The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

Okay, but how exactly does mutation lead to changes without selective pressure?

It's mere chaos.

If a mutation is beneficial to the individual it increases the odds that it will survive and procreate. If it is detrimental it decreases them. But this hardly precludes the possibility that an individual with a very important and highly beneficial difference might meet a sabre toothed tiger early in life or that a bad mutation can still spread through a species like the common cold.

Please provide an example of speciation that happened in a single generation.

Dogs. Tame Minks. Cats.

 

[Heyo]

Generally, yes. Every properly crafted experiment is still valid.

But "evolution" is still highly flawed. It still leads us to see what is not there and not see what is.

QM and GR are highly flawed and we know because they make different predictions at levels we can't experiment on, yet. So, at least one must be false.
ToE hasn't this flaw. There is no alternative theory or even a hypothesis. Or do you have one?

 

[cladking]

Do you have any evidence that this is true of "most change", and what mechanism do you propose produces these selective bottlenecks?

They are each and all unique. EVERY major change in species caused by the propagation of unusual behavior is unique to the event. "Evolution" is an event not a process.

It's meaningless to discuss evolution at an individual level, because that's not the level at which evolution occurs.

This is the assumption that underlay Darwin's observations.

I believe these assumptions are false and largely caused by language and the way it makes the brain work.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They are each and all unique. EVERY major change in species caused by the propagation of unusual behavior is unique to the event. "Evolution" is an event not a process.

You've not answered either of my questions.

If evolution is an "event", what are the CAUSES behind the event? Can you provide evidence that MOST changes occur due to punctuated equilibrium?

This is the assumption that underlay Darwin's observations.

No, it's simply true of how evolution is defined. Evolution is the change in allele frequency in living POPULATIONS, not individuals.

I believe these assumptions are false and largely caused by language and the way it makes the brain work.

And what assumptions are those, exactly?

 

[cladking]

"It's meaningless to discuss evolution at an individual level, because that's not the level at which evolution occurs."

All of life is INDIVIDUAL. There is no such thing as "mice" and "men".

Seeing experimental results in such terms confuses the conclusions. Just as biologists have no ideas and only individuals have ideas, all life is individual. Biologists aren't even conscious, individuals are. Life is consciousness. It is consciousness that confers the ability of the individual to survive.

This is probably what most religions are trying to teach us. Our behavior has consequences and is predicated on how and what we think. I believe this is so because religions are mostly based on a science that existed before language (the brain's operating system) became confused. This science was based not on experiment but on consciousness and was a manifestation of the logic of the brain expressed as language.

These last two paragraphs may or may not be off topic but they certainly might go a long way to explaining the two entrenched positions expressed in this thread. More importantly they explain how Darwin went so wrong and led the world into the chaos we call the 20th century.

 

[cladking]

If evolution is an "event", what are the CAUSES behind the event? Can you provide evidence that MOST changes occur due to punctuated equilibrium?

I'm certain I did.

The two primary drivers are what we call "mutation" and "population bottlenecks (resulting in the propagation of a behavior)". There are numerous secondary and tertiary causes of off spring being different than their parents (on average since all individuals are different). The major forces are all events. Indeed, even the secondary and tertiary causes are events and not processes or forces. ALL things that leads to life, death, and procreation are events. All life is individual and is driven and preserved by individual consciousness.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm certain I did.

The two primary drivers are what we call "mutation" and "population bottlenecks (resulting in the propagation of a behavior)".

And what causes a "population bottleneck"? That's what I asked.

There are numerous secondary and tertiary causes of off spring being different than their parents (on average since all individuals are different). The major forces are all events.

But the result is a change at the level of population.

I
Indeed, even the secondary and tertiary causes are events and not processes or forces.

But looked at altogether, we can call it the PROCESS of evolution, in much the same way that a ball rolling down a hill can be called a "process" regardless of all the individual factors involved in it. This is just semantics.

I
ALL things that leads to life, death, and procreation are events. All life is individual and is driven and preserved by individual consciousness.

But evolution occurs at the level of population.

Do you understand that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"It's meaningless to discuss evolution at an individual level, because that's not the level at which evolution occurs."

All of life is INDIVIDUAL. There is no such thing as "mice" and "men".

But evolution isn't. It's defined as being change in allele frequency at the population level.

Seeing experimental results in such terms confuses the conclusions. Just as biologists have no ideas and only individuals have ideas, all life is individual. Biologists aren't even conscious, individuals are. Life is consciousness. It is consciousness that confers the ability of the individual to survive.

Which is irrelevant to evolution, which is about population-level changes. An individual survival doesn't necessarily cause a population-level change. It would be more useful not to examine individual organisms but individual MUTATIONS when talking about evolution.

 

[cladking]

No, it's simply true of how evolution is defined.

I doubt you really meant this but you can't say any theory is true by definition. By definition "theory" can be derived only from experiment in our science and our language.

 

[cladking]

And what causes a "population bottleneck"? That's what I asked.

"Every" population bottleneck that causes speciation in nature (not man made) is unique and results from the behavior of individuals. Of course it's entirely possible for a specific bottleneck to be caused by something that is independent of behavior but there is a tendency for such cauasations to result in extinction rather than near extinctions or to affect too few individuals to be meaningful.

But looked at altogether, we can call it the PROCESS of evolution, in much the same way that a ball rolling down a hill can be called a "process" regardless of all the individual factors involved in it. This is just semantics.

It's only "semantics" when it is understood. A ball rolling down a hill is not a collection of collisions and is not a proper analogy. A ball eventually reaches the bottom of a hill unless it gets wedged somewhere up higher. Life goes on. A ball begins by falling off a cliff, life did not. Species are various manifestation of life and individuals comprise species. A ball rolling down a hill is an inanimate object whose course is the result of randomness that lacks free will and consciousness.

You are simply reducing reality to models and what can be more easily understood. Reality is never so simple and is always the product of what came before. Species are a product of individuals and individual consciousness and the net effect of reality on these individual consciousnesses.

You can reduce reality to models and definitions but this reduction is only valid within those definitions and within whatever science was applied. We don't get to pick and choose what models apply nor the analogies. We extrapolate our beliefs and even our theories at our own risk.

 

[cladking]

But evolution occurs at the level of population.

Do you understand that there are no two identical consciousnesses? There is no such thing as a "species" or "a population" except by definition. But every individual including those individuals in the new species is real. A rabbit doesn't require a name or nomenclature to exist. It doesn't need to have the same behavior as most other rabbits. Indeed, every single individual has unique behavior including behaviors that are rare or nonexistent among that "species". Every event that affects an individual is real but anything that affects a population might have no effect whatsoever on any given individual. Life occurs on the individual level and it changes on the individual level. You are imagining each generation of rabbits being a little different but it doesn't work this way. Even if "rabbits" existed there would be no appreciable change from generation to generation. Darwin assumed the conclusion. This is how the brain of Homo Omnisciencis works (on modern language); we start with the conclusion and work backward. Darwin had an idea and traced that idea back to something that never existed.

 

[cladking]

But evolution isn't. It's defined as being change in allele frequency at the population level.

Indeed!!

But many such changes have no manifestation in any individual since frequency is irrelevant except in genes that are expressed.

In any case the question is what causes these changes as well as how mutation can be expressed in "populations".

 

[rrobs]

There is always more to learn, but one only needs to throw a few hundred pebbles up into the air and have them hit oneself on the head before one accepts gravity.

Jesus may well have thought that very thing. I don't know...just speculating.

 

[rrobs]

Do you even have an opinion on genesis one way or another? I would love to hear your better explanation that fits the evidence and not just imagination. If no better explanation then evolution remains the only theory that fits the evidence.

Let's be honest. You don't want to hear a better explanation from me. In all probability you just want more fuel to fan the flame. Sorry, you'll have to find it somewhere else.

Take care.

 

[viole]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

One step at the time. Before the soup there are a lot of intermediate steps. And I understand it might require some work to see that we and bananas share the same ancestor.

so, let’s analyze a simple intermediate step.

Have you also similar problems to understand how the same intelligent person would accept that we and chimps share a common ancestor?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bear Wild]

Let's be honest. You don't want to hear a better explanation from me. In all probability you just want more fuel to fan the flame. Sorry, you'll have to find it somewhere else.

Take care.

So you are that insecure with your explanation? I want to hear a better explanation if you have one. If you are going to criticize evolution then have the decency to present your better explanation or stop criticizing evolution.

 

[Valjean]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

The Biblical creation account isn't based on observation, research or testing. It's based on a book of ancient folklore. It's unevidenced and faith-based.

Science hates faith and seeks to fill in the blanks with facts.
An intelligent individual should be aware that the ToE is based on empirical evidence, it's testable and predictive. There is clear evidence that life-forms have changed over time. The ToE outlines reasonable, intuitive, demonstrable mechanisms accounting for this change. It is the only reasonable and evidenced mechanism anyone's come up with.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

An organism need not depend on other organisms. The intricate web of interdependence we see in modern, multicellular organisms developed over time. There are many, primitive organisms even today that thrive in isolation, feeding on sunlight or inorganic minerals.
Individuals more successful at exploiting or fitting in with their environments are also more successful at surviving and passing on their beneficial traits. Other organisms are part of the environment. Why wouldn't successful exploitation or co-operation with them be any different than any other selective interaction?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

Lots of people have seen speciation. How have you missed the many lists of observed speciation events I and many others have posted?

Most speciation occurs at a rate slower than we can easily observe in our short lives. The evidence for evolution isn't direct, eyewitness observation of speciation events. Expecting this would be absurd, and basing acceptance of the fact of evolution on this would be ridiculous.

We have abundant, indirect evidence from a dozen different disciplines all coming to the same conclusion. The mechanisms are intuitive, observable and leave consilient footprints everywhere. Failure to see and accept the evidence is symptomatic of a deep, pre-existing denialism.
I don't need to see every single piece of a jigsaw puzzle to make out the image. People are convicted of crimes everyday on indirect evidence.

Demanding absolute, eyewitness certainty before accepting something as fact would be paralyzing. One would believe nothing. Demanding absolute certainty in just one, particular field smacks of a desperate attempt not to believe something that's somehow disquieting or in conflict with another, familiar belief.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

That would be reasonable only in the absence of abundant, clear, consilient, tested, predictive, evidence outlining the mechanisms.

If the Biblical "mechanism" of magic poofing and generation ex nihilo is rejected, there is no other reasonable explanation anyone has come up with.
I'm open to suggestions.

 

[Audie]

The Biblical creation account isn't based on observation, research or testing. It's based on a book of ancient folklore. It's unevidenced and faith-based.

Science hates faith and seeks to fill in the blanks with facts.
An intelligent individual should be aware that the ToE is based on empirical evidence, it's testable and predictive. There is clear evidence that life-forms have changed over time. The ToE outlines reasonable, intuitive, demonstrable mechanisms accounting for this change. It is the only reasonable and evidenced mechanism anyone's come up with.
An organism need not depend on other organisms. The intricate web of interdependence we see in modern, multicellular organisms developed over time. There are many, primitive organisms even today that thrive in isolation, feeding on sunlight or inorganic minerals.
Individuals more successful at exploiting or fitting in with their environments are also more successful at surviving and passing on their beneficial traits. Other organisms are part of the environment. Why wouldn't successful exploitation or co-operation with them be any different than any other selective interaction?
Lots of people have seen speciation. How have you missed the many lists of observed speciation events I and many others have posted?

Most speciation occurs at a rate slower than we can easily observe in our short lives. The evidence for evolution isn't direct, eyewitness observation of speciation events. Expecting this would be absurd, and basing acceptance of the fact of evolution on this would be ridiculous.

We have abundant, indirect evidence from a dozen different disciplines all coming to the same conclusion. The mechanisms are intuitive, observable and leave consilient footprints everywhere. Failure to see and accept the evidence is symptomatic of a deep, pre-existing denialism.
I don't need to see every single piece of a jigsaw puzzle to make out the image. People are convicted of crimes everyday on indirect evidence.

Demanding absolute, eyewitness certainty before accepting something as fact would be paralyzing. One would believe nothing. Demanding absolute certainty in just one, particular field smacks of a desperate attempt not to believe something that's somehow disquieting or in conflict with another, familiar belief.

That would be reasonable only in the absence of abundant, clear, consilient, tested, predictive, evidence outlining the mechanisms.

If the Biblical "mechanism" of magic poofing and generation ex nihilo is rejected, there is no other reasonable explanation anyone has come up with.
I'm open to suggestions.

Why all the cero-talking? Let’s get this over with!
One solid creofact would do it! A fact contrary to
ToE would falsify the theory, and take down most
of the hard sciences with it.

It would prove god and usher in a new age!

Why don’t they just go ahead and tell us?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I doubt you really meant this but you can't say any theory is true by definition. By definition "theory" can be derived only from experiment in our science and our language.

Re-read what I wrote. You've misunderstood what I said.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Every" population bottleneck that causes speciation in nature (not man made) is unique and results from the behavior of individuals. Of course it's entirely possible for a specific bottleneck to be caused by something that is independent of behavior but there is a tendency for such cauasations to result in extinction rather than near extinctions or to affect too few individuals to be meaningful.

You're really not giving me anything approaching an answer to my question.

What causes these bottlenecks? Give me an example.

It's only "semantics" when it is understood. A ball rolling down a hill is not a collection of collisions and is not a proper analogy. A ball eventually reaches the bottom of a hill unless it gets wedged somewhere up higher. Life goes on. A ball begins by falling off a cliff, life did not. Species are various manifestation of life and individuals comprise species. A ball rolling down a hill is an inanimate object whose course is the result of randomness that lacks free will and consciousness.

You are simply reducing reality to models and what can be more easily understood. Reality is never so simple and is always the product of what came before. Species are a product of individuals and individual consciousness and the net effect of reality on these individual consciousnesses.

You can reduce reality to models and definitions but this reduction is only valid within those definitions and within whatever science was applied. We don't get to pick and choose what models apply nor the analogies. We extrapolate our beliefs and even our theories at our own risk.

Again, you're over-complicating a simple semantic issue. It is simply a fact that evolution is defined as changed in allele frequency at the population level, not an individual level.