The evidence for a theory also includes observations that aren't experimental results and there is overwhelming such evidence for the theory of evolution.

    False. The observations provide overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution. I guess when you have no idea what a theory is, let alone what the theory of evolution is, then you're not going to understand how observations support it.

    And you've completely ignored the part of my post that explains why some mutations spread through populations and why others don't - which is the very basics of the theory of evolution.

    Seriously, you really, really do need to understand what a scientific theory is in general, and what the theory of evolution is in particular. At the moment it's blindingly obvious that you understand neither.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,859
    Ratings:
    +273
    Religion:
    not applicable
    I would admit that by modern definitions my theory is no "theory". However it is not at all a stretch to say all observation, evidence, and logic do support the primary cause of change in species to be "bottlenecks". I have performed "experiments" of a sort that show a sudden (two weeks) change in house flies. In terms of ancient science, the science that allowed us to survive, my argument really is a theory because it is supported logically and by extensive evidence. It also explains history and the lack of it. How much do you want from a theory?

    By our definitions it is merely an hypothesis but by our definitions "evolution" is a failed hypothesis and has never stood up to experiment.

    Name one!

    Name one single experiment that shows gradual change in a significant species.

    You have no idea what metaphysics is and without this it's impossible to know what science is or even to know what you know.

    Nothing can support a theory that isn't based in experiment because all theory is by definition based in experiment.

    OK, I'll go back and read it.

    There's a very remarkably simple explanation for why all mutations don't spread. There is simple chance that each mutant will die and there is a chance the mutation does more harm than good in every singly environment in which it exists. If it does enough harm it can not spread. This is just common sense.
     
  7. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,859
    Ratings:
    +273
    Religion:
    not applicable
    "Exactly how the mutation causes black colouring remains a mystery; cortex is not a gene with any known role in pigmentation."

    Exactly how do you think the author's ignorance of the cause of a sudden change in species occurred supports your believe in gradual change???

    Is this some sort of sick joke? If we don't know what's causing sudden change then all change must be slow and obviously caused by survival of the fittest!!
     
  8. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,557
    Ratings:
    +24,603
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Oh so wrong. It has stood up to experiment countless times. And no, you do not know what a theory is or even what the scientific method is. I have offered to discuss the scientific method with you more than once. Why do you run away? You simply make incredibly ignorant claims about the sciences and never support them.

    You do not have theory because you do not even have a testable hypothesis.



    What do you mean by "in a significant species"? That is not a scientific term or classification and it appears to be a prebuilt excuse to use when people support their claims with specific examples.

    "Metaphysics" as you use the term is simply woo woo. Once again lets discuss the scientific method.


    I do not think that you even understand the concept of experimentation. But if you mean laboratory experimentation, that is not needed for something to be scientific.

    Wow! You almost have it.

    And what happens if a a mutation is positive in the environment where it is found?
     
  9. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,859
    Ratings:
    +273
    Religion:
    not applicable
    "Name one!


    Name one single experiment that shows gradual change in a significant species."


    You continually are turning things into semantical arguments and I'm coming to doubt your sincerity. I will avoid responding to your posts going forward.
     
  10. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,557
    Ratings:
    +24,603
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That is because you use garbage terminology and then try to use your poor terminology as an excuse to reject the evidence that you do not like.

    And since you know almost nothing of the sciences that is why I offered to go back to the basics and discuss both the concept of the scientific method and scientific evidence with you. If you actually do understand those concepts the discussion will be rather short, though then you face a whole host of other problems.
     
  11. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    4,789
    Ratings:
    +206
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Observing.

    Comparing.

    Irrationality.

    Circumstance. Only where you exist are you existing...... for you exist. If you look at a past to quote what once existed then you are informed. Once it existed. Having no status today.

    Yet if you owned a thesis of belief looking for evidence to state large bodied complete and diverse change existed that became completely changed then you theory for a human intelligence status. Advice. Large and massive life changes real.

    To say no control change status evolution meaning.....no model of same or constant as we know science wanting new identified new by constant mass for constant conversion for invention to be powered.

    Meaning machines that never needed to be invented were. Had to be given a metal life energy for machinery to run constantly.

    Yet natural life lived using energy to be alive. Bio energy. Not the same status evolution. Your machine extra change is not a part of evolution.

    Do you wonder at Jesus man science thesis today....bio life gone in past compared to.machine use...resourced change? Bio life was not resourced God was. Why they said no man is God for.

    As they already knew. Stopped using inventing machines. Do please advise us all today human greedy elitists why you ignored your own human advice?

    You did not need machines you wanted them.

    Proving science is by invention the least intelligence in human thoughts.

    God O earth gives a radiation mass back to space everyday. Now you want to own that status for a new machine when the old machine nuclear dust fission caused its release.

    Can't have it twice yet you want it to be separated from causes again which is what theorising infers when you infer constant by mass conditions.

    Nearly a second machine but not quite a second machine theme.

    Let no man try to separate what God owned your warning.
     
  12. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    3,548
    Ratings:
    +2,373
    Religion:
    none
    Again - do you have a problem dealing with this modern interweb thingy?

    Let Me Google That
    Experimental evolution - Wikipedia

    And what's a 'significant species'?

    Simply false. Once again you show that you don't know what a scientific theory is.

    Yes - and there is a chance that a mutation will do more good (aid survival and reproduction) than harm in the context of the environment at the time and will therefore spread through the population. It is common sense - it's also called 'natural selection' or 'survival of the fittest'.

    It also explains why organisms seem designed (it is a kind of algorithmic design method) and why their traits have purposes. Welcome to the theory of evolution.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    3,548
    Ratings:
    +2,373
    Religion:
    none
    The exact relationship between the genotype and the phenotype is often complex. What is being said is that we know that the mutation causes the colouration change but we don't know the exact way in which it does so. It's irrelevant to the point.

    This is the problem with knowing nothing of the subject matter - you get all confused.

    The mutation (in a single individual) obviously spread through 'survival of the fittest' because the dark colouration was a better fit to the environment at the time. Mutations aren't caused by 'survival of the fittest' (natural selection), the changes that are advantageous are preserved (and those that are harmful are removed) by natural selection ('survival of the fittest').

    The point I was making regarding pace of change is that single mutations happen suddenly but don't generally cause huge amounts of change - the moth didn't turn into a different species - and, of course, it would have taken many generations for the mutation to dominate the population.
     
  14. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,859
    Ratings:
    +273
    Religion:
    not applicable
    I've explained this countless times but I don't remember you in any of those threads so I will one more time;

    This isn't evolution, it is murder. When you arbitrarily kill off every individual who is not resistant to something in its environment over time you are merely killing individuals and forcing the "species" to change to individuals composed of more tolerant individuals. This is not "evolution" because it can only take place in the lab and such changes would be exceedingly rare in nature that span enough generations to allow such a change in the individuals of a species. An area may desertify over many generations but it rains during the entire period. An area may have decreased temperatures over many generations but temperatures will go up and down seasonally, daily, and dependent on weather. Nature owns no incubator and doesn't turn the temperature up on lions from 60 to 158 degrees. Nature doesn't murder unfit individuals. Nature doesn't kill any individual arbitrarily but randomly. This not an "experiment" at all. It is a demonstration that over time the members of a "species" can become more tolerant to almost anything just like an individual.

    I'll give you a clue. "Unicellular organisms" as used by Dallinger are not a significant species. Words take their meaning from context and in the context of my argument that there is no such thing as "evolution" a significant species is any species for which we have a good fossil record. This excludes bacteria and many insects. It even excludes some larger animals like polar bears since to show a gradual change there must be an unbroken line of individual fossils that are clearly of the exact same species. Real change in species and its cause is known to biologists only as "punctuated equilibrium". Since you're so good at google you can look that up and see how they've simply ignored change in species and its causes. "Survival of the fittest" is what the rich and powerful use as justification for their activities. It does not cause change in species and it is not how species are perfected. It has little to do with species change because most species change is caused by bottlenecks that are imposed by nature randomly and not arbitrarily. Even the gradual change that is seen in most species is not caused by survival of the fittest because all individuals are fit because this is the nature of life to cull the sick, the lame, and the stupid. Most gradual change is actually the result of localized bottlenecks. When all the rabbits in a valley that like carrots are killed the survivors breed a new species that interbreeds with others eventually bringing new more diverse genes to the rabbit population. But nature didn't arbitrarily increase the temperature in the valley to 158 degrees just to "experiment" because this isn't how nature works. Nature probably isn't even conscious so has no interest in trying to figure out how she works nor does she murder rabbits for sport.

    "Science" is not what you believe it to be. It is not even the same thing it was 50 years ago. It has evolved to the point that experiment is a redundancy to "prove" what is already known. Now days most science is "Look and See Science". The handful of real scientists are not speaking out but then they each have their reasons and who doesn't love science, right? We went off the beam in the 19th century and never bothered to see ourselves back on it. Much of the problem is that applied science and philosophy have largely fallen by the wayside. Experiment has become exceedingly expensive and experiment design has become tough. I believe this latter is largely an outgrowth of the fact we are wrong about so many things.

    It is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with a gradual change or a significant species. Need I even point out that we do not yet nor are ever likely to be able to determine the color of a butterfly by means of its fossil?

    We need to stick to what we know or can find through experiment or we go very far wrong and create a world just like the one we have that works for a small percentage of the population. Only 70%the population even get all the food they desire. Humans act on their beliefs and this world was created by the belief that the only the fit are designed by nature to reproduce or even to survive. It is founded on the belief that nobody is responsible for his actions or the results of his actions because they are driven by unseen and unholy forces such as the "id". It is founded on the belief that we are only responsible for what we say. 19th century nonsense lies at the heart of almost all of our ills and "survival of the fittest" is the biggest nonsense of all and has the stamp of approval of "Look and see Science".

    I wandered in this post but if you ignore the relevant points I'll ignore your response.
     
    #194 cladking, Mar 27, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2021
  15. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    3,548
    Ratings:
    +2,373
    Religion:
    none
    False. Once again you are demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the theory of evolution (as well as the entire concept of a scientific theory).

    Not if they have the slightest inkling of what it actually means.

    Once again demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the concept of 'fitness' and the scope of the theory of evolution. You appear to be confusing the real science with "social Darwinism".

    Unless you're prepared to learn about science in general and evolution in particular, we're both wasting our time. You will go on posting ill-informed nonsense and I will go on pointing out why you're wrong only to have you completely ignore it (as you have done again in this reply, cherry-picking the things you - incorrectly - think you can 'answer').

    You completely ignored (again) the parts of my posts that explained the real science:-

    You simply, and literally, don't know what you're talking about.
     
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    41,557
    Ratings:
    +24,603
    Religion:
    Atheist
    And it has been explained to you that your poor definition of "significant species" is just an excuse so that you can deny the evidence.

    This as has been pointed out is not how science works. You want what the theory has already said does not and can not exist. That makes your demand unreasonable.

    Perhaps you should try to learn what is and what is not evidence.

    You are demanding the equivalent of a life long move of a person as a form of ID. That is not what is needed for ID. Unreasonable demands only show you to be without reason. You should really try to learn the basics of science so that you can understand why you are wrong. Sadly you appear to know that you are wrong and as a result are using ignorance of this subject to attack it. That strategy does not work with people that do understand the science. It does not even work with judges that understand the concept of evidence.
     
Loading...