Denial of evolution IV

[Aqueous Id]

You have to compare apples to apples. If we take a group of peacocks, selection goes to the most efficient among these critters who are poorly designed for flying. We are not comparing the eagle to the peacock or a peacock to a 757. But peacock to peacock it is about energy and entropy.

Peacocks nest on the ground, hunt in packs of 8-10 and have these nasty spurs on their legs to fight with. They don't need to fly, but are more of a terrestrial type of bird. The peacock is efficient with what he has, with the most efficient in that group the future of the species.

You would do better just to explore this question just as Darwin did. Do you claim that any of the following is false?

1. Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
2. Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
3. Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
4. A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
5. Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
6. Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).
7. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
8. This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

This is a modern summary of Darwin's lengthy discussion in Origin of Species. It has since been updated.

Regardless, this is what is being denied, but the deniers never seem to want to address the actual statement of the theory.

Do you deny any of these 8 statements? If so, why?

 

[Robittybob1]

I wouldn't have assumed that they had pets 40-60 kYA. I don't assume there was a land bridge then either, it was the hypothesis BillyT put forward. I think the timeline is wandering all over the board, too, so that adds to the confusion. Yes, dingos would have descended from pets, no doubt, much more recently than this first incursion by neolithic humans.

It's a good point, I'm dubious about what BillyT is advocating anyway, since events in faraway regions like Australia would be uncorrelated with events in Mesopotamia, as far as flooding is concerned.

Actually, if we were going to be talking about Australia in terms of evolution, I would point to the sharp branching from common ancestry that produced the wildly unusual life forms there, with the preference for marsupial differentiation that the rest of the world hasn't seen.

Was there some reason that meant being marsupial good enough in Australia but not anywhere else. I don't know the actual rates but there seemed be more marsupials in Australia than anywhere else. How were they all going to change over to giving birth the "better way"?
Are there different "better ways" in different areas of the Earth?
I think there needs to be Geological isolation as well as part of the development of a species.

 

[Trippy]

Was there some reason that meant being marsupial good enough in Australia but not anywhere else. I don't know the actual rates but there seemed be more marsupials in Australia than anywhere else. How were they all going to change over to giving birth the "better way"?

Yes, look at the climate of Australia - being a marsupial requires less investment of energy in live birth.

 

[Robittybob1]

Yes, look at the climate of Australia - being a marsupial requires less investment of energy in live birth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial

"Though early birth places the tiny newborn marsupial at a greater environmental risk, it significantly reduces the dangers associated with long pregnancies, as there is no need to carry a large fetus to full-term in bad seasons."

So does that mean abandonment of their young is a natural event in marsupials in case of bad seasons? Survival of the breedig parents is more important to survival the next generation.

So with gobal warming making the Earth more variable could humans develop marsupial pouches in order to survive?

Like humans will develop progressively shorter pregnancies, till the foetus will only survive if the mammary glands are lower on the abdomen covered with a flap of upwardly folded skin.????

 

[wellwisher]

Again, no. Evolution could randomly create a super efficient peacock that could easily fly, go faster than any other peacocks, escape predators etc. And if that means he has a tail that females don't find attractive - then those traits end with him.

Evolution doesn't give a shit about entropy or efficiency. It cares only about having offspring that survive.

When I talk of energy and entropy it is not about a subjective view of what is important. Rather it is about the fastest solution such as in reproduction, birthing rates and viability. This is called efficiency .

The male peacock with the best tail expends the least amount of energy to get the babe. This is because he has the stuff. If you don't, others may strut for hours wasting energy for nothing

. If he can hunt and gather all the food he needs in less time this is also an aspect of efficiency. Life is more that reproduction with survival most of the time. This is an important part of efficiency since if it can't survive reproduction is moot.

If you look at the DNA, this is highly efficient.

 

[Robittybob1]

When I talk of energy and entropy it is not about a subjective view of what is important. Rather it is about the fastest solution such as in reproduction, birthing rates and viability. This is called efficiency .

The male peacock with the best tail expends the least amount of energy to get the babe. This is because he has the stuff. If you don't, others may strut for hours wasting energy for nothing

. If he can hunt and gather all the food he needs in less time this is also an aspect of efficiency. Life is more that reproduction with survival most of the time. This is an important part of efficiency since if it can't survive reproduction is moot.

If you look at the DNA, this is highly efficient.

As long as there is a link between looks and superior genes this seems an efficient mate selection method.
If they lost the connection, peacocks could be heading themselves toward extinction.

 

[Aqueous Id]

As long as there is a link between looks and superior genes this seems an efficient mate selection method.
If they lost the connection, peacocks could be heading themselves toward extinction.

And that's about as far as you can take the analogy with entropy, since it makes no sense beyond what you just said. There's not a number for how efficient a peacock feather is, and if even if there were, you would not find a programmer in the world who could begin to simulate what wellwisher is talking about.

The female either responds to the male or not, it isn't a problem that computes into quantitative thermodynamic analysis the way wellwisher thinks it does.

Entropy analysis begins at the molecular level, accounting for all energy and matter transferred across the system boundary, generally delivering a net increase in entropy to the universe (such as heat dissipation), a factor that wellwisher keeps leaving out because he wants to change the rules that govern the definition of entropy in order to force his beliefs onto the laws of nature, regardless of the fact that it is futile to do so.

Give me a thermodynamic turkey mating entropy analysis with simulated proof, and I will personally write a letter of apology to every member of this forum, declaring myself to be a mindless cretin. Then I will check myself into a mental hospital, like the guy on the left:

 

[wellwisher]

You would do better just to explore this question just as Darwin did. Do you claim that any of the following is false?
Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).
Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

Evolution uses a humanistic approach for explanation. All these criteria could also be inferred from real time observation, beginning with a Creationist type theory, but after the genesis. Even before knowledge of evolution this still applies.

That is why you need a different type of theory which can also link abiogenesis to evolution and natural evolution to human evolution. The current theory is not that flexible.

Human evolution is the spoiler since culture changes all the rules. For example, the last point, about slowly changing is not true when there is a condo development about tho be built near a wet land. Most of them start to break down. But energy and entropy still hold true.

 

[spidergoat]

Evolution doesn't stop just because we have condos.

 

[billvon]

When I talk of energy and entropy it is not about a subjective view of what is important. Rather it is about the fastest solution such as in reproduction, birthing rates and viability. This is called efficiency .

OK, so you have redefined efficiency. Instead of "most achieved with least energy" you are defining it as "fastest solution that achieves reproduction." Let's go with that:

The male peacock with the best tail expends the least amount of energy to get the babe.

Oh, see, here's where you mess yourself up. Often he spends the most amount of energy to get the babe, which is why he does it. But that's going back to the original definition of efficiency.

If you want to define efficiency as "the fastest reproduction rates" then that's fine - but you can't switch back and talk about energy efficiency. You've changed the definition. And if you are trying to switch your definitions back and forth whenever you need to to make your point, then no scientist will ever take you or your theories seriously.

. If he can hunt and gather all the food he needs in less time this is also an aspect of efficiency.

Nope, see, now you're changing the definition again.

Life is more that reproduction with survival most of the time.

Life is. Evolution, however, is not. If you reproduce your genome a lot, and the offspring survive, in terms of evolution you win.

 

[spidergoat]

Some species thrive in the company of mankind. There are even specific species that have evolved only because we exist. For example there are human specific rats, houseflies, lice, bedbugs, then you have to consider pigeons, crows, domesticated species... Nature doesn't just stop.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Some species thrive in the company of mankind. There are even specific species that have evolved only because we exist. For example there are human specific rats, houseflies, lice, bedbugs, then you have to consider pigeons, crows, domesticated species... Nature doesn't just stop.

Maybe even mold. Probably a lot of pathogens. Maybe MRSA. All the parasites carried by the critters you mentioned.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Evolution uses a humanistic approach for explanation.

Where do you see "a humanistic concept" in the eight items listed?
Remember, the man was halfway around the world on a wooden ship completely consumed by the collection of flora and fauna, sketching them and making notes. Nothing more, nothing less.

All these criteria could also be inferred from real time observation, beginning with a Creationist type theory, but after the genesis.

In a book on religion, yes. In a book on science, no.
Remember how the game is played: observation first, explanation last.

Even before knowledge of evolution this still applies.

Not sure what you mean.
That evolution was in-play before Darwin discovered it? So? :shrug:

That is why you need a different type of theory which can also link abiogenesis to evolution and natural evolution to human evolution.

No, nothing else is needed.
Evolution explains The Origen of Species, nothing more, nothing less.
For abiogenesis, you need the Origen of Life which is something different.

The current theory is not that flexible.

The theory is broad, covering every known aspect of all life forms.
"Flexibility" is not a property of a theory. We don't bend or flex evidence to match our ideas. You need superstition to do that.

Human evolution is the spoiler since culture changes all the rules.

Individual human intelligence reduced our selection, nothing more.

For example, the last point, about slowly changing is not true when there is a condo development about tho be built near a wet land. Most of them start to break down.

That was not even what the text said.
In the Origen of Species we are talking about Natural selection. what you are introducing is artificial selection. Apples and oranges.

But energy and entropy still hold true.

Darwin's theory stood for 150 years without any need for your idea about energy and entropy, and will continue to stand forever or until some new evidence comes along. but it won't have anything to do with entropy.

But energy and entropy still hold true.

Biological thermodynamics is constrained to the rules given in the two tutorials I cited for you. Otherwise it's invalid. Have you read them? Any comments?

 

[wellwisher]

You would do better just to explore this question just as Darwin did. Do you claim that any of the following is false?
Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow (fact).
Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
Much of this variation is inheritable (fact).
Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (inference).
This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

Let me show you how all these points could be inferred if you have common sense and even if you had a creationist POV. You need to remember Darwin was not a farmer but had good common sense.

Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce the population would grow

Tell this to a herder or farmer. That is the hope, but practical reality will be different than the ideal.

Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).

The indians found a way to maintain a balance with the buffalo to make sure humans did not change this equation.

Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time

This is true since it takes a lot of work for a farmer to scratch the earth for enough to feed high family. But they do seem to survive.

A struggle for survival ensues

That is called work.

Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another

This is mostly superficials such as color or markings on fur. The engine and drive train is very similar.

Much of this variation is inheritable

They had to breed to make offspring, so it wasn't from the water. Even the albino horse had parents.

Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce; individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their inheritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection

There is also one more possibility, which is migration. Sometime it is better to find the place that suits you needs. Then you leave inheritable traits to you children and their children.

This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species

This is what humans did, with each culture adapters to an environment until each race becomes unique onto itself.

Darwin may have copyright on this so even though it is common sense, only evolution gets to claim it? It does not prove anything other than make observations about life that were not a mystery.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Prayer of Saint Aqueous ID AD 2012

Saint? What the- ??

All of the heavens would curl up like a scroll
And the moon would turn to blood
Before I would qualify as church janitor
Besides - I'm still kicking
Call Father Luigi Donatelli and tell him to cancel that order.
And then fill it with the most reverend Charles Darwin.
Yeah they practically nailed him to the cross.
And we're going to need 200,000,000 reprints of the Douay Bible.
Yeah, replace Genesis 1 and 2 with The Ascent of Man.
Now that's what I call a true religion.

 

[Robittybob1]

Saint? What the- ??

All of the heavens would curl up like a scroll
And the moon would turn to blood
Before I would qualify as church janitor
Besides - I'm still kicking
Call Father Luigi Donatelli and tell him to cancel that order.
And then fill it with the most reverend Charles Darwin.
Yeah they practically nailed him to the cross.
And we're going to need 200,000,000 reprints of the Douay Bible.
Yeah, replace Genesis 1 and 2 with The Ascent of Man.
Now that's what I call a true religion.

That is exactly what I want to do. Rewrite Genesis 1 and 2, but I want you to write the words, for you are the word master. In this study you are a few years ahead of me at this stage.

Do that and you will surely qualify ...

 

[Aqueous Id]

That is exactly what I want to do. Rewrite Genesis 1 and 2, but I want you to write the words, for you are the word master. In this study you are a few years ahead of me at this stage.

Do that and you will surely qualify ...

Anything I would write has already been written.

How about a standard bible cover, but inside are the following college texts:

(1) cosmology
(2) biology
(3) archaeology
(4) anthropology
(5) mythology

call it: Pentateuch 2.0

do a flashmob delivery to random churches

so they just show up scattered around in the pews

I would wait up all night in anticipation

like waiting for Santa Claus

just to hear Rush Limbaugh having an anuerysm

it would be like the night Obama got elected

dancing in the streets, blue search lights scanning the sky

wow one can dream anyway

oh yeah, we'd have to hire Wavy Gravy

just to come out and say:

"I think we're in heaven, man!"

That would cover the religious aspect.

 

[Aqueous Id]

@wellwisher,

 

[Aqueous Id]

@wellwisher

Hey, great minds think alike.

Here's an anecdote with your name scribbled on the back-

-from Roger Lewin, in Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos

 

[wellwisher]

I want to state, I do not deny the process of change we see in life, either in real time or inferred from evidence of the past. Where I differ is the mechanism. I prefer explanations based on chemistry and physics, and not humanistic projection. I tried to demonstrate how easy it is to project scenarios, from any starting premise. I only spent 5 minutes and could do it easily.

Darwin was a wealthy and educated city boy brought up in England. England was a small country that had been deforested, mined, and altered over the centuries until the natural environments left in city parks had a connection to human interactions. If you forest land and nature returns, humans become part of the equation in terms of natural selection. This was Darwin's early nature.

Darwin left the city and traveled to a far away island that was untouched by humans. He could see the differences between this natural environment and his country's natural environments based on human interaction, and inferred there was a process of change, that was slower in nature. The island still had ancient critters and not all the modern pigeons and squirrels.

Much of what he saw and inferred was common sense to anyone having to struggle in nature, like on a farm or hunting in the forest, away from the city. The pioneers in America saw this every day as they moves into pristine lands. His premises are humanistic, so anyone can relate. This helps in the selling process. These can apply to anyone who observes nature, regardless of their belief in the origin of life. Through repetition you try to attack the general to the specific.

Darwin was essentially the city boy who visits a nature farm and is now the expert in farming (so to speak) relative to his city peers who never saw a farm or had to get dirty working. The clean prestigious city college folk now think they are onto something entirely new. They turn this into a type of science religion. This was good in its day, since chemistry and physics were just fledgeling science too. Without a physical-chemical basis, humanistic at least gets people thinking.

In my opinion, since both sides of the debate can use these same arguments, for real time observations, both are right based on humanism. If the goal of science is a more scientific analysis, without subjective humanism, you need to get down to the very basics in chemistry and physics. Water is a fundamental part of everything in life since life evolve in water. If you ignore this, all you have is half baked.

What you need to realize is all the major breakthroughs in biology required equipment invented in physics and chemistry such a microscopes, NMR, X-rays, Ph meters, etc. Without this core science support, biology would still be at collecting, cataloging, trail and error and humanistic explanations.

Evolution needs a new tool that comes from the constant supplier of tools, which allows biology to move forward. We need to remove the subjective bias that causes censorship, to guide the gate, as though all contrary opinions are crimes. This is irrational and is due to the shaky humanistic foundation.