Fnly, they killed String Theory!

joinfree said:

If something makes no sense to you, is it necessarily wrong?

Click to expand...

Of course not. But that was nonsense because it was illogical, irrational, and incoherent.

OldWiseGuy said:

Supernatural creation is a common myth worldwide.

Click to expand...

Yes, humans have a strong tendency to attribute unseen agency to events of unknown causation or origin, and to reflect the scale of the event in the scale of the unseen agent. Hence thunder and lightning were the gods at work; and tripping on a stick or losing your lucky charm was the work of elves, sprites, or 'little people'.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Yes, humans have a strong tendency to attribute unseen agency to events of unknown causation or origin, and to reflect the scale of the event in the scale of the unseen agent. Hence thunder and lightning were the gods at work; and tripping on a stick or losing your lucky charm was the work of elves, sprites, or 'little people'.

Click to expand...

Science presents such an "unseen agency" all the time....in the ToE.

OldWiseGuy said:

Science presents such an "unseen agency" all the time....in the ToE.

Click to expand...

It's only "unseen" for those who refuse to look at it.

OldWiseGuy said:

Science presents such an "unseen agency" all the time....in the ToE.

Click to expand...

No, the ToE describes the operation of a natural process driven by heritable variation and selective survival/reproduction.

The agency I'm referring to is attributed to a sentient entity acting independently. This tendency to attribution of agency is commonly called Hyperactive Agency Detection.

joinfree said:

Is he alive, so he could bit me up?

Click to expand...

Are you only capable of correct action if someone threatens you with violence?

Speedwell said:

It's only "unseen" for those who refuse to look at it.

Click to expand...

Evolution in a nutshell.

A big storm was coming.
All the animals ate in preparation.
Some didn't get enough to eat.
They perished in the storm.
Those that ate enough survived.
Those that survived passed on the ability to get enough to eat before a big storm, even though no detectable physical changes occurred.

OldWiseGuy said:

Evolution in a nutshell.

A big storm was coming.
All the animals ate in preparation.
Some didn't get enough to eat.
They perished in the storm.
Those that ate enough survived.
Those that survived passed on the ability to get enough to eat before a big storm, even though no detectable physical changes occurred.

Click to expand...

Well, you've just proved that you don't know anything about evolution. Wasn't that my point?

OldWiseGuy said:

Evolution in a nutshell.

A big storm was coming.
All the animals ate in preparation.
Some didn't get enough to eat.
They perished in the storm.
Those that ate enough survived.
Those that survived passed on the ability to get enough to eat before a big storm, even though no detectable physical changes occurred.

Click to expand...

If every animal of a given species was genetically identical, then you might have a point.

If the genetics of the population varied, then the ones with the traits that made it more likely to get enough food before the storm world be more likely to survive. That means those traits world become slightly more common in the next generation.

Nothing mysterious, and if hating on evolution hadn't become a literal shibboleth, it wouldn't even be controversial.

OldWiseGuy said:

Evolution in a nutshell.
.

Click to expand...

I think you may have meant to type Evolution in a nut house, for only in an establishment catering to the needs of the mentally troubled would you find credence given to such a bizarre misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.

Seriously, it as if you have paid no heed whatsoever to the many comments and explanations about evolution made on this forum.

Shemjaza said:

If every animal of a given species was genetically identical, then you might have a point.

If the genetics of the population varied, then the ones with the traits that made it more likely to get enough food before the storm world be more likely to survive. That means those traits world become slightly more common in the next generation.

Nothing mysterious, and if hating on evolution hadn't become a literal shibboleth, it wouldn't even be controversial.

Click to expand...

Evolution is simply the survival of the fittest. No mystery there.

Ophiolite said:

I think you may have meant to type Evolution in a nut house, for only in an establishment catering to the needs of the mentally troubled would you find credence given to such a bizarre misinterpretation of evolutionary theory.

Seriously, it as if you have paid no heed whatsoever to the many comments and explanations about evolution made on this forum.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with my thesis?

OldWiseGuy said:

What's wrong with my thesis?

Click to expand...

You wrote this (I've numbered each point for subsequent discussion):
1. A big storm was coming.
2. All the animals ate in preparation.
3. Some didn't get enough to eat.
4. They perished in the storm.
5. Those that ate enough survived.
6. Those that survived passed on the ability to get enough to eat before a big storm, . . .
7. . . . even though no detectable physical changes occurred.

Point 1: A reasonable simplification and representation of environmental stresses although it fails to account for the interaction with related and unrelated environmental issues. Such interactions complicate the picture and the result. {Students of evolution may note that they might contribute to reproductive isolation within the same geographic area.}

Point 2: How were the animals able to eat in preparation? They likely did not subscribe to the Weather Channel. The majority of animals lack the intellectual capacity to consciously anticipate adverse weather from atmospheric clues. Therefore, if they were "eating in preparation" this must have been an instinctive behaviour derived through evolution.
Thus one element of your argument depends upon the operation of the process(evolution) you are trying to disprove.

Point3: There is an implict oversimplification here:

• What enabled some to get enough to eat, while others failed to do so?
  • Chance
  • Heritable differences in the ability to obtain food
  • Heritable differences in the requirement for food

Thus, contrary to your point 7, physical differences existed in the population before the storm, that would be reflected in the make up of that population after the storm.

Points 4 & 5: Those perishing included some who had eaten their fill. Some were carried away by floodwaters and drowned. (Though among those potential victims, those with marginally better heritable swimming skills, arising perhaps from good muscle tone, survived and had the opportunity to deliver the genes for both acquiring food and swimming to their descendants.)

Point 6: More or less correct. Those that survived now had the opportunity to pass on those genes responsible for their survival to their descendants.

Point 7: Significant physical changes have occurred. Prior to the storm and the consequent culling of the population, that population included members who lacked the physical and behavioural attritbutes to survive the storm. After the storm the population was made up largely of members who possessed physical and behavioural attributes that favoured survival in future storms. Those attributes that were a consequence of genotype would, therefore, remain in the population in the next generation, whereas those that lacked the appropriate genes would (to a greater or lesser extent) be eliminated.

Summary: Your overview is, in very broad outline, accurate until the very last clause. At that point you completely annihilate any good sense present in your argument.

I am happy to address any and all points in this explanation upon which you are unclear.

OldWiseGuy said:

What's wrong with my thesis?

Click to expand...

I think they're being a little harsh - you've got the general idea, although the details are a bit off.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

I think they're being a little harsh - you've got the general idea, although the details are a bit off.

Click to expand...

Thanks. It was meant to be a general idea.

Hold on! Why are we discussing evolution on a thread devoted to String Theory? OWG, if you wish to discuss further I'll open a new thread with your thesis and my analysis and we can take it from there.

Ophiolite said:

Hold on! Why are we discussing evolution on a thread devoted to String Theory? OWG, if you wish to discuss further I'll open a new thread with your thesis and my analysis and we can take it from there.

Click to expand...

It's one of those tangents we go off on. No need for a new thread. We'd just be beating the same dead horse.

OldWiseGuy said:

Evolution is simply the survival of the fittest. No mystery there.

Click to expand...

Also random mutation to create the new varieties of genetic traits. Both of these things are in evidence.

So what part of evolution are you still having trouble accepting?

Shemjaza said:

Also random mutation to create the new varieties of genetic traits. Both of these things are in evidence.

So what part of evolution are you still having trouble accepting?

Click to expand...

The godless part.

OldWiseGuy said:

The godless part.

Click to expand...

Than go ahead and toss God in there for your own needs. I wouldn't expect science to include God, until evidence is discovered to do so.