Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[someguy14]

Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

All of The Holy Bible is True.

 

[Assyrian]

The fitter pigeons bred more regardless of the reasons as to why any particular traits increased their fitness, yes?

Yes, which is what Assyrian disagrees with.

No, that sounds good to me.

That which survived survived

Which is true as all tautologies are, but if that was all that was going on, how did pigeon breeding work? How were breeders able to select traits and produce the weird pigeon breeds, if their selection had no input into what survived and survival simply meant that which survived?

 

[Montalban]

Which is true as all tautologies are, but if that was all that was going on, how did pigeon breeding work? How were breeders able to select traits and produce the weird pigeon breeds, if their selection had no input into what survived and survival simply meant that which survived?

How were they able to make selections? I think they used their brains!

 

[shernren]

How were they able to make selections? I think they used their brains!

What, their psionic thought-waves made pigeons' beaks longer?

 

[Assyrian]

I wouldn't say engaging in discussion with you is a mistake.

Glad you think so. Doesn't mean you should ignore the other mistake you are making here.

What else is there?

You can't have "Survival of the fittest and others"

Actually you do since fitness simply give a statistical increase in reproductive success. But I take you point, survival of the fittest is a blindingly obvious statement of fact. But that simply makes it true, not tautologous.

In fact as shernren pointed out to you in that previous discussion, the fact survival rates are statistical, that sometimes the best adapted don't survive and the less well adapted muddle through shows it isn't tautology which has to be true in every case.

Absolutely you can't, that's why it's such a hollow statement

You have yet to explain why white fur is so popular in the arctic.

It isn't. I noted several animals that don't have white fur.

So polar bears, white seal cubs, arctic foxes, arctic hares, ptarmigans, caribou and ermine which are either white or turn white or whiter in the winter are what, an optical illusion brought on by snow blindness? I suppose if you cannot explain why white fur is so popular in the arctic, you can always just deny the obvious.

That's assuming that all the potential predators see in the same spectrum of light as we do, which they don't, so I can see why you're making that mistake. What I don't get is why you didn't address the issue of the animals that DO NOT have white fur.

You need the trait in the gene pool to select it. You also need the species to be confined to the arctic, a population that is spread out down into temperate regions will have selection pressure for camouflage there too. Animals that spend most of there time in the sea will need to be camouflaged there too. So it is not the animals that don't adopt white camouflage you need to explain but why so many do. You can't you can only try to tell yourself it isn't true.

Obviously. Then he shows they are wrong.

You'll have to re-work that sentence to conform to standard English

There you go.

All knowledge isn't a tautology. Certainly one can express other aspects of knowledge in such a manner.

If you disagree with their use of tautology, then you can't use their description as support.

Breeders choosing is nothing to do with natural selection

Sure it is it uses the exact same mechanism in pigeon genetics to produce different varieties as natural selection, it places a selection pressure on the population, the only difference is the breeders are doing it on purpose. Please explain how the response of pigeon genetics to a selection pressure is different if comes from a man in a tweed coat?

No. What makes it 'fit' is that it survived.

No being fit is what helped it it survive. If being fit is simply means it survived, wouldn't pigeon breeding have simply produce healthier pigeons? How were they able to select all the different varieties and traits?

If it weren't then it's a matter of 'survival of the fittest, and others'

That certainly is true too, because survival of the fittest is statistical, but it doesn't follow from your denial that it is traits that lead to improved survival and reproduction rates.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't understand this. His theory worked before he adopted it?

His theory worked before he adopted the phrase survival of the fittest. The Origin of Species went through four editions before Darwin adopted the phrase.

Funnily, I addressed this in the post you're replying to. You're meant to make this statement and then I address it, not the other way around.

For the lurkers: Darwin not only freely use this phrase he said it was preferred!

"But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."
from the 6th edition of "Origin of the Species"

So?

It doesn't matter what excuse one gives for him using it.
It's that site's argument! I have no idea what's with the selective use of evidence!

Why would he need an excuse? Why would the website even think it was an 'excuse', when they showed survival of the fittest isn't tautology? The website is clearing up a common misunderstanding as well as showing that criticism of evolution based on misunderstanding of the phrase survival of the fittest is even more flawed since Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't based on it.

It is interesting that you do not try to come to terms with the reason Darwin adopted the phrase, and how it helped clear up misunderstandings about natural selection, but then, you are just want to have an excuse to write off evolution.

I know.

Then I don't know why you think it is a problem.

 

[Assyrian]

What different ways?

I just listed some.

Some animals survive, others don't.

Of course. It doesn't mean there aren't reasons some animals survive does it?

How were they able to make selections? I think they used their brains!

So? Did their brains get into the pigeon genome or magically influence how pigeon genetics responds to selection pressure? They produced different results by apply different selection pressure, but they were only able to do it by using the same basic genetic mechanism, gene pools change as selective pressure is put on the different traits.

I think you may have missed post 412:

You mean nature not consciously choosing? Because the effect on the pigeon gene pool is the same, it changes in response to the selection pressure. The alternative you are proposing is to deny the validity of every single laboratory experiment because the intelligence of the experimenter magically changes the results.
​

 

[Montalban]

What, their psionic thought-waves made pigeons' beaks longer?

Really? How'd you work that out?

This is one of those moments where again it doesn't look like people have read the posts properly

Here's what I responded to:

Which is true as all tautologies are, but if that was all that was going on, how did pigeon breeding work? How were breeders able to select traits and produce the weird pigeon breeds, if their selection had no input into what survived and survival simply meant that which survived?

The question was how did the pigeon breeder make the selection. They used their brains.

It has no comparison to nature which doesn't have a brain and doesn't sit there saying "Hmm, that beak trait looks pleasing, I think I'll start breeding pigeons with this trait in order to produce more of them with that trait."

Unless you think that pigeon breeders just shove pigeons together and get them to breed???

 

[Montalban]

I just listed some.

How are they different when they all lead to natural selection?

So? Did their brains get into the pigeon genome or magically influence how pigeon genetics responds to selection pressure?

No! You didn't ask "How did the pigeons beaks develop" you asked how did the pigeon BREEDERS select.


Here it is again...

How were breeders able to select traits and produce the weird pigeon breeds, if their selection had no input into what survived and survival simply meant that which survived?

That's what pigeon breeders do - they breed pigeons using their own brains to determine what traits they desire.

 

[Montalban]

His theory worked before he adopted the phrase survival of the fittest. The Origin of Species went through four editions before Darwin adopted the phrase.

And then he decided to modify his statements to adopt it

So?

So he didn't just 'adopt' it, but said it was better at explaining it.

Why would he need an excuse?

No. The question is why do you need an excuse? Why not just accept it.

Why would the website even think it was an 'excuse', when they showed survival of the fittest isn't tautology? The website is clearing up a common misunderstanding as well as showing that criticism of evolution based on misunderstanding of the phrase survival of the fittest is even more flawed since Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't based on it.

Given that they tried to palm off responsibility to Spencer as you do then it's to downplay Darwin's role in choosing and accepting the phrase. That's the first part.

The other is that it is a tautology.

It is interesting that you do not try to come to terms with the reason Darwin adopted the phrase, and how it helped clear up misunderstandings about natural selection, but then, you are just want to have an excuse to write off evolution.

I have specifically said that I'm not using this to write-off evolution.

There's a major problem if people address things not said.

Then I don't know why you think it is a problem.

It's not for me

 

[Montalban]

The alternative you are proposing is to deny the validity of every single laboratory experiment because the intelligence of the experimenter magically changes the results.

No magic involved but experiments can be changed by the person conducting the experiment. What makes you think that a person can't change a result?


And the results can be false, even if they're repeated.

Take for example, you're working in a lab, and you want to describe a newly discovered bacteria. You look into the microscope, you see the little bugs moving around in an 'agitated' manner. You publish your findings. Months later other labs around the world read your work. There is some doubt. Other scientists have samples of the bug. Each conducts their own observations under similar conditions, and lo! they agree with your description. Your paper then enters the main-stream of thought as a 'truth' concerning an aspect of this bug.

BUT WAIT... it's not as simple as that. To observe the bacteria, you used a microscope. You used light shining up on a little mirror so you could see the bugs. The bugs may have reacted to the unwanted concentration of light. What you described as how they acted, was only how they acted while you were observing them!
(a paraphrasing of an example from "Chaos" by Gleick)

 

[jpcedotal]

Creation that is told in Genesis makes perfect sense to me. There is no use arguing or debating any verse or passage in the Bible if we can not agree on the truth of Gen 1:1. It is a waste of time if the existence of God is questioned.

Trying to make Creation verses evolution a scientific debate is worthless because both are religions.

Now throw out your sarcastic remark so I can leave.

 

[chris4243]

So you can't use maths to predict a bridge won't fall?

No more than you can use English to predict a bridge won't fall.

 

[chris4243]

What different ways?

Some animals survive, others don't.

Consider the terms: natural selection, sexual selection, artificial selection, meiotic drive, founder advantage, and others. All are examples of "propagation of the best propagators", but each occurs in a limited context, the rules of selection are different, and the selected traits are different.

 

[Montalban]

No more than you can use English to predict a bridge won't fall.

The theory behind the bridge not falling is not tested BY English.

It is tested USING English (in our case - if we were both engineers)

It is tested BY Maths.

It wouldn't matter what mathematical system you used - whether Roman numbers (as Roman engineers must have), or not. Even if you counted using your toes, it's still maths!

OR are you saying that maths for French speakers differs from maths for English speakers?

Just as it wouldn't matter if the civil engineering/physics book was in English, Spanish or Swahili!

 

[Montalban]

Creation that is told in Genesis makes perfect sense to me. There is no use arguing or debating any verse or passage in the Bible if we can not agree on the truth of Gen 1:1. It is a waste of time if the existence of God is questioned.

Trying to make Creation verses evolution a scientific debate is worthless because both are religions.

Now throw out your sarcastic remark so I can leave.

I read some of the strangest 'logic' by evolutionists.

 

[Montalban]

Consider the terms: natural selection, sexual selection, artificial selection, meiotic drive, founder advantage, and others. All are examples of "propagation of the best propagators", but each occurs in a limited context, the rules of selection are different, and the selected traits are different.

they all are survival of the 'fittest' which is that which survives.

 

[shernren]

Take for example, you're working in a lab, and you want to describe a newly discovered bacteria. You look into the microscope, you see the little bugs moving around in an 'agitated' manner. You publish your findings. Months later other labs around the world read your work. There is some doubt. Other scientists have samples of the bug. Each conducts their own observations under similar conditions, and lo! they agree with your description. Your paper then enters the main-stream of thought as a 'truth' concerning an aspect of this bug.

BUT WAIT... it's not as simple as that. To observe the bacteria, you used a microscope. You used light shining up on a little mirror so you could see the bugs. The bugs may have reacted to the unwanted concentration of light. What you described as how they acted, was only how they acted while you were observing them!
(a paraphrasing of an example from "Chaos" by Gleick)

Alright, this might just work!

So take for example you're a pigeon breeder, and you want to breed a pigeon with a certain length of beak. After breeding only pigeons of the desired beak length, you find that the trait finally runs true in a particular lineage. You publish your findings. Months later other pigeon breeders in London find out about your exploits. There is some doubt. But they have their own breeding stocks. Each conduct their own breeding under similar conditions, and lo! they agree with your description. Your pigeon breed then enters mainstream thought as a good analogy for natural selection, thanks to Darwin.

BUT WAIT ... it's not as simple as that. To breed the pigeons,

you used a net!

That's right, you used a net to catch the pigeons before you bred them. So maybe the pigeons only bred true with a certain length of beak because they were reacting to the stress of being caught by a net. What you thought was them breeding true, was only them breeding after being caught by a net! Surely it would NEVER work if you caught them by sneaking up on them and cupping them in your bare hands instead.

=========

Firstly, my example shows that you actually have to identify the causal interference due to human experimentation before you can wantonly say "oh wait, this was done intentionally, trying to draw an analogy to nature is just dumb". A ball can follow the same path whether it is thrown by a machine or by a man; a chimpanzee can be trained to follow social cues whether it is being trained by the social order of other chimpanzees or by a human experimenter; and traits can be selected to breed true in a species, whether they are being selected by natural or human selection.

Secondly, your own example demonstrates a more fundamental flaw in your thinking: intent is never a proximate cause. Read your own description again:

You used light shining up on a little mirror so you could see the bugs. The bugs may have reacted to the unwanted concentration of light. What you described as how they acted, was only how they acted while you were observing them!​

Are these bacteria reacting to the experimenter? Is there a microscopic Teamster rounding up the bacteria saying: "Listen up, folks. We're the 99% and there's an elitist Homo sapiens sapiens trying to manipulate us. Can you feel his psionic brain waves from here? On the count of three, we form up into the shape of letters and spell out SCRAM, alright?"

You yourself insist that they are reacting to the unwanted concentration of light. Not to the researcher causing the unwanted concentration of light, are they? The research would not actually have been wrong: with further analysis (say, using chemical methods to track the motile patterns of individual bacteria in the dark), one could identify that in fact bacteria are agitated by any unwanted concentration of light, whether imposed by a researcher or not.

The human intent becomes irrelevant to the scientific explanation. The analogy between planned experiment and open nature remains. And a terrible, flimsy, illogical argument against evolution falls flat. (But oh wait, you're not even arguing against evolution, are you? That's right, you're just suspicious.)

 

[Montalban]

Apparently breeders selecting particular pairs just work with magic because the evolutionists have never heard of it before

 

[Montalban]

Secondly, your own example demonstrates a more fundamental flaw in your thinking: intent is never a proximate cause. Read your own description again:

You used light shining up on a little mirror so you could see the bugs. The bugs may have reacted to the unwanted concentration of light. What you described as how they acted, was only how they acted while you were observing them!​

Are these bacteria reacting to the experimenter? Is there a microscopic Teamster rounding up the bacteria saying: "Listen up, folks. We're the 99% and there's an elitist Homo sapiens sapiens trying to manipulate us. Can you feel his psionic brain waves from here? On the count of three, we form up into the shape of letters and spell out SCRAM, alright?"

Huh? They're reacting to the light that's not there naturally

You yourself insist that they are reacting to the unwanted concentration of light. Not to the researcher causing the unwanted concentration of light, are they?

The light doesn't just 'happen'. The researcher has to make it happen in order to make the observation.

The research would not actually have been wrong:

Yes, he would insofar as his description is not how they actually act, but how they act in the circumstances when he observes them

with further analysis (say, using chemical methods to track the motile patterns of individual bacteria in the dark), one could identify that in fact bacteria are agitated by any unwanted concentration of light, whether imposed by a researcher or not.

That's a way of removing the influence, which means that you acknowledge that the experimentor can influence the experiment.

What is your point?

You can't have it both ways.

Either you accept that the experimenter is affecting the experiment through using a light, or not.

If he is, we can actually take precautions against that influence - as you note.

But it doesn't negate that he could influence it.

In fact the little critters could act differently in relation to the chemical too!