Creationists

[LOki]

Loki posted up this stupid and asinine example:

"There is no principle of the actual theory of evolution that says, "if [a trait does] not offer some reproductive advantage, that trait would not survive."

Example: You have skin, I have skin, all humans have skin--having skin offers no reproductive advantage. This is because if we all have this "advantage" it CANNOT be considered an advantage (over other humans who all have skin); it fails to meet the definition of advantage. So, based upon this principle of the version of evolution (that you invented for the purpose of disproving actual evolution), skin--which does not offer reproductive advantage (for some humans over other humans)--should not be present. Yet it is!"

Before you speak for the theory of evolution, I think you should ponder your statement above.

The statement you are referreing to is not mine ... IT IS YOURS!

And the positive statement (which you clearly did not make) makes a great deal of sense.

Just to be clear, YOU are making up this ""just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive."

This is all YOU.

I couldn't tell you ... it's your "just so" story. In your "just so" story the environmental conditions--for whatever reason you might invent--might be such that this skinless human does indeed enjoy some reproductive advantage.

Or maybe this skinless human's invisible superfriend intervenes, and by design causes him and all his future progeny to live and pass on their skinless legacy.

Like I said, I couldn't tell you about your "just so" story.

Give or take away what?

Ok. If you say so.

Not an argument, but rather just consistent with the definition of fitness.

That's just how definitions are.

All your bogus example above does is prove how silly the TOE really is. It really can't tell us anything can it? According to your flawed logic above, it can provide any hypothesis for the complex life we see around us. Because this is what you just said:

Traits that don't offer reproductive advantage can survive and remain unchanged in a species. Traits that do offer reproductive advantage can survive and remain in a species. So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go back to all the fossil evidence and dna evidence and tell us which ones are which.

All of this, is due to your confusion about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.

Until you get that all straightened out, your best strategy is to just STFU.

Whatever, you have made this claim over and over but you can't seem to rebut it with an actual argument. This is so typical of all you posts. Without the ability to cut and paste, your as useless as Obama without a teleprompter.

Your retarded "argument" (that "fitness" is question-begging) has been thoroughly CRUSHED.

"These species were fit because they survived."

"The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't."

"... circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce."

"Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution. Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above."

"... the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here."

"Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!!"

" It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? Have we proven this or is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness attempts its proof by assuming it is true."​

Go on say it one more time, and tell us you're not confused about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.


"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of UltimateReality."

 

[Hollie]

Yeah, because as the lead investigator on several high profile cases, I never spent any time in court or before a judge. What is your legal background?


And you know that Casey Luskin didn't base his information on evidence without having ever read the book? You are so foolish, probably because you didn't go to college.

Oh my. The little Christian zealot is as frantic as usual, offering up nothing (as usual), but gargantuan fonts.

I’m always suspicious of creationist “authors” who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. That’s why it’s actually comical when a zoologist and a fundie Christian attorney “author” a book regarding human origins. It should be a red flag when credentials assigned to fundie creationists have no real connection to the material they are authoring.

Neither Gauger or Luskin have any academic credentials to give them credibility for work in the field of “human origins”. Neither is an archeologist or biologist and neither have degrees that coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving biological dissertation on life origins.

It's a shame that all of the above will be lost on the fundie zealot who understands nothing but what he is instructed by creationist ministries.

Out-of-the-madrassah and-into-the-classroom zealots are a danger to themselves and those around them. Most folks do not support Christian zealots controlling science education in this country – obviously the constitution disallows that.

Christian Taliban can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive efforts of fear and superstition to impose their personal failings upon others is antithetical to the human ideal of freedom of (from) religion..

Second Ad Holliemen attack. I am always surprised when people on forums ignore questions about their qualifications to make such statements and are evasive about what their educational background is.

I see this as a pattern of behavior with fundie zealots. Unwilling to address their requirement that constitutional protections be abandoned, they launch into frantic states of denial about what the law actually provides for.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh my. The little Christian zealot is as frantic as usual, offering up nothing (as usual), but gargantuan fonts.

I’m always suspicious of creationist “authors” who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. That’s why it’s actually comical when a zoologist and a fundie Christian attorney “author” a book regarding human origins. It should be a red flag when credentials assigned to fundie creationists have no real connection to the material they are authoring.

Neither Gauger or Luskin have any academic credentials to give them credibility for work in the field of “human origins”. Neither is an archeologist or biologist and neither have degrees that coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving biological dissertation on life origins.

It's a shame that all of the above will be lost on the fundie zealot who understands nothing but what he is instructed by creationist ministries.

Out-of-the-madrassah and-into-the-classroom zealots are a danger to themselves and those around them. Most folks do not support Christian zealots controlling science education in this country – obviously the constitution disallows that.

Christian Taliban can believe whatever they choose to believe, but to evoke the coercive efforts of fear and superstition to impose their personal failings upon others is antithetical to the human ideal of freedom of (from) religion..

Second Ad Holliemen attack. I am always surprised when people on forums ignore questions about their qualifications to make such statements and are evasive about what their educational background is.

I see this as a pattern of behavior with fundie zealots. Unwilling to address their requirement that constitutional protections be abandoned, they launch into frantic states of denial about what the law actually provides for.

Talk about a fundie zealot,and you don't even understand the theory you are a zealot for.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fundie Christian movement faces many hurdles. Among those issues is a lack of credibility. Following string after string of humiliating defeats in the courts for failing to introduce Christian theology into the school system, the movement has become more reactionary, less coherent and more delusional.

There has become a standard roll call of Christian fundamentalist preachers who are trotted out by the Christian creationist ministries. The vast majority of these fundamentalist Christians appear prominently in news and media where they only discredit the very christian fundamentalism they are preaching.



Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for luskin

#246: Casey Luskin

a.k.a. the Baghdad Bob of creationism

Casey Luskin is a lawyer (and not a scientist, although he seems to be a little confused about what such credentials do or don't mean) and one of the primary spokespeople for the Discovery Institute. Mr. Luskin obtained a Bachelor of Science and a Masters Degree in Earth Sciences from the University of California, San Diego, and has as a lawyer published “Intelligent Design Will Survive Kitzmiller v. Dover”, and “Alternative Viewpoints about Biological Origins as Taught in Public Schools” (published in the Journal of Church and State). His work illustrates well the actual goal of the Discovery Institute –to get religion, in the form of intelligent design creationism, into public school curricula (not to do any actual scientific research).

Luskin is by far most notorious for his ability to distort scientific evidence to suggest conclusions completely opposite to what the evidence suggests (and curiously always to fit his preconceived notions of what it ought to show), such as here. An even better example of the distortions and quote mining (to put it mildly) he usually reverts to is perhaps this one (or this one). And if you are feeling particularly sadistic, you can watch Luskin getting completely eviscerated here.

The problem with Luskin and his ilk is that they're ignorant of a topic about which they believe they're experts (see The Dunning-Kruger Effect). Luskin appears to believe he’s an expert with absolute confidence and pride,but to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the fields in question his failings are miserably obvious (see also this). In fact, his misunderstandings of science –and his lack of awareness of his own lack of understanding –often reach epic proportions.

Luskin is also interestingly paranoid,going so far as to claim that published articles on evolution contain “veiled threats” against the creationists and that Nature, for instance, has launched a propaganda war on creationism. Of course, science itself is a threat to creationism; what Luskin fails to grasp is the fact that science is concerned with evidence, not argument and polemics. By failing to see the difference (and furthermore failing to distinguish criticism from personal attacks) he comes to equate scientific evidence against his dogmatic beliefs with personal attacks from the scientists who have discovered the evidence (for more on Luskin’s lack of understanding of how science works, see this).

A good assignment in an introductory critical thinking class is to identify some of the mistakes Luskin makes here (I have used it myself).

Diagnosis: Staggeringly cranky illustration of where Dunning-Kruger, confirmation bias and complete lack of understanding of science can lead you. He is very productive and vociferous, and must be considered rather dangerous to a rationality-based, modern civilization.



Encyclopedia of American Loons: #140: Ann Gauger

#140: Ann Gauger

Gauger has a PhD in zoology and is a signatory of Discovery Institute’s 2005 petition “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”. She’s currently associated with the Discovery affiliated creationist think-tank the Biologic Institute whose goal is to perform real research on ID and which has yet to produce a single publication supporting ID creationism despite big budgets and numerous employed “scientists”.

A rather infamous incident occurred when Gauger reported on her work at the Wistar Retrospective Symposium, 2007, in Boston, Massachusetts. She discussed “leaky growth” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner, a real scientist, asked the obvious question: “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning - Gauger has earlier argued that any evolutionary change is non-adaptive.

Diagnosis: Surely intelligent, but caught up in a system of self-reassuring but misguided views on how reality hangs together. The Biologic Institute is supposed to provided creationism with a sheen of scientific legitimacy, and although its existence may carry some influence on general perception of creationism (then again, probably not), it has failed to fool scientists or scholars in general (apart from Robin Collins).

Judges are not scientists,the science they do have is very basic. They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.

I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak.

So instead of thinking well the courts support our views why don't you give evidence that supports your view rather then conjecture as evidence.

you have no evidence of brainwashing by the federal or state or government or the public school system.
on the other hand your belief system relies on indoctrination, coercion, fear and willful ignorance to fill it's ranks .

these statements :They have been brainwashed for many years as most students.

("I could care less what the courts think after all they support the law to murder babies. Our society are turning their backs on God and eventually will pay a price you might be seeing that as we speak".ywc) are from a rational pov clear evidence of brain washing and a cult mentality..

my personal fav is the courts bullshit..

It's not hard to tell the difference from the brainwashed from the ones that actually know the theory and believe it.

I would consider you and hollie as one of the brainwashed. You have taken your limited knowledge of the theory as the gospel because of what you were taught in grade school when you were young and what you have read online.

If you fully understood the real problems for the theory that both myself and UR has pointed out to you,you would be a little more open minded and less arrogant.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry loki but your skin example is bogus. Black folks skin is better for resisting the sun's rays, so not all skin is the same. Please try again.

All traits are a product of our DNA information.

non sequitur....

It is right on target once again you show your ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

actually the nonsense you spew is more in line (or online) with Harun Yahya then anything hollie could dream up.
especially the steaming pile on materialism.

So your taking Harun Yahya's classes too? Astonishing you and Hollie would subscribe to the same online degree program.

Ur is again lying to avoid the fact that he and Harun Yahya spew the same shit..

Can you refute creationism ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Back home now and I can actually type normally to break down the argument Loki can't seem to grasp:

From Wiki: "The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[94] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[94] However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.[95] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.[94]"

From Wiki: "Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce, and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype. If differences between alleles of a given gene affect fitness, then the frequencies of the alleles will change over generations; the alleles with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection."

So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes.

Unless you are in denial of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and that genetics is fundamentally about inheritable phenotypes, then I am faiuling to see your point in tracing and retracing the DEFINITION of fitness.

And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here.

Strawman. No such presumption is made, except in the bullshit version of evolution you have created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.

What you're bitching about half the time (when you find it convenient) is something like, "Evolution says "fitness" means "fitness," and that's a "question-begging" arguement. The thing is, "fitness" is not presented as an argument; it's not an "argument" at all.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding (or more likely a DELIBERATE misunderstanding) of the conditions under a tautolgy is illegitimate (question-begging). In formal logic (rather than rhetoric), tautologies are ALWAYS valid. DEFINITIONS are inherently tautological AND formally valid. They LITERALLY use different words to say the same thing. They HAVE TO!

A THEORY is something else entirely.

"FITNESS" is not the theory you say it is. While fitness is certainly "a central concept of natural selection," fitness IS NOT natural selection. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I mean, after all, the definition of "fitness" is fully applicable in the Creationist notions of design--organisms are "designed" to be fit--that is to say, the "Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun designed organisms to successfully reproduce and pass their genetic material to their progeny.

I told you before that you had to decide what you want, a DEFINITION or a THEORY. You have chosen BOTH so you can illegitimately and dishonestly switch your usage to meet the convenience of your argument. Just like every other member of your intellectually dishonest, superstitious tribe of retards.

Fitness is NOT A THEORY. Fitness is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION you equivocating douche-bag.

There is no question-begging involved, except in the STRAWMAN version of evolution you created where "fitness" is the EXACT SAME THING as "natural selection."

This is consistent with the DEFINITION of "fitness."

This also is consistent with the DEFINITION of "fitness."

You are wrong. So woefully wrong. So purposefully wrong.

Bethell is just fatuously arguing that DEFINITION are tautologies, and that in the case of evolution the use of DEFINITION for terms makes the whole theory an illegitimate tautology.

You and Bethell are BOTH retarded.

Seriously. Once you get past the fact that FITNESS is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION, what you and Bethell are actually expressing denial of, is the well established relationship between genotype and phenotype. You are expressing a denial that so many of the functional structures and processes exhibited by living things are determined solely by the genetics of that living thing--and those functional structures and processes have peceptable effect on that organism's survival, and that they are inheritable.

And the explanation you offer as an alternative to the reality you deny is literally ... MAGIC!

I am aware of this ... I have been pointing out that you have no evidence for your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun that doesn't ultimatley rely upon first believing your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun is real in order to accept that the "evidence" submitted validates the existence of your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun.

Aside from the fact that the variations within a gene-pool are not random, no this is not a strawman.

This is consistent with the DEFINITION of fitness.

I just cannot wait for you to get to yout point.

Strawman. You are not told that at all, except in the bullshit version of evolution you created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.

Why do I have to provide validation for your retarded notions?

If by "we" you mean "you" and your "neat story" about your invisible superfriend, then yes.

If anything qualifies for a "just so" story about anything, it's your story about how your personal imaginary friend just magics everything to be just the way you believe it is.

No. No one but your strawman evolutionists bases their conclusions "on these typically lame examples."

So what? The theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) is not a tool to "prove" anything.

Real scientists do not conform to the bullshit paradigm of superstitious retards who are desperately trying to PROVE that their imaginary superfriends are real.

"Our simulations show that such mutational events, coupled with a selective pressure, leads to growth of pathways. These results indicate that pathways could be driven toward complexity via simple evolutionary mechanisms and that complexity can arise without any specific selective pressure for it. Furthermore, we find that the level of complexity that pathways evolve toward depends on the selection criteria. In general, we find that final pathway size tends to be lower when pathways evolve under stringent selection criteria. This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that simple response requirements on a pathway would facilitate its evolution toward higher complexity." (Soyer and Bonhoeffer 2006).​

No.

The human eyball is not explained by fitness.

Does the actual theory of evolution predict single cell organisms sould not exist now, or is it just your strawman version that predicts this?

I suppose the answer could be magic, but I'll stand by the notion that every microbe that ever lived did not exists under the exact same conditions, and did not magically experience the exact same mutations at exactly the same time ... or anything even close.

Yes to both.

Wrong. Under your personally engineered, strawman theory of evolution, the answer is a resounding NO!

Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?

Between us, I'm not engaging in semantic tricks.

But you would if you found it convenient. I'll bet that you will, just as soon as you find it convenient. You have no principled refutation for evolution ... you just grasp at any opportunity--even if it means contradicting yourself.

Nonsense.

No, evolution does not teach that humans came from mice or amoeba's, or elephants came from lizards, but in principle, this is what it claims.

Nope. Not even in principle.

The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an "amoeba-LIKE" organism, or an amoeba like organism could be a distant ancestor. So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.

Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and I will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.

Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing--and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanations of reality derived from that certainty. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.

Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.

Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.

If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?

This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.

You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Loki (is that plural for little Lokee's?)

Let's look at your "link in lieu of cut and paste" from your atheist, canned-response website you somehow think proves your point:

Claim CA500:
Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," is tautologous (i.e., uses circular reasoning) because it says that the fittest individuals leave the most offspring, but it defines the fittest individuals as those that leave the most offspring.

UR: Whuh? This is what Loki quoted from Wiki: Modern evolutionary theory defines fitness not by how long an organism lives, but by how successful it is at reproducing. If an organism lives half as long as others of its species, but has twice as many offspring surviving to adulthood, its genes will become more common in the adult population of the next generation.

This was a response to your strawman that alleged that fitness was about how long the organism survived.

I can't help it if Gish presents your bullshit better than you do.

This also from Wiki: However, this does not imply that natural selection is always directional and results in adaptive evolution; natural selection often results in the maintenance of the status quo by eliminating less fit variants. Now with Loki's definition from the same article: Natural Selection often results in maintenance of the status quo by eliminating animals that don't reproduce offspring that make it to adulthood as successfully as others???? WHuh? What does that even mean? Sounds tautological to me!!!

That's just the nature of definitions, you retard.

"What the?" indeed. Here, you confuse a discussion of the theory of natural selection (and the role fitness plays in it) with the definition of fitness itself.

Why do you insist upon doing that?


Of course. Can't you manage just a little bit better reading comprehension?

Sure it does.

Yes. The difference is the sensible among us all understood it.

No.

Nonsense. Fitness is measurable.

You just refuse to accept the definition of fitness is not the same thing a natural selection.

Do you have a better one? Besides magic?

Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.

That is correct. It's not magic. Natural selection is not sentient. There is not predisposed "direction" or "plan" or "design."

Your opinion of what is good or bad is entirely irrelevent to the point.

Which is the root of your issue with the theory of evolution.

See? You are a non-biologist, and you insist upon asserting your tautological notions of "survival of the fittest" is the same thing as the notion of "natural selection used by actual biologists.

This would be consistent with the definition of fitness. "Fitness" is not an explanation for why traits are selected for--fitness is a measurable observation that traits were selected for.

In the dark? No. Where a "Creator" selects--by design--light-sensitive cells over eyes, functional superiority is ENTIRELY irrellevent.

YES!

No. YOU are confused.

No.

If reproductive success is the only measure, humans, with their one or two offspring litter and 9 month gestation period would seem the illogical outcome of such a process.

Reproductive success is NOT the ONLY measure of evolutionary success.

Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it!

Sorry pal, evolutionists are not afflicted by the same cult of personality that you "Hovindists" are.

See question above.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties.

Lie #1. Numerous "scientist" regularly refer to the FACT of evolution, presuming it to be true in all cases, and scoff at those who would question its validity.

Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does.

Lie #2. The majority of evolutionary biologists enter into "experiments" with the preconceived notion that evolution has to be true. This almost always influences the outcome. Data that does not support their conclusions is assumed to be wrong and many times thrown out.

The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith.

Lie #3. Evolutionary scientists make multiple assumptions, which actually could be valid, stand-alone processes in the present, but do not occur naturally, and combine them, such as the 43 might haves and could haves previously quoted, into a presumed, specifically ordered sequence, with absolutely no evidence from the distant past to support their claim, and no observation in the present for even two of the processes occurring natrually in sequence and then entertain this fairy tale as a legitimate and distinct possibility for the outcome they are trying to support. This type of reasoning takes IMMENSE Faith.

Yes,presuppositions do affect explanations it is funny they deny this fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The statement you are referreing to is not mine ... IT IS YOURS!

And the positive statement (which you clearly did not make) makes a great deal of sense.

Just to be clear, YOU are making up this ""just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive."

This is all YOU.

I couldn't tell you ... it's your "just so" story. In your "just so" story the environmental conditions--for whatever reason you might invent--might be such that this skinless human does indeed enjoy some reproductive advantage.

Or maybe this skinless human's invisible superfriend intervenes, and by design causes him and all his future progeny to live and pass on their skinless legacy.

Like I said, I couldn't tell you about your "just so" story.

Give or take away what?

Ok. If you say so.

Not an argument, but rather just consistent with the definition of fitness.

That's just how definitions are.

All of this, is due to your confusion about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.

Until you get that all straightened out, your best strategy is to just STFU.

Whatever, you have made this claim over and over but you can't seem to rebut it with an actual argument. This is so typical of all you posts. Without the ability to cut and paste, your as useless as Obama without a teleprompter.

Your surrender is accepted.

You hope we surrender but what are we surrendering to ?

 

[UltimateReality]

Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence.

You have repeated this phrase numerous times throughout this thread. Sounds alot like a cut and paste from Immanuel Kant or some other philosopher although I can't quite put my finger on it. You should use quotes and links and avoid plagiarizing like Hollie.

I can't plagiarize myself.

Whatever, Hollie.

 

[Hollie]

Second Ad Holliemen attack. I am always surprised when people on forums ignore questions about their qualifications to make such statements and are evasive about what their educational background is.

I see this as a pattern of behavior with fundie zealots. Unwilling to address their requirement that constitutional protections be abandoned, they launch into frantic states of denial about what the law actually provides for.

Talk about a fundie zealot,and you don't even understand the theory you are a zealot for.

You're not making sense.

Science loathing Christian zealots frequently make the same nonsensical claims as yours such that the process of evolutionary science requires a "belief", and of course it does not. Christian zealots will choose not to separate the fact of evolutionary science being entirely divorced from literal bible tales and fables.

There is need or requirement to "believe in evolution". The science can withstand critical evaluation. The religious entities have every opportunity to perform the same tests and evaluations on fosill remains that scientists perform and publish their work in peer reviewed science publications. But of course, they don't. What fundies cannot address is that a 6000 year old earth would contain nothing of the ancient fosill record that exists. It's a matter of actually studying the physical evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions.

That is something the fundies can't do.

 

[UltimateReality]

Back home now and I can actually type normally to break down the argument Loki can't seem to grasp:

From Wiki: "The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[94] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation.[94] However, fitness is not the same as the total number of offspring: instead fitness is indicated by the proportion of subsequent generations that carry an organism's genes.[95] For example, if an organism could survive well and reproduce rapidly, but its offspring were all too small and weak to survive, this organism would make little genetic contribution to future generations and would thus have low fitness.[94]"

From Wiki: "Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce, and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype. If differences between alleles of a given gene affect fitness, then the frequencies of the alleles will change over generations; the alleles with higher fitness become more common. This process is called natural selection."

So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes.

Unless you are in denial of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and that genetics is fundamentally about inheritable phenotypes, then I am faiuling to see your point in tracing and retracing the DEFINITION of fitness.

Strawman. No such presumption is made, except in the bullshit version of evolution you have created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.

What you're bitching about half the time (when you find it convenient) is something like, "Evolution says "fitness" means "fitness," and that's a "question-begging" arguement. The thing is, "fitness" is not presented as an argument; it's not an "argument" at all.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding (or more likely a DELIBERATE misunderstanding) of the conditions under a tautolgy is illegitimate (question-begging). In formal logic (rather than rhetoric), tautologies are ALWAYS valid. DEFINITIONS are inherently tautological AND formally valid. They LITERALLY use different words to say the same thing. They HAVE TO!

A THEORY is something else entirely.

"FITNESS" is not the theory you say it is. While fitness is certainly "a central concept of natural selection," fitness IS NOT natural selection. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I mean, after all, the definition of "fitness" is fully applicable in the Creationist notions of design--organisms are "designed" to be fit--that is to say, the "Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun designed organisms to successfully reproduce and pass their genetic material to their progeny.

I told you before that you had to decide what you want, a DEFINITION or a THEORY. You have chosen BOTH so you can illegitimately and dishonestly switch your usage to meet the convenience of your argument. Just like every other member of your intellectually dishonest, superstitious tribe of retards.

Fitness is NOT A THEORY. Fitness is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION you equivocating douche-bag.

There is no question-begging involved, except in the STRAWMAN version of evolution you created where "fitness" is the EXACT SAME THING as "natural selection."

This is consistent with the DEFINITION of "fitness."

This also is consistent with the DEFINITION of "fitness."

You are wrong. So woefully wrong. So purposefully wrong.

Bethell is just fatuously arguing that DEFINITION are tautologies, and that in the case of evolution the use of DEFINITION for terms makes the whole theory an illegitimate tautology.

You and Bethell are BOTH retarded.

Seriously. Once you get past the fact that FITNESS is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION, what you and Bethell are actually expressing denial of, is the well established relationship between genotype and phenotype. You are expressing a denial that so many of the functional structures and processes exhibited by living things are determined solely by the genetics of that living thing--and those functional structures and processes have peceptable effect on that organism's survival, and that they are inheritable.

And the explanation you offer as an alternative to the reality you deny is literally ... MAGIC!

I am aware of this ... I have been pointing out that you have no evidence for your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun that doesn't ultimatley rely upon first believing your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun is real in order to accept that the "evidence" submitted validates the existence of your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun.

Aside from the fact that the variations within a gene-pool are not random, no this is not a strawman.

This is consistent with the DEFINITION of fitness.

I just cannot wait for you to get to yout point.

Strawman. You are not told that at all, except in the bullshit version of evolution you created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.

Why do I have to provide validation for your retarded notions?

If by "we" you mean "you" and your "neat story" about your invisible superfriend, then yes.

If anything qualifies for a "just so" story about anything, it's your story about how your personal imaginary friend just magics everything to be just the way you believe it is.

No. No one but your strawman evolutionists bases their conclusions "on these typically lame examples."

So what? The theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) is not a tool to "prove" anything.

Real scientists do not conform to the bullshit paradigm of superstitious retards who are desperately trying to PROVE that their imaginary superfriends are real.

"Our simulations show that such mutational events, coupled with a selective pressure, leads to growth of pathways. These results indicate that pathways could be driven toward complexity via simple evolutionary mechanisms and that complexity can arise without any specific selective pressure for it. Furthermore, we find that the level of complexity that pathways evolve toward depends on the selection criteria. In general, we find that final pathway size tends to be lower when pathways evolve under stringent selection criteria. This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that simple response requirements on a pathway would facilitate its evolution toward higher complexity." (Soyer and Bonhoeffer 2006).​

No.

The human eyball is not explained by fitness.

Does the actual theory of evolution predict single cell organisms sould not exist now, or is it just your strawman version that predicts this?

I suppose the answer could be magic, but I'll stand by the notion that every microbe that ever lived did not exists under the exact same conditions, and did not magically experience the exact same mutations at exactly the same time ... or anything even close.

Yes to both.

Wrong. Under your personally engineered, strawman theory of evolution, the answer is a resounding NO!

Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?

Between us, I'm not engaging in semantic tricks.

But you would if you found it convenient. I'll bet that you will, just as soon as you find it convenient. You have no principled refutation for evolution ... you just grasp at any opportunity--even if it means contradicting yourself.

Nonsense.

Nope. Not even in principle.

The TOE claims that Humans could have come from an "amoeba-LIKE" organism, or an amoeba like organism could be a distant ancestor. So I'm not falling for your black and white explanation denials, for the fact of the matter is, the TOE makes some preposterous generalized claims, but then says, but we really don't know the actual players.

Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and I will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.

Science ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing--and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanations of reality derived from that certainty. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.

Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.

Loki how many times must I ask you this before it sinks in.

If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?

This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.

You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?

YWC, Loki already answered this. He says it is because they wound up in different environments. Really, all Loki is asking you to believe is that Ecoli's environment never changed for 2 Billion years but man's bigfoot-elusive, single-cell ancestor's environment changed an infinite number of times to grow him into the man he is today.

Furthermore, evolution would ask us to believe that for evolution to occur, it need to "work" in small populations. Based on dna evidence, a small band of Neanderthals would have to have separated from the group and then lived in total isolation for 600,000 years. Oh and while they were in total isolation for 600,000 years, their environment had to change numerous times to spur natural selection on and turn them into homo sapien. Because according to Loki, the other Neanderthals environment didn't change in 600,000 years and they stayed the same.

 

[UltimateReality]

I see this as a pattern of behavior with fundie zealots. Unwilling to address their requirement that constitutional protections be abandoned, they launch into frantic states of denial about what the law actually provides for.

Talk about a fundie zealot,and you don't even understand the theory you are a zealot for.

You're not making sense.

Science loathing Christian zealots frequently make the same nonsensical claims as yours such that the process of evolutionary science requires a "belief", and of course it does not. Christian zealots will choose not to separate the fact of evolutionary science being entirely divorced from literal bible tales and fables.

There is need or requirement to "believe in evolution". The science can withstand critical evaluation. The religious entities have every opportunity to perform the same tests and evaluations on fosill remains that scientists perform and publish their work in peer reviewed science publications. But of course, they don't. What fundies cannot address is that a 6000 year old earth would contain nothing of the ancient fosill record that exists. It's a matter of actually studying the physical evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions.

That is something the fundies can't do.

I really wouldn't consider your online degree from Haran Yahya's website to be a solid formal education.

 

[Hollie]

You have repeated this phrase numerous times throughout this thread. Sounds alot like a cut and paste from Immanuel Kant or some other philosopher although I can't quite put my finger on it. You should use quotes and links and avoid plagiarizing like Hollie.

I can't plagiarize myself.

Whatever, Hollie.

Wrong poster, fundie.

I understand that absent cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, your comments are best left to silly one-liners.

 

[Hollie]

Talk about a fundie zealot,and you don't even understand the theory you are a zealot for.

You're not making sense.

Science loathing Christian zealots frequently make the same nonsensical claims as yours such that the process of evolutionary science requires a "belief", and of course it does not. Christian zealots will choose not to separate the fact of evolutionary science being entirely divorced from literal bible tales and fables.

There is need or requirement to "believe in evolution". The science can withstand critical evaluation. The religious entities have every opportunity to perform the same tests and evaluations on fosill remains that scientists perform and publish their work in peer reviewed science publications. But of course, they don't. What fundies cannot address is that a 6000 year old earth would contain nothing of the ancient fosill record that exists. It's a matter of actually studying the physical evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions.

That is something the fundies can't do.

I really wouldn't consider your online degree from Haran Yahya's website to be a solid formal education.

Gargantuan fonts, fundie.

I'll require you to continue your nonsensical habit of spamming with gargantuan fonts.

 

[UltimateReality]

The statement you are referreing to is not mine ... IT IS YOURS!

And the positive statement (which you clearly did not make) makes a great deal of sense.

Just to be clear, YOU are making up this ""just so" story that humans have skin, because the ones without skin didn't survive."

This is all YOU.

I couldn't tell you ... it's your "just so" story. In your "just so" story the environmental conditions--for whatever reason you might invent--might be such that this skinless human does indeed enjoy some reproductive advantage.

Or maybe this skinless human's invisible superfriend intervenes, and by design causes him and all his future progeny to live and pass on their skinless legacy.

Like I said, I couldn't tell you about your "just so" story.

Give or take away what?

Ok. If you say so.

Not an argument, but rather just consistent with the definition of fitness.

That's just how definitions are.

All of this, is due to your confusion about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.

Until you get that all straightened out, your best strategy is to just STFU.

Whatever, you have made this claim over and over but you can't seem to rebut it with an actual argument. This is so typical of all you posts. Without the ability to cut and paste, your as useless as Obama without a teleprompter.

Your retarded "argument" (that "fitness" is question-begging) has been thoroughly CRUSHED.

"These species were fit because they survived."

"The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't."

"... circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce."

"Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution. Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above."

"... the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here."

"Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!!"

" It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce."

"So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and must have contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? Have we proven this or is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness attempts its proof by assuming it is true."​

Go on say it one more time, and tell us you're not confused about the difference between what constitutes a definition of terms, and what constitutes a theory, and what constitutes an argument.


"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of UltimateReality."

Oh you poor dear, Loki. You can't follow a paragraph long enough to make the leap that the only theory we are talking about is evolution, not the "theory" of fitness. You keep strawmanning what I am saying and it is simply because you can't follow a logical thought for more than two sentences. I guess if I have to write on a third grade level for you to understand, I will. Here, does this help you in your limited understanding of what is being said, pumpkin? Can we finally put your silly false accusation to bed with this clarification?

"So the central question becomes: How do we determine scientifically which members of the species were fit, and passed their genes on, and which ones were not? The answer to that question is clearly stated above. As evolutionary "scientist", we merely study which genes or traits are most common in a given species, and by those results, we can determine that the specific species in the previous generation that was most fit, and MUST HAVE contributed those genes. And here we arrive at what Loki can't seem to comprehend, that is, we observe an organism and we conclude, this organism must be the result of natural selection, and according to the theory of evolution its predecessor must have been the most fit, otherwise, it wouldn't be here. But isn't fitness a central concept of natural selection? And isn't natural selection a central concept of the TOE? Have we proven the TOE or am I mis-informd that the TOE is it still a theory? The very core of evolutionary theory rests on natural selection. I'm not sure why Loki can't get this: this modern definition of fitness, by including the assumption the TOE is true within its definition, attempts its proof of the TOE by assuming the TOE is true." And that my friends, is known as begging the question.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're not making sense.

Science loathing Christian zealots frequently make the same nonsensical claims as yours such that the process of evolutionary science requires a "belief", and of course it does not. Christian zealots will choose not to separate the fact of evolutionary science being entirely divorced from literal bible tales and fables.

There is need or requirement to "believe in evolution". The science can withstand critical evaluation. The religious entities have every opportunity to perform the same tests and evaluations on fosill remains that scientists perform and publish their work in peer reviewed science publications. But of course, they don't. What fundies cannot address is that a 6000 year old earth would contain nothing of the ancient fosill record that exists. It's a matter of actually studying the physical evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions.

That is something the fundies can't do.

I really wouldn't consider your online degree from Haran Yahya's website to be a solid formal education.

Gargantuan fonts, fundie.

I'll require you to continue your nonsensical habit of spamming with gargantuan fonts.

I will require you to continue posting up nonsensical verbiage that has nothing to do with the topics at hand and continue to evade questions about your educational background all the while Hypocritically questioning everyone else's and pretending your online degree from Haran Yahya is legitimate.

Are you happy now, cheeseslice?

 

[Hollie]

I really wouldn't consider your online degree from Haran Yahya's website to be a solid formal education.

Gargantuan fonts, fundie.

I'll require you to continue your nonsensical habit of spamming with gargantuan fonts.

I will require you to continue posting up nonsensical verbiage that has nothing to do with the topics at hand and continue to evade questions about your educational background all the while Hypocritically questioning everyone else's and pretending your online degree from Haran Yahya is legitimate.

Are you happy now, cheeseslice?

On the contrary, it is you who has been spamming this thread with your silly gargantuan fonts.

 

[ima]

If we all evolved and received our traits from better adapted creatures, why is the group we evoled from still here and the better adapted and supposed transitional groups extinct ?

This is found in every inferred evolutional branch. Then you must find a mecahnism that would produce such results and your side continues to come up empty.

You post theory and conjecture as your evidence why can't you see this ?

Chimpanzees and gorillas aren't our ancestors, we are from the same ancestor but some evolved to live on the ground, some in the trees, and some in dense forests but mostly on the ground. That's how the original species we all come from split into what you see today.