Summations Only

Dr Adequate,Do you know the meaning of "intelligence" in science? Can you show by simple experiment about "intelligence"?ORPlease, define intelligence in scientific way?Is instinct intelligence??

Yes! Precisely! Exactly what we have been telling you over and over again! Individuals do not evolve, but rather populations do!Here is a very important resource for you to actually learn something: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology: Version 2. And here's a very important quote from that very important resource:

quote:

---

The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

---

Please read it and learn it. Then maybe you will be able to say something meaningful about evolution. Because so far all you've been able to mutter is complete nonsense that demonstrates beyond a doubt that you have absolutely no clue what evolution is. Oh dear! You say that English is your third language -- Spanish is my fourth, even though eso es el idioma de la familia. You say that you are from a tropical region. And that you are now in a more northern clime wherein your complexion is becoming paler through diminished exposure to sunlight, which is normal, since the body's actual complexion is part genetic and part in response to the environment (eg, to exposure to sunlight).Why ever do you imagine that handsomeness depends on how light your complexion is? Dark is bad, light is good? Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot, Oscar? (US military acronym for "what the fuck, over?", wherein the "over" signifies end of radio transmission). Dark is dark, light is light. Good is good, bad is bad. The two do not in any way intersect. What kind of messed-up racism have you bought into?Please read that "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology". At least try to gain some modicum of understanding of what you are so adamant about opposing.

Do you mind elaborating on this for me? A bunch of "individuals" do make up a population don't they?

It was not the bugblatter that Jefferinoopolis described as failing to adapt to the environmental changes, but rather the bugblatter beast's favorite game. Jefferinoopolis is posing a scenario where the bugblatter population faces a crisis because the food it normally eats for survival is no longer available. Well, yes, we already understand that this is your position. What we need to understand is why, as the bugblatter population responds to changed environmental conditions and becomes smaller and thinner along with a host of related morphological changes, you believe that it could never change to the point where it could no longer mate with the original unchanged population still living on the western island.--Percy

Hi Chuck77, I was just thinking of expanding this myself.We know that mutations occur during the reproductive process, changing the genotype of the individuals being born and raised.We know that selection occurs during the process of living to be old enough to reproduce - those that survive and reproduce are successful.The population is normally (not always) composed of multiple age groups of organisms, so you have a mixture of young and old individuals that have a range of traits they have inherited that have helped make them successful.As older individuals with an older mix of hereditary traits die off they are replaced by younger individuals with more recent mixtures of hereditary traits. This shifts the available hereditary traits in the whole population towards the younger mixtures, continually over time (multiple generations). You can see this pattern in the fossil record for pelycodus:A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus

quote:

---

... Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average. ...

---

There is a general trend towards larger and larger individuals from the bottom to the top (there is also a speciation event at the top where the branches diverge into two non breeding daughter populations, one getting smaller).As the selection process continues, the traits available in the breeding population change, and thus the offspring have different starting traits in their parents than their parents had.Enjoy.

That is irrelevant if you wish to falsify my claims..Yes, it is an opinion that I am asking you to falsify. Repeating the same old "give me evidence" doesn't falsify a thing. Logic is either right or it is wrong. It is based upon premises. The premises can be false and the logic can still be flawless. Either falsify my premises or show the errors in my logic, but please don't interrupt the train of argument and frustrate me with demands for "evidence"..Even a situation that may not exist in reality can either be logical or illogical. I am asking you to show me the illogic in my argument. You can ,however, knock down my argument as if the premises are true, or you can falsify my premises. Please do one or the other or both. Just please quite the tired old "evidence" malarkey.

Logic has nothing to do with reality, thank God.Back in Message 51 I outlined how "novel" features evolve.Is there anything in Message 51 that you do not understand or where you need further explanation?

Sorry, but this is a completely mistaken view of logic.Logic is either valid or invalid. Logic is a set of "transformations" that input premises and output conclusions, with the proviso that each transformation is valid if it preserves the truth value of the input; that is, if you input true premises and use only valid transformations, then your conclusions will be similarly true.Logic is based on premises, but the truth or falsity of those premises cannot be proven, they can only be assumed. Statements in logic are therefore all tautologies; only true because their premises are assumed.It is for this reason that science is based on evidence, not logic. Propositions in science rest or fall on the basis of evidence. If you cannot marshal evidence in favor of your views, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to accept them. Many things we know to be false about the universe are completely logical; the "luminiferous ether" was assumed to exist based on the very simple logic that if light is a wave, it must be a wave of something. But the existence of the luminiferous ether was disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiment in 1887. Evidence is not "malarkey", it is the basis of all scientific reasoning.

How do you determine what is evidence and what isn't evidence without logic? How do you know what is reality? Is reality discovered strictly by science? Is any notion that is contradicted by science by definition "not reality"?

Evidence is that which lends support to a hypothesis. Reality can be discovered only by observation of it.

My arguments are either valid or invalid. Please either refute my premises or refute my argument. Are you going to do that or are you going to ask me for evidence again?

I've not asked you for any evidence at all. But it's likely that you're going to continue to be asked for evidence until you provide some. Is there some reason you can't?

How do you know if your "evidence" lends support to a hypothesis without the use of logic? Reality can exist without your observation of it.

I don't have the first idea of how I would go about finding it. I have no idea what is acceptable evidence to you guys. My suspicion is anything that doesn't have a whiff of creationism about it as qualified as evidence. When you ask me for evidence, it is like throwing a ping pong ball at me and expecting me to answer a question of yours that you have hidden behind your back on a piece of paper. I don't have the first clue as to how to proceed from there. I have an argument and my opponent doesn't address my argument; instead he demands evidence. I want to proceed with my argument, but now it is impossible because my opponent refuses to address my argument, and so I look at him with a blank stare.

Asking for evidence is addressing your argument, if your argument doesn't have any support then it is worthless.