Who is Mr Darwin?

[AV1611VET]

Not in my experience. Ignorance, arrogance, poor education and indoctrination breed intolerance.

Which one of the above is keeping you out of this country?

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

And yet, the "darwinists" got it right. Individual organisms don't evolve, population do over different generations.

Let us suppose a population of 3 organisms, each carrying a slightly different version of a gene G. So organism 1 carries G1, organism 2 carries G2, organism 3 carries G3. (And assuming asexual reproduction, for simplicity)
At this moment the population is made up of 33% G1, 33% G2, 33% G3.
Organism 1 dies without offspring, organism 2 has 2 offsprings (and dies) and organism 3 has 3 offsprings (and dies).
So the genetic frequency en the next generation is; G1 0%, G2 40%, G3 60%. These frequencies have changed and G1 is not in the gene pool anymore. The population has evolved but not the individual organisms.
So let us assume a third generation; the two G2-carriers each have 1 offspring (and die), two G3-carriers have each 2 offsprings, but of these four have a mutation, and carries now a new variation G4. So in the third generation you have 2 G2-genes (33)%, 3 G3-genes (51%) and 1 G4 gene (17%).
Again, the population has evolved, because the frequency in genes has changed over the different generations, but the individual organisms have not evolved during their life time.

Clear, or do you have any question?

You wrote: "Individual organisms don't evolve"

Fish are individual organisms.
Lobsters are individual organisms.
Chickens are individual organisms.
Dogs are individual organisms.
Cows are individual organisms.​

So, what you've just handed me is this:

• "[Fish] don't evolve"
• "[Lobsters] don't evolve"
• "[Chickens] don't evolve"
• "[Dogs] don't evolve"
• "[Cats] don't evolve"

Yet, among other things, Darwinists say things like "Fish evolved into ______."

So, yeah, your Darwinist language game is manifestly a self-destroying joke: out of the one side of your Darwinist mouth, you say "organisms don't evolve," whereas, out of the other side you repudiate what you just said by saying, "[organisms] evolved into [organisms]".

The fact that Darwinists, in their futile attempts at damage control, have to specify that, by their word, "fish," when they say "Fish evolved..." they do not actually mean fish (because they do not actually mean organisms by it)—by that Darwinist stupidity, alone, they destroy any possibility of being considered worthy of being taken seriously by any rationally-thinking people. The reason you, being a Darwinist, cannot get language to work for you in your attempts at cheerleading for Darwinism, is because you have, in Darwinism, nothing cognitively meaningful to express through language.

Not only is "Fish evolved into humans" not being used by Darwinists to express a true proposition, but what Darwinists are doing with such slogans does not even rise to the level of expressing a false proposition.

What do you propose to do to try to whitewash the elementary facts I've just pointed out about how Darwinism is an embarrassment to Darwinists? Are you going to tell me, "Hey, wait a second! When we say fish evolved, by 'fish', we do really mean organisms....we just don't mean individual organisms!" If so, then, by all means feel free to try to describe whatever you would call "a non-individual organism"!

 

[Shemjaza]

You wrote: "Evolution is a process that happens on the scale of entire populations over the course of generations."

"Evolution" is a word Darwinists persistently use in a cognitively meaningless way, as you're doing, here. It's not the name of any biological reproduction process.

Oh, and, by your word, "populations," do you mean groups of individual animals? And, by your word, "generations," do you mean groups of individual animals?

I think you'll find that people who accept science will be able to define the context and meaning of the terms they use.

The reason it applies to populations is because evolution is about the frequency of traits in a particular population.

If there is a trait present in some individual creatures in a population that makes them statistically more likely to thrive in the environment then their offspring who inherit that trait will also be more likely to thrive.

This means after each successive generation more and more of the individuals with this trait will be present.

In this manner the population has evolved, without any individuals "evolving".

You wrote: "It isn't a matter of a single wolf transforming into a dog"

Why do you choose to say "a single wolf," and to not, instead, just say "a wolf"? What's the difference between what you would call just "a wolf" and what you would call "a single wolf"?

Nothing?

I stated a single wolf to clarify that the transition from wolf to dog is not about a single individual or even a single chain of individuals.

Darwinists say "Wolves evolved into dogs." Wolves are individuals, no? So, are Darwinists, when they say that, affirming something about wolves—that is, affirming something about individuals? If they are not, then what they are demonstrating by saying "Wolves evolved into dogs" is that they cannot get human language to work for them. And that is because Darwinists haven't got any cognitively meaningful thing to say, therein. Darwinists have all sorts of verbal forms they like to say, but, almost invariably, Darwinists qua Darwinists have no propositional content behind those verbal forms—they fail to be expressing any proposition(s) therein. When Darwinists say things like "Wolves evolved into dogs," not only are they not affirming a true proposition, but what they are doing does not even rise to the level of affirming a false proposition.

You do not understand how the process works, let me try to explain.

When I described how frequencies of traits can vary in a population, this can be happening to multiple traits simultaneously.

The differences between dogs and wolves are not a sequence of changes that happen in order, they are a number of separate changes that were separately becoming more common in a population with many becoming almost ubiquitous until the point where the population is sufficiently different that it can be labelled as a different species or subspecies.

You wrote: "With humans and chimps both coming from a common ape ancestor"

No non-human is an ancestor of any human. No human is a descendant of any non-human. Both parents of every human who has parents are, themselves, humans. Trace any human's descent through any line, for as many "begats" backward as you'd like, and every member of that ancestry is a human, and not a non-human:

...human → human → human → human → human → human → human → human → human...​

( → = "is the parent of a")

Numerous Darwinists have given lip service to agreeing with this elementary truth, but invariably, every single one of them, has then, out of the other side of his/her mouth, blatantly contradicted it by telling me that non-humans are ancestors of humans. Darwinists continue their war against truth and logic, for which war they even coined a ridiculous name: "fuzzy logic". For my part, being a rationally-thinking person rather than a Darwinist, I'll continue to adhere to truth and logic.

That is your assertion, but it isn't supported by evidence.

Modern humans of the species, Homo sapiens, have existed for approximately 300,000 years... but there is genetic evidence that they have also been interbreeding with other closely related species like Homo neaderthalis and Denesova hominim.

You wrote: "You've probably seen this image of fossils of the extinct species that clearly shows how difficult it is to differentiate "ape" from "man"."

You don't differentiate between non-man and man? Also, are those sarcasm quotes you put around your word, "ape," and around your word, "man"? By your word, "ape," do you mean non-man? By your word, "man," do you mean non-ape?

I put the quotes around them because there is not a difference between humans and apes, because humans are a kind of ape.

However, I can still distinguish between humans, chimps and other apes.

Much as I assume you can distinguish between a chimp and a gorilla, but don't have a problem with both of them being called apes.

Also, I presented a picture of a number of dead animals... can you tell me which are apes and which are men, and did you use an objective technique to do so?

Notice your phrase, "fossils of the extinct species"—another nonsense phrase. A fossil is remains or a casting of remains of an animal that has died. Just as, out of one side of the Darwinist's mouth, he/she says "Animals evolve," and then repudiates that by saying, out of the other, "Animals don't evolve—species evolve," I'd not be surprised to see you follow suit with that asinine practice by saying something like, "Animals don't become fossilized—species become fossilized."

Can you explain how the remains of an animal that for which there are no remaining living examples is not a fossil of an extinct species? It seems a perfectly uncontroversial phrase.

You wrote: "...genetic and fossil evidence demonstrates..."

That's a funny phrase, "evidence demonstrates." I mean, by "demonstrate," what would you mean if not "give evidence"? So, is this what you mean when you say "evidence demonstrates": "evidence [gives evidence]"?

If you wish to tell us that giving evidence for the proposition, P, and demonstrating the proposition, P, are not one and the same thing, then please feel free to tell us exactly how, according to your imagination, the evidence-giving differs from the demonstrating.

I don't think it is altogether different... I understand you don't the the particular phrasing I chose, but I fail to see how that is a useful response to my statement.

How about:

Genetic inheritance creates patterns of relatedness in offspring.
This pattern can be used to determine ancestry and relatedness between individuals and groups of individuals.
This same technique can be used on separate species.
The pattern of relatedness found in genetics matches the pattern of fossil transitions.

 

[Shemjaza]

You wrote: "Evidence isn't perfect and I never claimed it was."

You never claimed evidence is perfect? Duh. Rather, you claimed evidence is worthless.

You wrote: "It is the most reliable method I've seen presented."

Huh? Evidence is a method now? A method to do what, exactly? I thought that a method is a way of doing something. So, are you seriously telling me that evidence is a way of doing something? You clearly do not even spend so much as a second's worth of time thinking about the stuff you write.

Using evidence is the best method I've seen presented to find the truth.

In a legal court case the absolute truth isn't discovered, but the truth beyond all reasonable doubt.

Also in science, all conclusions are provisional approximations and further research and investigation can improve and clarify the current knowledge.

For example Newtons laws of motion are extremely practical and useful... but as absolute statements of fact they are wrong.

You wrote: "Trivial."

What is the subject of this "sentence" you just wrote, and what its predicate? Or, are you merely emoting yet again?

More a general feeling that your statements were trivial to respond to.

You wrote: "The preponderance of evidence implies that you have thoroughly investigated the situation and come to a conclusion based on all available evidence."

"The preponderance of evidence" that (according to you) "supports" false propositions?
"Come to a conclusion based on all available evidence" that (according to you) "supports" false propositions?

No, that was not my statement. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Evidence is not 100% reliable, but it is the most reliable method available.

This means with limited evidence you have more opportunity to make a false conclusion... with more evidence that gets less likely.

You wrote: "Also, when I said that evidence can be found that supports false propositions, I wasn't implying that evidence can be found to support any proposition."

On what were you basing that asinine, false claim of yours; on what were you basing it that "evidence can be found that supports false propositions"?

A man with a history of violent is caught running away from a building where a murder has occurred.

That is evidence that he is the killer.

Much more investigation demonstrates that he was merely a thief and the murderer sneaked off without being apprehended.

In this situation, the evidence supported a false conclusion that the criminal was in fact the murderer.

Do you understand?

Let's hear it: What "evidence" do you have to "support" your false proposition that "evidence can be found that supports false propositions"?

You wrote: "Lets [sic] just say you have two bits of data..."

What do you mean by this word, "data," which I do not recall having seen you write in our back-and-forth? By it, do you mean fact?

You wrote: "Lets [sic] just say you have two bits of data, a holiday photo of some people labelled: "Us at the Grand Canyon on our trip to the USA!" and the other bit of data is a postcard for "Rhode Island, USA!" you now have limited evidence and a possible conclusion is that they are the same place."

Please lay out for us the "argument" you're trying to describe; lay it out out in a syllogism for me. How many premise propositions are you talking about, and what propositions are they? Fill in the following blanks with whatever propositions you are talking about and calling "limited evidence", so that we can see exactly what "argument" you are trying to describe. And, you've already told us what it is you are calling a "conclusion" to this "argument" you're trying to describe: "they [the Grand Canyon and Rhode Island] are the same place".

Premise 1: ______________________________.
Premise 2: ______________________________.
....
Premise n: ______________________________.
Conclusion: "The Grand Canyon is Rhode Island."​

Your false proposition, "[The Grand Canyon and Rhode Island] are the same place" is supported by nothing you've said so far.

Premise 1: The Grand Canyon can be visited in the USA
Premise 2: Rhode Island is referred to as Rhode Island USA
Premise 3: The USA location referenced in the Grand Canyon photo is the same USA location as Rhode Island
Conclusion: "The Grand Canyon is Rhode Island."

You wrote: "People can be reasonable or unreasonable in why they accept things."

Contrary to what you are trying to hand me in your war against truth and logic, rationally-thinking people such as myself understand that it is never reasonable to believe one or more false propositions.

Okay, how do you determine true propositions if you don't accept science or evidence?

You wrote: "The evidence of genetic relatedness of modern animals is consistent with the evidence of species transition found in geological evidence for the history of the Earth."

Your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor is not evidence for anything. It is a false proposition, and, unlike you, no rationally-thinking person will ever call a false proposition "evidence". But, the fact that you are unabashedly willing to call a false proposition "evidence" is evidence that, I said before, you're doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless.

Common ancestry is not a proposition, it's a conclusion from the evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To @Tortex Plectrum:
First off: best username I've seen on this site. I love it.

Secondly: what is the basis of the argument you're trying to make here? What is it that you are trying to say regarding your views on evolution and the theory of evolution and Darwin?

 

[Shemjaza]

To @Tortex Plectrum:
First off: best username I've seen on this site. I love it.

Secondly: what is the basis of the argument you're trying to make here? What is it that you are trying to say regarding your views on evolution and the theory of evolution and Darwin?

My bet is that we end up getting Pascal's Wager and the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Which one of the above is keeping you out of this country?

Are any of the above encouraging them to come in?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My bet is that we end up getting Pascal's Wager and the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I have not come across the latter before.

 

[Shemjaza]

I have not come across the latter before.

Philosophy students and William Lane Craig tend to think it's convincing and profound: Kalam cosmological argument.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe has a beginning, therefore has a cause.
Then some special pleading about the favourite deity of the speaker not having a beginning.
And typically some stuff about it needing to be personal, have a mind and there being only one... with a bunch of undemonstrated declarations.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are any of the above encouraging them to come in?

Maybe he wants us to sing to him first?

Give me your tired, your poor.
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
The wretched refuse of your teaming shore.
Send these, the homeless tempest tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden shore.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Philosophy students and William Lane Craig tend to think it's convincing and profound: Kalam cosmological argument.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe has a beginning, therefore has a cause.
Then some special pleading about the favourite deity of the speaker not having a beginning.
And typically some stuff about it needing to be personal, have a mind and there being only one... with a bunch of undemonstrated declarations.

Ah... Thomas Aquinas' "uncaused cause."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe he wants us to sing to him first?

That's a poem, not a song.

Give me your tired, your poor.
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
The wretched refuse of your teaming shore.
Send these, the homeless tempest tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden shore.

Careful -- recite that to the "Build the Wall" crowd, and you might get dinged for blasphemy... And you'll almost certainly get labeled an anti-American.

 

[AV1611VET]

Careful -- recite that to the "Build the Wall" crowd, and you might get dinged for blasphemy...

Ya, but if everyone thought like Bungle Bear did, we wouldn't need a wall.

All we would need is what Bear says is keeping him out:

Ignorance, arrogance, poor education and indoctrination breed intolerance.

I'm just wondering which one of those is keeping him out.

(And you in?)

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ya, but if everyone thought like Bungle Bear did, we wouldn't need a wall.

All we would need is what Bear says is keeping him out:I'm just wondering which one of those is keeping him out.

It hardly matters which one, because (at the risk of derailing the thread into politics), we've got at least one political party promoting all of the above at once:

Ignorance? Check.
Arrogance? Check.
Poor education? Check.
Indoctrination? Check.

And the end result...

Intolerance? Big ol' check.

(And you in?)

Me? Well... One of the parties seems to appreciate a "Love it or leave it" mentality -- I prefer a "Love it and fix it" approach.

 

[AV1611VET]

Me? Well... One of the parties seems to appreciate a "Love it or leave it" mentality -- I prefer a "Love it and fix it" approach.

Then maybe Bungle Bear will come visit us, ya think?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Then maybe Bungle Bear will come visit us, ya think?

I've visited several times.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've visited several times.

Ya ... but you don't wanna come here no more cause wez all idjits ... an that makes me feel bad.

Was you here on sum kinda intalecshul reconnaissance feeld trip or sumthing?

If we git are graids up, will you come back?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then maybe Bungle Bear will come visit us, ya think?

Because of me, or in spite of you?

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

OK, you win.

Win what?

Darwinsim [sic] is nonsense and false propositions.

That is true; you are correct.

So we are left with no explanation about how life diversified over time. Now what? What have you got?

I don't know what (if anything) you mean by your phrase, "life diversified over time".

 

[ottawak]

Win what?

You came here to show us that the theory of evollution is bogus. So, you convinced me. Now what?

I don't know what (if anything) you mean by your phrase, "life diversified over time".

Life is changing and adapting. There are species living whch have not always been here, and there are species once here which are now extinct. What's your explanation for it?