The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[F1fan]

Are you not aware it was Max Planck who said this? He was one of the finest scientists, physicists, and metaphysicians of all time. Most modern scientists are mystics in comparison especially in terms of their grasp on what they know and what they don't. In other words the statement is FAR MORE TRUE TODAY than when he said it. This is not to demean all scientists because there are hundreds and even tens of thousands of scientists world wide who know what they know. Almost all good metaphysicians can change their opinions in the face of evidence and logic and every good metaphysician will change in the face of well crafted experiment. I have a lot of respect for biologists but as a rule this is not a field where you'll find much good metaphysics because its methodology tends to exclude individuals do want to know what they know. includes people who accept that most relevant experiment can not be performed at all.

You're still just ignoring the fact I've said repeatedly that people see what they believe and become their beliefs for this reason.

The "people" is you.

And a few others who get science wrong. Only you are ignoring this about yourself. You have some artificial superiority complex that you exempt yourself from the very thing you say is happening.

You can keep repeating how experts in science are wrong, and believe this because you have beliefs that are obviously wrong, like your denial of "survival of the fittest" as a phenomenon.

 

[cladking]

What astounds me is how many people who are even more poorly educated than me refuse to acknowledge their ignorance, and refuse to acknowledge how their ignorance is a liability, and who refuse to open their minds to being educated when others point out their errors of belief.

My ignorance is nearly complete. Not only do I know very little science now days but science in aggregate knows almost nothing at all compared to all there is know.

You seem to believe that since science is absolutely correct about everything because of the omniscience of Peers and that there is an equation for every possible thing that knowing all of science would be all there is to know. You obviously believe that science must be on the right track on every single thing. Just like the boy who could see the emperor was naked there are those today who can see right through the assumption and the conclusions based on bad assumptions.

What we have here is a bunch of naked kings parading around and not listening to anyone except other naked kings.

Some of these naked kings could in theory evolve clothes given sufficient time but others, like Egyptologists, will never even know even after everyone starts laughing they will still believe. It will be utter destruction, a population bottleneck, if you please and a new species will take up the niche of studying ancient Egypt. Such is the way of life. Almost all Egyptologists engage in the same behavior of running about dusting sandf from pottery shards and skeletons while not parsing the same ancient writing that has been parsed for 200 years. There will be no niche for this in the future. Art and science imitate life but Egyptology is dead. Long live Egyptology.

 

[cladking]

I see a lot of anti-evolution folks interpret "fitness" like the local guy at the gym. That isn't the case. They need to be aware that fitness is how well an organism can survive in an environment, like the peppered moth that just happened to be better suited to a dirty, sooty, city environment than white moths, who were then targeted more by predators and eaten, leaving fewer white moths. the peppered moths weren't stronger or better, they just happened to have natural darker coloration that gave them an advantage in a dirty environment.

It is a circular argument. You can't compare a minor change in the coloration of a species to a fish turning into an elephant.

There is no doubt that the individuals of a species will have different traits than a past version of the "same" species. That doesn't give any kind of substance to the concept that the fit survive. Nature doesn't work that way.

 

[cladking]

And a few others who get science wrong. Only you are ignoring this about yourself. You have some artificial superiority complex that you exempt yourself from the very thing you say is happening.

And you just ignore everything I already said. OF course I am a member of the species homo omnisciencis. Of course I engaged in a circular argument. The difference is I started with different assumption and then went on to prove those assumptions just like biologists. The difference is my assumptions which are wholly distinct from all Peers assumption were correct so my circular argument ended up in the right place.

This is not complex and you could address some part of my argument iff you actually tried.

 

[exchemist]

I see a lot of anti-evolution folks interpret "fitness" like the local guy at the gym. That isn't the case. They need to be aware that fitness is how well an organism can survive in an environment, like the peppered moth that just happened to be better suited to a dirty, sooty, city environment than white moths, who were then targeted more by predators and eaten, leaving fewer white moths. the peppered moths weren't stronger or better, they just happened to have natural darker coloration that gave them an advantage in a dirty environment.

The clad guy wants to dismiss this phenomenon of "fitness" when it is often observed happening. Antibiotics and anti-bacterials are examples of "fitness" in action as bacteria slowly build resistance. I'll bet that poster has had antibiotics at some point, yet denies the very principle that makes them work.

Im sure you are right. What makes these discussions so frustrating is that the anti-evolution folks resolutely avoid learning. So we come up against the same misconceptions, time and again. After a while, one suspects that these misconceptions are not simply due to lack of exposure to a good explanation, but are in fact deliberately nurtured, so that they can reinforce their wrong ideas within their own community. Within these communities they know they will not be challenged, as they are saying what all their listeners would like to hear.

 

[F1fan]

If this applies to biologists then it is populated by those who have evolved over the last generation or four. They can no more question their premises than Schrodinger's cat can lick its abstraction. They have assumed that reductionism can be applied to understanding how species change and I'm saying IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW SPECIES CHANGE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING EVERY INDIDIDUAL AND ITS CONSCIOUSDNESS THAT CAME BEFORE AND AFTER THE CHANGE.

And you are proclaiming this as a non-expert. Meanwhile experts go about their work and offer us sound conclusions.

Why can't anyone address this!!!? All you do is continually gainsay it.

Because it makes no sense. Nor is it even possible. It's an irrelevant and bad faith predicament you place on science, and my only guess as your motive would be for sabotage science. How can science know what happens in the future? There's no data because it's the future. If you understood science you wouldn't make such an absurd suggestion.

The logic and evidence I present to support this specific contention is ignored.

You offer no actual logic or evidence. It's like you complain that friends don't pet your imaginary cat.

I'm very very sorry "evolution" is so damnably complex but this is the hand we were dealt. You can't parse Ancient Language. You can't reduce individuals to "species". You can't dissect consciousness and this applies infinitely times over when you have no definition. You can't predict chaos. You can't induce the causes of species change by gazing at skulls. The methodology and assumptions that underlie our understanding are erroneous.

Our science is all reductionistic and this works fine for some things but it is misleading in others and there is no biologist competent to judge my theory who is aware of it because very very few are competent to judge anything that is outside of their beliefs. They rarely even see anything that isn't taylor made for Peers Whom most believe then vote on its accuracy.

Since what you demand science be, like knowing the future, can't be done, we are left with what we DO have. That you don't like it is your problem. The science still works and gives us valid results. And who are you again? Some non-expert on an internet forum with beliefs. Don't forget you admitted you might be in error, so be careful with your confidence, and condemnation of science.

Change in species is caused by random events that lead to bottlenecks while wiping out typical behavior of the individuals of a species. There is no such thing as "survival of the fittest" because ALL INDIVIDUAL ARE FIT.

How are white moths equally fit to grey moths in a sooty environment, and predators that eat moths can see the white moths better and most of them are eaten leaving fewer to reproduce?

Do you understand what "fitness" means? Answer these questions, don't brush them off because it directly challenges your claim.

Biology is already evolving to coincide with this understanding. It will occur generationally because science advances one funeral at a time. Change in species does NOT

Species change over time due to the circumstances of the environment. For example sharks are very well suited to their environments have have not changed much over 25 million years, while humans have had to adapt to dramatic changes in climate and animal migration, among other factors, and have changed dramatically over the last 4-5 million years, especially the last 200K years.

 

[F1fan]

And you just ignore everything I already said. OF course I am a member of the species homo omnisciencis.

There's no such species.

Of course I engaged in a circular argument. The difference is I started with different assumption and then went on to prove those assumptions just like biologists. The difference is my assumptions which are wholly distinct from all Peers assumption were correct so my circular argument ended up in the right place.

This is not complex and you could address some part of my argument iff you actually tried.

OK, so if biologists are making similar mistakes/assumptions as you are, and they are wrong, what makes you right?

 

[cladking]

...because you have beliefs that are obviously wrong, like your denial of "survival of the fittest" as a phenomenon.

Why would nature want to create unfit individuals. Are you suggesting that everybody has to eat so the unfit ones can serve for food? Nature does nothing that isn't completely logical so creates NO unfit individuals.

Rather there is no such thing as "species". It doesn't exist. There is a collection of individuals which communicate and generally can interbreed. These individuals each have a distinct genetic make-up derived from their ancestors ability to survive a given set of circumstances; a niche. Every individual is best suited to some specific niche that may or may not exist. Those best suited to the niche in which they exist thrive while others do less well or die. But the off spring of every individual, no matter, how well or poorly it is doing is exactly equally fit. Those which thrive will have off spring more likely to thrive in the existing environment while the off spring of those doing poorly will be more likely to not do well. But at no point does the species change in any way. The genes that led to doing poorly become less widely represented among the group of individuals whom share a language and interbreed but their genes go on and the new individuals are just as fit as a naked king's.

Environments and niches are forever changing in gross and subtle ways so new individuals who did poorly in the past will come to thrive. Without these so called "unfit" individuals the species would die out.

Nature creates these diverse genes by having micro-niches that favor different traits and behavior. The new genes come into existence at localized population bottleneck. Most of these new genes will fade away from the species but they'll never disappear until the next widespread bottleneck. "Species" that don't change don't change because the niche they occupy has little change.

But in no case is any individual unfit or in any way less fit than another unless it is sick or has a genetic defect/ mutation. It is behavior at bottlenecks that drives change in species, not fitness.

 

[F1fan]

Im sure you are right. What makes these discussions so frustrating is that the anti-evolution folks resolutely avoid learning. So we come up against the same misconceptions, time and again. After a while, one suspects that these misconceptions are not simply due to lack of exposure to a good explanation, but are in fact deliberately nurtured, so that they can reinforce their wrong ideas within their own community. Within these communities they know they will not be challenged, as they are saying what all their listeners would like to hear.

Over the decades that I have debated I have wondered why people who get basic science wrong, and have beliefs contrary to science, can keep coming back time and time again, often with more fervor and even more ridiculous nonsense. I suspect they are actually using the pushback as a sort of mechanism to become even more convinced in their beliefs and mission. It's almost as if they are martyrs for a cause, and as they argue for their beliefs they are pushed back and compressed into a redoubt of faith. Anti-evolution attitudes are religious in nature so this seems a related phenomenon, under the guise of "science".

 

[F1fan]

Why would nature want to create unfit individuals.

LOL, nature isn't a thing that wants anything. Your religious assumptions are bleeding through. Get your science right.

Nature follows the path of least resistance. Most all species that have ever existed died off. No plan. No intentions. No desires. The fit carry on.

 

[cladking]

Meanwhile experts go about their work and offer us sound conclusions.

Homo omnisciencis.

Because it makes no sense.

I asked why the hell you can't address this and only gainsay it;

"IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW SPECIES CHANGE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING EVERY INDIDIDUAL AND ITS CONSCIOUSDNESS THAT CAME BEFORE AND AFTER THE CHANGE."

It's like you never even saw it. If you don't understand it then ask for clarification or elaboration. You just blow it off like it doesn't exist exactly as I said you would. I've explained this sentence in a million different ways but you just blow off all of that as well.

Meanwhile no one has offered any evidence that any species ever changed gradually. No matter how evidence I show for sudden change you can show none.

You have a belief system that simply excludes what you don't care to see.

Since what you demand science be, like knowing the future, can't be done, we are left with what we DO have.

Yes, I understand that but you don't seem to understand that methodology, definitions, and assumptions play a role in our research. I say all evidence supports my theory better than yours but you have come up with something that supports your better than mine. i could make a better argument for "evolution and "survival of the fittest" than you are. At least I'd respond to your points.

Species change over time due to the circumstances of the environment. For example sharks are very well suited to their environments have have not changed much over 25 million years, while humans have had to adapt to dramatic changes in climate and animal migration, among other factors, and have changed dramatically over the last 4-5 million years, especially the last 200K years.

We're in general agreement here.

There were no "humans" though until homo sapiens arose 40,000 years ago through a mutation that tied the speech center to higher brain functions thereby allowing complex language. We arose 4000 years ago and immediately began devolving.

 

[cladking]

LOL, nature isn't a thing that wants anything. Your religious assumptions are bleeding through. Get your science right.

Nature follows the path of least resistance. Most all species that have ever existed died off. No plan. No intentions. No desires. The fit carry on.

Don't snip the thought. Nature is logical and logic WANTS no unfit individuals. It is illogical for nature to want the unfit so there are none.

It was colloquialism that was explained in the very next sentence that you -snipped-.

 

[cladking]

Nature follows the path of least resistance. Most all species that have ever existed died off. No plan. No intentions. No desires. The fit carry on.

BINGO!!!!!!!

And this shows Darwin was wrong in his assumption that populations remain steady which disproves the entire concept of "evolution".

GIGO. Evolution is GARBAGE.

 

[ratiocinator]

Don't snip the thought. Nature is logical and logic WANTS no unfit individuals. It is illogical for nature to want the unfit so there are none.

Simply false. Nature doesn't want anything. Fit and unfit individuals happen because variation is effectively random. Fitness (in the context of evolution) is also not an absolute quantity. You cannot know how fit an individual is without knowing what its environment is.

Why won't evolution deniers ever learn even the most basic, simple aspects of the theory they are so convinced is wrong?

If you know **** all about the theory (and you demonstrate that in pretty much every post you make on the subject), how can you possibly claim it's wrong?

 

[tas8831]

My ignorance is nearly complete.

Agreed.

 

[tas8831]

Homo omnisciencis.

No such thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I usually have him on auto ignore. But he was extremely active tonight. And it was a rather short one for once.

I just plain ignore them the old fashioned way. I agree though. A rare short post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you not aware it was Max Planck who said this? He was one of the finest scientists, physicists, and metaphysicians of all time. Most modern scientists are mystics in comparison especially in terms of their grasp on what they know and what they don't. In other words the statement is FAR MORE TRUE TODAY than when he said it. This is not to demean all scientists because there are hundreds and even tens of thousands of scientists world wide who know what they know. Almost all good metaphysicians can change their opinions in the face of evidence and logic and every good metaphysician will change in the face of well crafted experiment. I have a lot of respect for biologists but as a rule this is not a field where you'll find much good metaphysics because its methodology tends to exclude individuals do want to know what they know. includes people who accept that most relevant experiment can not be performed at all.

You're still just ignoring the fact I've said repeatedly that people see what they believe and become their beliefs for this reason. If this applies to biologists then it is populated by those who have evolved over the last generation or four. They can no more question their premises than Schrodinger's cat can lick its abstraction. They have assumed that reductionism can be applied to understanding how species change and I'm saying IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW SPECIES CHANGE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING EVERY INDIDIDUAL AND ITS CONSCIOUSDNESS THAT CAME BEFORE AND AFTER THE CHANGE.

Why can't anyone address this!!!? All you do is continually gainsay it. The logic and evidence I present to support this specific contention is ignored.

I'm very very sorry "evolution" is so damnably complex but this is the hand we were dealt. You can't parse Ancient Language. You can't reduce individuals to "species". You can't dissect consciousness and this applies infinitely times over when you have no definition. You can't predict chaos. You can't induce the causes of species change by gazing at skulls. The methodology and assumptions that underlie our understanding are erroneous.

Our science is all reductionistic and this works fine for some things but it is misleading in others and there is no biologist competent to judge my theory who is aware of it because very very few are competent to judge anything that is outside of their beliefs. They rarely even see anything that isn't taylor made for Peers Whom most believe then vote on its accuracy.

Change in species is caused by random events that lead to bottlenecks while wiping out typical behavior of the individuals of a species. There is no such thing as "survival of the fittest" because ALL INDIVIDUAL ARE FIT. Biology is already evolving to coincide with this understanding. It will occur generationally because science advances one funeral at a time. Change in species does NOT

Fantasy. There are several of us that are trained and practicing biologists on here. Nothing you post about biology is remotely true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just plain ignore them the old fashioned way. I agree though. A rare short post.

I am not sure what you mean by "the old fashioned way". And you might not know what I meant. When I said "auto ignore" I usually see the name and ignore the post. But if it is a thread that I am following I will click on the notification just to keep my notifications going. It was a pain in the butt last night because instead of just making one long unreadable post and leaving he kept hitting the thread again and again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Studying "rabbits" is not deduction and looking at fossils is not experiment. The methodology that turns changes in species to "survival of the fittest" is flawed.

Your method of replacing logic, reason, and evidence with crap you made up is more than just flawed.