Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 234 of 1104 (848489)
02-07-2019 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by WookieeB
02-06-2019 5:55 PM


You're going to be the arbiter of what is a science term?
No. Not me. The community of evolutionary biologists does that for me. I learned effective delegation of tasks a long time ago.
And then your example of an acceptable 'specific terms for quite specific items" is is "EVOLUTION"?
Yep. Evolution. Just the one word says it all.
Besides, it's much easier to say than "The Theory of Evolution, the Modern Synthesis." And it's blessed by the overlords.
Darwinism is a common term used today. Even wikipedia acknowledges that.
Right. Wiki.
quote:
While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory. -- Wiki
Let me paraphrase. While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the ignorant and none-too-scientifically-inclined public when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that it is a really stupid thing to do so we don’t do it in our science discussions especially with insistent creationists.
But even if we restrict it to the classic meaning (Darwin's time and forward till Mendelian genetics was used) it still encompasses the following:
And it all starts, involves and ends with making babies. All of it.
But I find it interesting, if "evolution" is so firmly established, why the need for changes?
Oh it is firmly established. Strongly so. But it is science and “evolutionary theory cannot be expected to remain static but is subject to change in the light of new empirical evidence.”
Not wrong and not complete either. Many on Dr. Mller’s laundry list are well on the way to being integrated into the Theory of Evolution like EvoDevo, epigenetics, genomics, microbiology, one he missed, proteomics. Some will never be incorporated until they get their science right like evolutionary psychology, behavioral biology . I mean . Jordan Peterson? Seriously?
quote:
A rising number of publications argue for a major revision or even a replacement of the standard theory of evolution [2-14], indicating that this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a widespread feeling among scientists and philosophers alike.
Well, you can leave out the philosophers since they are worthless as scientists but these fights have been going on for decades. Nothing new. Dr. Mller’s opinions are well stated, but they are not definitive. The community will decide what gets adopted/adapted and what will stay in the penalty box. This is science.
You are trying to give the impression that Evolution is broken. It is not. It is, however, improving. Evolution is still and is ever more strongly “the fundamental conceptual framework of biology all scientific explanations of living phenomena must be consistent with.”
The "pre-" stuff was before Darwin. Not Darwin's old stuff.
Darwin's "post-" stuff, uses Darwin as the starting point and includes any related ideas of his up to today.
And none of the “Darwin-anythings” are synonyms for the Theory of Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, AKA Evolution.
Edited by AZPaul3, : cite oops

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by WookieeB, posted 02-06-2019 5:55 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by dwise1, posted 02-07-2019 3:17 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 242 by WookieeB, posted 02-08-2019 1:09 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 243 of 1104 (848541)
02-08-2019 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by WookieeB
02-08-2019 12:13 PM


And then the coup de grace?......
Targeted Artificial Selection. Not Natural Selection.
I suspect there is a reason for you to insist that it is Natural Selection (or your understanding of what you think NS is). Like maybe, oh, I don’t know, so it can be seen to be as malleable on Earth as it is in Computer? Therefore god?
Sorry. Doesn’t work.
Ya, finally finish that strawman and set it on FIRE!!
Glad you liked it. Thank you.
Not anybody or anything but the interface of population to the natural environment is responsible for what reproductive differential we see, what phenotypes were selected and what weren’t. Natural Selection.
YES!!!! That "interface" is what I have been referring to, and what practically everyone else (including you outside of your need to restrict it to a spreadsheet) has been relating to when we say NS. In the symbolic language, in the abstract, in the analogous examples, in search algorithms - 'Natural Selection' selects!
Except as a convenient turn of phrase, the objection to your characterization of search algorithms as examples of natural selection stands. It is not NS, it is TAS. To be sure, your search algorithms are modeled on some of the features involved in evolution but they are targeted, which is way different from the blind operation in evolution and the selection is totally artificial, again, way different from how evolution works. Use the term all you want but know it is not as close an analogy as you seem to need for some purpose.
We can get wrapped in pedantic uselessness at this point.
What gets creationists into deep doo-doo is their view that Natural Selection is some spooky ephemeral operation that somehow, by majik, chooses one phenotype over another. This leads them to try to fight against NS with their bogus large number arguments and their computer program analogies as if they can do damage to the edifice of evolution.
The environment, an intricate part of the umbrella term NS to be sure, is actually just mindlessly chugging along doing the grunt work of making and killing babies.
The term Natural Selection is more recognized in Evolution to be the accounting of what happens.
The spreadsheet analogy is still there and is the essential piece. It shows us what babies from what sources reproductively impact the population and thus what phenotypes are "fittest" vis-a-vis the environment. NS shows us the fittest, the not so fit and the bride's maids waiting in the wings. Over time it shows us the movements within those numbers. It shows us the impact of environment on babies, on the population. It highlights. Natural Selection actually "selects" nothing.
No objections to the term Natural Selection "selecting" phenotypes as a way of saying that, in the accounting, this phenotype grew "fitter" and had lots of babies.
Natural selection "selects" phenotypes. That's a good shorthand for deeper processes. Just understand that, in actuality, natural selection does no such thing.
Natural Selection is not open to the kinds of manipulation creationists love to imagine. And yet Evolution still works as advertised. Go figure.
Serial thinking. What makes you (serially) think there can be only one mutation rate?
What an irrelevant statement. A mutation rate (other than zero) either has an effect or it doesn't. You seem to think it could be both at the same time.
Not "a" mutation rate. Several. You know there are other species on this planet, right?
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by WookieeB, posted 02-08-2019 12:13 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by WookieeB, posted 02-12-2019 4:32 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 244 of 1104 (848542)
02-08-2019 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by WookieeB
02-08-2019 1:09 PM


AZPaul3 writes:
specific terms for quite specific items
...
Just the one word says it all
You're words that apply to "Evolution".
And you don't see the discrepancy in those statements?
Given the different contexts in the different times ... nope.
ROFLMAO! When AZPaul3 says "Let me paraphrase", you can take that to mean "Let me setup a strawman".
Glad you like that one, too.
You don't check your references very well.
You didn't like my paraphrase? I'm crushed! I worked real hard on that.
AZPaul3 writes:
none of the “Darwin-anythings” are synonyms for the Theory of Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, AKA Evolution.
So, I guess you're saying that if those concepts, which would include differential reproduction and any concept of Natural Selection, are not part of "Evolution" (that term that is oh so specific and the only one authentically used by scientists),..... what exactly are you referring to when you say "Evolution"????
Oh, you are fun.
We object to the "Darwin-anything" as some kind of synonym for The Theory of Evolution - The Modern Synthesis. No repudiation of Darwinian ideas/concepts.
We object to this in the same way we would object to calling General Relativity Neo-Newtonianism. Which you may actually do. I wouldn't put it past you to not see the issue.
I would hope that is a safe bet, since your phrase above about "making babies" was in reference to the concepts of -
quote:
--More individuals are produced each generation than can survive.
--Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.
--Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.
--When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.
...which are the central ideas of Darwinism (yes, the classical, from Darwin himself - version).
Just for the fun of the exercise:
quote:
--More individuals are produced each generation than can survive (making lots of babies).
--Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable (in the babies).
--Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive (and make lots of babies).
--When reproductive isolation(you make your babies over there, we'll make ours over here) occurs new species will form.
Yep. It's Darwinian all the way down. And its all about the babies. And the accounting of the babies.
Gotta count those babies.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by WookieeB, posted 02-08-2019 1:09 PM WookieeB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Pressie, posted 02-11-2019 5:51 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 249 of 1104 (848702)
02-14-2019 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by WookieeB
02-12-2019 4:32 PM


I'm tired of asking you if you understand logic, cause you evidently do not. So my asking: "Do you realize that a strawman is a logical fallacy, and you're cheering your strawman means your argument lacks merit?"
So then...you using a strawman, which you just admitted to, is a logical fallacy, and that means your argument is without any logical merit.
Lovely response. Strawmen do have their uses.
Oh, and if you’re tired of asking then just stop. That’s easy.
The more babies is really the only one we are concerned with, the target, because that corresponds to a forward move of evolution.
There is no “forward move of evolution”. There is only “what develops next”.
And why are you dissing the “cases of less babies, same number of babies . ”?
These are not the dregs of evolution but, maybe, future product since they may be already adapted to just what’s needed with the coming changes in the environment. Did they target and search a temporally tangent fitness peak by mistake?
The more babies is really the only one we are concerned with, the target,
Ok. So you have identified a phenotype that quite temporarily has your chosen “target” number of requisite babies. You have anointed a number and thus the underlying genetics as “selected for”. And I used Excel’s search function to target and list each cell where that number of babies is recorded.
Thank you. That was very helpful.
In a few generations large portions of that phenotype may not be so well adapted anymore. Things will change.
Watch evolution create a species to climb your perceived fitness peak . and right back down again ... and maybe a couple of cells to the side just because there is nothing in evolution to stop it. No target, no search, just the constant movement of phenotypes in a population.
Ultimately that species is doomed to extinction because evolution kills every species it touches which, of course, is all of them . uh . us. How did that get in the target space? And why is it always the last target selected?
I guess you might say there is an ultimate goal to evolution after all - extinction. So much for a forward move.
But I especially like these two sentences - together at that....
No objections to the term Natural Selection "selecting" phenotypes as a way of saying that, in the accounting, this phenotype grew "fitter" and had lots of babies.
Natural selection "selects" phenotypes. That's a good shorthand for deeper processes. Just understand that, in actuality, natural selection does no such thing.
So NS, in some manner, "selects".
Nope. Just counts. Call it anything you want but all it does is count.
Ah, but "Darwin-anything" IS used as a synonym for TOE, Modern-Synthesis. "Neo-Darwinism" is explicitly a term that corresponds to the modern theory.
This is a science thread. Looking after your best interests I thought you might want to present yourself as an educated man about campus able to toss the lingo around. Sounds a bit more, shall we say, in-the-know, cool, with it.
But, ok. If you wish to appear as just another ignorant creationist yahoo crazy, go for it. I have no objection to that at all.
And do you really think you can say you don't like using any term like "Darwin-anything" and not be repudiating Darwin's related ideas?
Yeah. Yeah, I can. And I’m sure your intellect can inform you of how this could be so. I mean, you’re not really that far out of touch with the separation between those two different memes . are you?
As for Neo-Newtonianism being used in place of General Relativity, I would have no problem with that. If that was a common phrasing for the idea, why would I object?
You can call it anything you so desire, sir. We know from where it comes.
Edited by AZPaul3, : heavily revised

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by WookieeB, posted 02-12-2019 4:32 PM WookieeB has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 252 of 1104 (848786)
02-14-2019 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by RAZD
02-14-2019 5:20 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
About time you showed up.
Have a nice nap?
So, how are things?
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 02-14-2019 5:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(5)
Message 257 of 1104 (849038)
02-21-2019 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by WookieeB
02-21-2019 4:18 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
That may be, but again, it is irrelevant. I don't have a census of all ID proponents, but I do know that there are a significant number that do not claim to be Christian. But even if the "vast" majority were, so what?
ID definitely has unique properties with implications that may apply to religion. But the reverse is not the case.
Oh, BS. Of course it is relevant. It has always been relevant. The only reason for IDs existence is for the religious purpose it serves.
Some of us know well ID’s history, its lineage. We watched creationism get its butt kicked out of every school curriculum in the USofA for being insistently non-science and insufferably forced religious indoctrination. We’ve seen the subterfuge creationists have engaged in ever since.
We watched as creationism tried to don a lab coat and a test tube just to have its new incarnation, creation science, rebuffed again at the schoolhouse door for being, yet again, non-science and obvious religious indoctrination.
Then came ID, a new mustache and glasses, “cdesign proponentsists” and the world watching as ID was bitch slapped all the way down the courthouse steps in the Dover case for being, as yet again, obvious anti-science and thinly disguised religious indoctrination designed solely for the purpose of brainwashing young children in our public schools into Christian religious servitude, a constitutional no-no.
It has been near 15 years since you bloodied your nose in Dover. This, now, is a further attempt to worm your way back into the schools by trying to give ID a new non-religious (wink-wink) identity with sciencey-sounding words and concepts that most of your adherents do not even comprehend.
Your subterfuge is laid bare. You have nothing to peddle here, charlatan.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by WookieeB, posted 02-21-2019 4:18 PM WookieeB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 02-22-2019 1:19 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 261 of 1104 (849051)
02-22-2019 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by WookieeB
02-22-2019 1:19 PM


Re: Older never responded to message
Conflation and Ad-Hominem. Nice way to avoid the science in a this-is-supposed-to-be-a-science-forum.
Whine all you want. Blow all the smoke, shake all the mirrors. There is no science to ID. There never was.
And this forum is here to show just that.
The most entrenched and desperate of fundamentalist Christians have to fight evolution because the facts of evolution expose the core beliefs of your catechism to be not just false but to be absurd.
For the last 150+- years creationists have had to invent the most ludicrous fantasies about energies, physics, geology, astronomy, humanity, in a constantly loosing effort to show life on this planet might maybe have been planned, artificial and designed by their god.
You have lost at every turn. Every invention from Paley's watch to Behe's irreducible complexity have dissolved in the face of the science.
Yes, your efforts here are an attempt to salvage what little may be left of a creationist following dedicated to resurrecting a religious supremacy that you all lost almost a century ago.
It's been a long time since you creationists were so publicly shown to be lying in open court about your means, your methods and your goals. I'm sure the hope is that with this new generation of kids all that history has been forgotten and now may be a good time to infest their young minds with your religious poison.
The new wrinkle this time is to hold your deity at arms length from the processes so as to not offend the court too directly.
Not a Quote:
See! Here is our 'creation pseudoscience' showing that the diversity of life on this planet, if you squint just right, was designed and made specifically by some undefined supernatural deity who has not been identified as the one true christian god, the one and only supreme being who made everything in the universe but is still unidentified and therefore not any part of the philosophy presented ...none whatsoever ... nope.
Pay no attention to the god behind the curtain.
The only value your philosophy has left to offer is as some comedic relief for a bored forum, which is all we can hope for given the degenerate nature of the creationist efforts these past few decades.
So, please, do show us your "science" again, blow that smoke again, rattle those mirrors again, misrepresent again, misunderstand again, just outright lie again, so we can destroy it all with real science again and have a fun time on the internet.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by WookieeB, posted 02-22-2019 1:19 PM WookieeB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by ringo, posted 02-23-2019 10:49 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(4)
Message 264 of 1104 (849056)
02-22-2019 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
02-22-2019 6:39 PM


Re: I see not much has changed
Welcome back, Chicken.
You gotta lotta nerve posting that giraffe thing.
Yep.
A lot of nerve. Up and down.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Sorry. Welcome back anyway.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-22-2019 6:39 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 02-25-2019 5:21 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 269 of 1104 (849066)
02-23-2019 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by ringo
02-23-2019 10:49 AM


Re: Older never responded to message
So, they fear the court more than they fear their god?
Interesting.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by ringo, posted 02-23-2019 10:49 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by dwise1, posted 02-23-2019 1:48 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 299 of 1104 (906656)
02-15-2023 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by sensei
02-15-2023 2:04 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
Do you know what a nested hierarchy is? How one is formed? How does one come into being?
If you're unclear on the concept then you may harbor inaccurate ideas about how evolution works.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by sensei, posted 02-15-2023 2:04 PM sensei has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 314 of 1104 (906807)
02-16-2023 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by sensei
02-16-2023 4:52 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
Speaking of flawed logic, have you found your god, yet?
Still can't present any evidence for your god while you are unsuccessfully trying to counter evolution's mountain of clear and superior evidence. Not an envious task.
What do think you are going to replace evolution with? More hidden majik? Like your hidden (non-existent) god?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by sensei, posted 02-16-2023 4:52 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by sensei, posted 02-16-2023 5:17 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 317 of 1104 (906810)
02-16-2023 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by sensei
02-16-2023 5:13 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
Don't expect me to stoop down to your level of "brilliance" and accept your false theories.
You can stoop to any level that fits you. We don't care what you care to believe. The science is as it is and your discomfort with it is of no concern to anyone.
Still haven't found your god, I see.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by sensei, posted 02-16-2023 5:13 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by sensei, posted 02-16-2023 5:26 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 318 of 1104 (906811)
02-16-2023 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by sensei
02-16-2023 5:17 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
Religion is not the topic here.
Bullshit!
You are here for religious reasons. You try to boost your religious zeal by thinking you can fight evolution. This entire site is about religion you retarded backwater inbreed. No self awareness at all.
The dumb is strong with this one.
And, god damn it, sensei, where is your fuckin god?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by sensei, posted 02-16-2023 5:17 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by sensei, posted 02-16-2023 5:29 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 324 of 1104 (906821)
02-16-2023 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by sensei
02-16-2023 5:26 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
Science defines reality. Science is the best way to determine reality.
Your science hatred is no surprise. Science destroys your god. Evolution destroys your god.
And you are right. When a speculation violates physics, your god loses and disappears in a puff of reality.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by sensei, posted 02-16-2023 5:26 PM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by sensei, posted 02-16-2023 5:41 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 327 of 1104 (906825)
02-16-2023 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by sensei
02-16-2023 5:29 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
Intellectually incompetent religionist dumbass.
... still without evidence of your god.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by sensei, posted 02-16-2023 5:29 PM sensei has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024