Do you agree with these statements?

[Pavel Mosko]

Some questions...

1. Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
2. Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
3. Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
   
4. Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
5. Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
6. Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
7. Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?

I think I agree with all of that, but I'm interested in what your going to do with it. It's quite common to equate how an individual species can adapt vs. the actual Evolution of that species into a new species.

A great case in point the famous story of the moths of London, back in the days of the Industrial Revolution. Those moths were white to start out, but with mass pollution, the white moths became eaten by the birds and gradually the dark colored moths took over. But you know what, at some point the factories of the area went away, and so did that kind of mass level of pollution and the whole color of the moths had to shift back back to the original white color again....

 

[Ophiolite]

I think I agree with all of that, but I'm interested in what your going to do with it. It's quite common to equate how an individual species can adapt vs. the actual Evolution of that species into a new species.

A great case in point the famous story of the moths of London, back in the days of the Industrial Revolution. Those moths were white to start out, but with mass pollution, the white moths became eaten by the birds and gradually the dark colored moths took over. But you know what, at some point the factories of the area went away, and so did that kind of mass level of pollution and the whole color of the moths had to shift back back to the original white color again....

How do you account for ring species?

Aside: It wasn't London.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

How do you account for ring species?

Aside: It wasn't London.

Ah I didn't know that term, but was actually thinking about salamander cases earlier which apparently is one.

Sure there is something to that.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Neither of those characterisations are reasonable.

Israel had incredible preparedness and intelligence and Germany was massively overextended and unprepared for the environments they fought in.

So in the case of Germany you don't think the fittest were defeated?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

@Shemjaza

lol I'm still trying to figure out how the convo got on the Israel and WWII.

I will agree with Carl on Israel etc. If you look at battles, and wars etc. Israel was way way out numbered compared to Germany. Most of the time, on the Western front Germany was facing a 5:1 ratio against them on the ground, while Israel on the other hand was facing something like a 30:1 disadvantage in some of their battles. Israel was in a position where they had to do everything right, as well as have some luck / divine intervention, plus have lots of and lots of aid from the US.. to survive.

But the 30 to 1, ratio is very impressive. It is very hard defending something like a well built fortress with those kind of odds let alone a field of sand dunes.... which is what Israel managed to do.

 

[Carl Emerson]

We got onto this topic because the logical thesis of the survival of the fittest does not work out in History because there are forces at play that defy logic. For this reason evolution is not real because outcomes depend on more than what is physically seen.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

We got onto this topic because the logical thesis of the survival of the fittest does not work out in History because there are forces at play that defy logic. For this reason evolution is not real because outcomes depend on more than what is physically seen.

lol

yeah I went back and read the old posts, seemed a bit of a non-sequitur.

In terms of fittest, Israel was very fit as far as professionalism etc. but they definitely should not have won some of those battles and wars even if they had superior tech, training and tactics. There comes a time where there just are two many folks to deal with. And especially in those tank battles! For crying out loud Sherman tanks in WWII could prevail against the superior German Tigers and Panthers with 5 to 1 or greater odds most of the time in a pitched battle by bum rushing the enemy and shooting them in the rear at close range.

 

[Carl Emerson]

@Shemjaza

lol I'm still trying to figure out how the convo got on the Israel topic.

I will agree with Carl on Israel etc. If you look at battles, and wars etc. Israel was way way out numbered compared to Germany. Most of the time, on the Western front Germany was facing a 5:1 ratio against them on the ground, while Israel on the other hand was facing something like a 30:1 disadvantage in some of their battles. Israel was in a position where they had to do everything right, as well as have some luck / divine intervention, plus have lots of and lots of aid from the US.. to survive.

But the 30 to 1, ratio is very impressive. It is very hard defending something like a well built fortress with those kind of odds let alone a field of sand dunes.... which is what Israel managed to do.

Pavel, I think you meant the allies not Israel in your first sentence...

 

[Carl Emerson]

To be fair, I have seen strong evidence of the survival of the fittest flying over Africa and seeing that the tribal wars resulted in the survival of the fittest and most intelligent winning tribal wars and getting the best land. The Bemba from Malawi are such a people and are sought after to work in the Mines of South Africa. They are strong and sharp and from the air it shows, with very prolific farming within their borders. I had the privilege of teaching a Bemba, electronics in Zambia. His hobby was ball room dancing.

However as i have pointed out - it is not always the more capable that win the battles.

 

[Ophiolite]

We got onto this topic because the logical thesis of the survival of the fittest does not work out in History because there are forces at play that defy logic. For this reason evolution is not real because outcomes depend on more than what is physically seen.

Then it's just as well that the early example of a sound-bite, 'survival of the fittest', is a poor encapsulation of evolutionary theory. In fairness it has misled a fair number of evolutionists, though not near as many as the misguided creationists. If you had studied the field you would be aware of this.

 

[Carl Emerson]

If you are speaking in fairness your statement should include the evolutionists being misguided also...

 

[Carl Emerson]

I have studied anthropology. I don't hold to the philosophy of anthropology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We got onto this topic because the logical thesis of the survival of the fittest does not work out in History because there are forces at play that defy logic. For this reason evolution is not real because outcomes depend on more than what is physically seen.

Is the idea that instances of triumph over seemingly impossible odds are a refutation of evolution because... miracles?

That's an argument?

 

[klutedavid]

I think it is relevant to ask what training you have in recognising morphological patterns in the fossil record. I so ask.

Morphology across species in the fossil record does not occur, how can someone be trained. To observe a mechanism that does not occur in the fossil record?

Your desperately trying to convince me that angiosperms, did not just suddenly appear in the fossil record. They evolved gradually?

"Unfortunately, there are no simple explanations for the diversity and ecological dominance of the flowering plants. "Very probably no single theory can explain the massive rise of the angiosperms" admits Berendse.
(The abominable mystery: How flowers conquered the world)

 

[Carl Emerson]

Is the idea that instances of triumph over seemingly impossible odds are a refutation of evolution because... miracles?

That's an argument?

That depends on your rules of argument...

 

[klutedavid]

No it doesn't.

Yes it does.

It is impossible to propose that any mutation can be a random mutation. The simple reason is that it is impossible to know if random events are even possible.

That kind of vocabulary (random) is not justified.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I have also studied the History and philosophy of science and soon learned that the rules of argument excluded the possibility of absolutes.

Such rules of argument postulate that objective truth is beyond our grasp and all thinking is merely relative.

Therefore I like to point out that at times that the facts of history do not always support our analysis of 'reality' because we have a flawed philosophical starting point.

 

[Carl Emerson]

The fact that it is beyond science to examine the 'metaphysical' does not mean it does not exist.

 

[klutedavid]

Why deny something that the fossil record merely does not confirm in all cases?

Because you are convinced that Speciation is the mechanism. An abrupt appearance of species is not a gradual transition.

in some cases has been relatively well confirmed in the fossil record and at the present time there is no credible alternative explanation for the emergence of species.

If there is, at this time, no credible alternative to speciation. Does that then mean that the concept of the evolution of species is therefore correct?

Still, to remain unconvinced of it is not unreasonable. Outright denial requires further information.

I have seen the evolution of scientific ideology over a very long time. I also understand why these ideologies exist and how they are generated.

I can very safely argue that the scientific paradigm is a flawed paradigm.

 

[klutedavid]

The fact that it is beyond science to examine the 'metaphysical' does not mean it does not exist.

I object to the usage of the term 'metaphysical'. Given that we cannot establish the definition of a 'natural' world.

Who has been generating these ideas, this terminology.