Consciousness

[Subsymbolic]

When I went to a party to celebrate Dallas victory I didn't dress Redskins shirt. When one participates in a religious forum you just participate giving opinions.

In your prejudice you catalogued me as a Christian, not as Jewish, and both of them believe and worship the same god, in different ways but the same god. I won't care at all about what you think about me about beliefs, I know I don't belong to any religious denomination, but it is interesting observing the kind of prejudice deduced from defenders of the theory of evolution as a way of defense.

Fair enough.

Long ago, in a discussion about the radiometric method, a guy posted the ages of several organic material using the Carbon 14 method. Of course, like many in the discussions, he posted what he found somewhere else. I asked him who made the measurements, and he mentioned Libby.(the inventor of Carbon 14 measurement method)

Between the discussion was the age of earth, the age of life on earth, the age of petroleum, and so forth.

Why asking him "pages numbers?" A good researcher and a good debater will assimilate the source, and work from it looking at the extensive material at front. In this case, the target was Mr,. Libby.

In order to challenge the other poster, it was necessary to use the same person, the same method, and finally I found in the magazine Science, in an old article (when Mr Libby was alive) the measurement of the Hydrocarbon collected from the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico. It was a great idea, because the age of the hydrocarbon from that place, according to the Carbon 14 method of measurement, was 11,800 to 14,600 +- 1400 years of tolerance.

I found a very good argument to be posted in that discussion.

Hope you understand what I'm telling you.

This is not about "give me give me" but about receiving information and if the other side decides to give more details, then fine, otherwise you must look for yourself about more details IF YOU ARE REALLY INTERESTED.

You must recognize that if I mention something, I have been making my homework, and when is about topics which are not easy to find, or as in many cases happen, books out of print, older documents, and so forth, even if you receive the information in order for you to verify it you might have to work the same as your opponent did.

What is it with the stories about people in the past?

I will make a few exceptions because there was a little error in my former statement, so in order to correct it I will start first with the quote of Kant.

"da ein Orang-Utang oder ein Schimpanse die Organe, die zum Gehen, zum Befühlen der Gegenstände und zum Sprechen dienen, sich zum Gliederbau eines Menschen ausbildete, deren Innerstes ein Organ für den Gebrauch des Verstandes enthielte und durch gesellschaftliche Kultur sich allmählich entwickelte"”

OK, you don't understand a single sh*t of Kant's words... no problem

"An Orangutang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking - in short, that he may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason."

Now, you ask for the page number... do you know what? you ask too much.

It is online. And the book introducing Kant (which is a different book of course) even says the page number plus the ISBN of the book! You can buy anyone of them and read it. It is online. My original source is a book, but you can find it online.

I think Hermit has covered your misleading use of Kant quite adequately.

About Mr. Arthur Schopenhauer. His words are also online, and you can find him on Scribd, See? I didn't make up the words of Schopenhauer, he said the words in his book.... again, do your work. I will write his words the way they are. You can verify them on Scribd, for this book you won't need to subscribe in order to read it. Schopenhauer attacks religion like crazy, the whole book is worthy to read, atheists and skeptical will enjoy Schopenhauer, but religious guys will laugh of Schopenhauer's ideas about men and chimpanzees. By the way, Schopenhauer mentions with great admiration to Kant in this book of his.



" But what can you expect from the masses, when there are men of education, zoologists even, who,instead of admitting what is so familiar to them, the essential identity of man and animal, are bigoted and stupid enough to offer a zealous opposition to their honest and rational colleagues, when they class man under the proper head as an animal, or demonstrate the resemblance between him and the chimpanzee or ourangutan. "

And the relevance of evolution today is?

Ah! of course, you were claiming for the Greek legend of man as descendant of fish

Do you know what?

You are lucky! I thought that the references I gave you were found in books only, and that the internet has not much of information from old books, but, you are lucky. It is online.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anaximander

Anaximander held an evolutionary view of living things. The first creatures originated from the moist element by evaporation. Man originated from some other kind of animal, such as fish, since man needs a long period of nurture and could not have survived if he had always been what he is now. Anaximander also discussed the causes of meteorological phenomena, such as wind, rain, and lightning.

Cool, that's less vague. It's also not the original source. He's not talking about evolution in the past, he's talking about development in the womb. It was a popular theory, but not of evolution. As I explained very clearly and you ignored, evolution denotes a very particular process and grabbing at anything doesn't help your cause.

Is that meant to be a quote, because nothing comes up on Google - again book and page number please, because as direct quotation it looks like you just made it up.

No, it doesn't come from Google because I never use that search engine. I use duckduckgo.com

Cool choice.

Here you are not so lucky. The conversation between Geoffroy and Cuvier was in the Jardin... Yes, I thought it was the backyard of a bar in Paris but is the historical Jardin, with capital "J".

https://en.parisinfo.com/paris-museum-monument/71304/Jardin-des-Tuileries

The dialogue is long, One believing in catastrophes eliminating species and creating new ones, the another one argument that inferior species came first and evolved into more complex ones. This is in accord of the definition of the word "evolution" in those times which was a common definition for everything developing around.

So, no page number because are notes written from the dialogue, researchers use the notes and might write the location by documents names only, and it is possible someone made a book from those dialogues alone or in the biography of any one of those men. Who knows.

The dialogue is taken by me from a book which won't mention the original source with proper identification, because the book is so old that bibliography was not mandatory. However, at the beginning of the book, there are lots of people with notable credentials who reviewed the writings, and collaborated with the author of the book. The author is a writer, not a scientists. His works describe lots of topics, which even when they are scientific, in those years references as deluge and other biblical events had influence in the writings in general. It was a different era, different years. Like when you watch movies from the 50's.

I might write the whole dialogue in order to have a better understanding of what was the environment surrounding Charles Darwin when he wrote his book. I think I have also a reference from those years where it says that apes come from men. I must go to the attic for this purpose and now is very cold in this area.

The main statement stands.

Not without the title of the book and a page number it doesn't. Either way, YOu are trying to object to evolution today and doing that by referring to a hundred years ago simply doesn't work.

Darwin inherited the common understanding of the philosophy of those years which was that man was a descendant of apes. No wonder the memes made about him when his book came out, where a chimpanzee appears with the face of Darwin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caric...s_evolutionary_theory_in_19th-century_England

Yes, Darwin loved his monkey toy, he called him grandpa!

Hang on are you using the fact that people were influenced by Darwin to support the claim that Darwin was influenced by others. That's just odd, and wrong.

Darwin can't escape the influence of the philosophy of evolution of those years, he was very cautious in avoiding the straight mention of it, but his attempts are clear, he thought that species "evolve" with the meaning of this word as it was in those years: change from inferior to superior, from worst to better, from simpler to more complex.

Except he said precisely the opposite. As I said:

Really? I thought natural selection was a process by which the less fit tended not to survive to breed while the more fit did. The notion of things being 'favourable' is putting the cart before the horse. I really would recommend that you get clear about the processes underpinning evolution before making claims like this.

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps.

Charles Darwin.

It can't be more clear.

No, it really can't. You misrepresented Darwin. Compare:

"natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps

natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations

I assume you can see the difference between acting and accumulating? The process of accumulation is the process of surviving in an environment. Natural selection doesn't act, it's the outcome not the agent.
At the end of the day both expressions say the same. your semantic issue is laughable.

Darwin called them variations, he ignored about genetics.

Darwin was simply unaware of a genotype. Mutations take place in the genotype, Darwin was only aware of variations of phenotype. You literally couldn't be more wrong.

He ignored about mutations. Everybody have accepted that already, you seem to be an exception.

He didn't ignore, he was unaware of both mutations and anything that could mutate as it hadn't been discovered yet.

At one point. in the 70's, when the New-Darwinian theory of Evolution replaced the former one, the whole structure was changed and only the main title and subtitles were saved. The failed theory was told it was "updated", but failed theories can't be updated, failed theories are just discarded.

Of course they can: failed theories are either reduced or eliminated. Reduction involves making connections between the ontology, methodology and attitudes of the old theory and the new. Elimination is self explanatory. That said, what exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure that the central mechanisms of evolution remains unchanged since Darwin. Perhaps you can explain the change you describe.

You are talking of TWO different theories as well.

No I'm defending one massive overarching theory that involves the unification of a phenotypiclka and a genotypoical process, Actually it's more complicated than that, but what's the point.

You guys with the names you invent in your theory are a good show. To a simple birth defect evolutionists call it "millions of years of evolutionary pressure". Lol.

They really don't

He was wrong. Period.

You know, when attacking what is probably the most agreed upon theory in all of science, you really need to produce better arguments and evidence than that.

I'm doing it here: the fact called "degeneration".

You keep saying degeneration, yet you seem unclear as to how evolution even works.

Darwin claimed that natural selection is about favorable steps. The "variations" (mutations) must be favorable. Mutations are steps of variation in species, as general understanding.

Nope, he claimed it's about the accumulating of slight, successive, favorable variations. It's a fundamental difference

With that argument of yours one and more times, it appears that you are trying to sell me tires...

That's no counter argument now is it. Can you explain how accumulation is the same as acting?

How much arrow there is, generally comes down to the selective pressure. where, for example, food is abundant and predation rare, there's not much of an arrow. When food becomes rarer or predation more extreme there is a powerful arrow towards fitting an environment. If the conditions change the selective pressure changes....

...In this case, I'd imagine that there was a chemical released that damaged either the genetic code or the developing creatures. The selective pressure here is simple, such creatures would simply have died, failed to breed and rapidly been eliminated from the gene pool - unless there was a selective advantage and then the differences would have survived to breed again. Easy.

It is "simple" Wow, lets see what the expert says.

"such creatures would simply have died, failed to breed and rapidly been eliminated from the gene pool - unless there was a selective advantage and then the differences would have survived to breed again. Easy."

Enough! I'm am astonished with such an explanation clearing up the whole process of "selective pressure".

I'm sure you are, but athat's not a counter argument now, is it.

I must admit that such explanation was indeed "easy".

Yes, it really is that simple - they are unable to avoid predators, unable to find mates, they die and with it the particular damage dies with them.

It reminds me how easy was for medieval fathers to explain scientific things to their children. One day the boy asked his father: "Dad, why the grass is green?. The father looked at him and slapped hard the boy's face. Easy.

This simply isn't a counter argument.

Very well, if you don't mind, I would like to read at least the mechanism, how it comes such a selective pressure, when you mention "selective" means something or somebody is choosing what will be the change.

Will you expand your idea?

It's really simple, in a particular environment, the creature best suited survives and breeds, passing on its genes. The creature less well suited simply dies, not passing on its genes. This is how genes that promote survival get passed on, they survive. those that don't promote survival die with their owner. The selection happens naturally without any help at all.

The losing of male gene chromosomes Y is "selective pressure"? How?

Well, if it makes it impossible to breed, then the genes of the unfortunate creatures that lost what you call 'male gene chromosomes' (Seriously, if you knew what a chromosome or a gene was, you really wouldn't say things like this) would simply eliminate themselves from the gene pool. It's that simple.

Oh, I see. But it happens that is a problem with the whole humans. Are you saying that "selective pressure" is taking humans out of the game and choosing other species to survive? Did you check with other species if they are suffering the same symptoms? In case is yes, then your selective pressure is malfunctioning?

I don't have to, anything that makes them less fit to survive relative to others tends to lead to them not surviving and when they don't survive, nor do their genes. That's it.

Great, so a disease or chemical causes man to lose fingers and have atrophied extremities, and the environment is mostly dry and sand storms start to cover fertile areas, man can only crawl looking for food and water.

Your conclusion: Man passed to a new phase of speciation, adapting his body to the new environment which won't require legs but man is more fit when he crawl over the sand.

I certainly didn't say that, you said that. It has nothing to do with what I have said. I'm consistently saying that evolution is the process by which creatures achieve a better fit for the local environment they find themselves in. That's it.

But, having man without extremities and crawling over the surface doesn't sound to be "a better fit", on the contrary, it sounds bad luck. It sounds degeneration and desperate survival. Crawling is not a better fit for moving over sand. Your theory is completely wrong.

Again, I didn't say that, you did, it's your straw man, not mine. Whatever fits the environment is what will survive to breed. that's it.

Based on your appearance of man from an ape alike creature, how man will be in the next million years?

I'll say it again, evolution is only about a creature slowly fitting the environment they find themselves in. You are claiming it's a way of predicting the distant future. That's just nonsense.

Wait a minute. The environment in the past has not been uniform, for this reason you see different kind of species and different kind of classes, etc. From such a different worldwide environment you say -as evolutionist- you have obtained the "models" of the ancient man, and from them you explain the changes. Tell me, is't the environment today similar or completely different that the environment of the first men?

Absolutely and there are a lot of predecessors that didn't make it. The reason that all modern humans are basically the same and not speciated, is because we are all related to quite recent common ancestors who left Africa only a few hundred thousand years ago.

And, you say that thru millions of years men from different parts of the world has changed up to what men are now.

The Genus homo has quote a lot of now dead branches, yes, modern humans all came from the same place quite recently.

Great, so keep with the arrow: same environment, how man will be a million years from now?

Again, you are just making a straw man. Evolution is not a theory that predicts the far future. The only way predictions can be made is if you know the environment. Y

My position is, based on the losing of chromosome Y and in base of the trend of degeneration, that the human body will lose more strength, this is to say, will be weaker, will need of more artificial means to survive, and will lose more characteristics, making humans more exposed to greater diseases, and more deformities. which will be fixed according to the new decaying steps -as today with dental braces, wigs, prescribed glasses, new advanced medicine and surgery, etc- .

And here it's clear that you simply don't understand evolution. If you had two children then it would be the one that was better fitted to the environment that would be likely to survive and breed. It's that simple.

The situation here is that I'm not talking about "ifs" but about current humanity depending of braces to alienate their teeth, prescribed glasses, wigs, surgeries by lots, and not only cosmetic but necessary surgeries for survival, additives in life like vitamins and medicines.

Show me an example of yours without "ifs".

And yet still those most fit to survive and breed will do so. Or in this case, we move into a period with little selective pressure and plenty of genetic drift - there's plenty of shuffling of the deck but little gets eliminated - that's precisely the opposite situation to the one you propose: there's more variation, not less.

Hope you bring your prediction of humans a million years from now.

I'll say it again, that's just not the job that the theory of evolution does. You can pretend it is, but everyone who reads this will know that this is just a straw man. I'm not claiming that evolution can predict the far future and nor is anyone else.

What is interesting is that you have completely ignored the one thing I asked you to respond to. That's really quite telling...

I'll post it again in a separate post so you can give it your full attention.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Hey Humbleman. You ignored the one thing I asked you to respond to. I'm asking you again:

It's a really simple challenge for you:

Here's my personal definition of evolution:

Cumulative genetic change that increases a population's adaption and diversity within an environment.
Here's my take on two of the key processes of natural selection:


Selection

Non random elimination of less well adapted individuals (and their unique genetic mix) within a population.


Drift

Random elimination of less well adapted individuals (and their unique genetic mix) within a population.


If you quite deliberately separate out the three things, evolution, selection and drift, it becomes so much easier to think about them clearly.

So to put it another way:

For evolution to happen you need to have

1) traits that are heritable, varied and confer differential fitness

2) non random elimination of those traits

Random drift tends to increase variation and selection tends to eliminate those traits that are less fit.

That's actually my position. I'll be clear, while the basics are the same as Darwin, most of the details have been filled in to make it a far tidier variation on the basic idea. So now what I'd like you to do is explain how precisely this theory is faulty - don't pretend to quote people you haven't read, because I have, and don't tell just so stories because I'm not ten.

Actually read what I have posted and explain what is wrong with it. You've ignored it once, I'm sure there's a good reason for that...

 

[humbleman]

Fair enough.




What is it with the stories about people in the past?

I think Hermit has covered your misleading use of Kant quite adequately.

And the relevance of evolution today is?

Cool, that's less vague. It's also not the original source. He's not talking about evolution in the past, he's talking about development in the womb. It was a popular theory, but not of evolution. As I explained very clearly and you ignored, evolution denotes a very particular process and grabbing at anything doesn't help your cause.

Up to here you were using the guerrilla style responding my message, throwing a stone and running to hide somewhere.

In your last answer you seem to ignore in purpose the context which implies that man coming from fish is assumed by the first steps in his development, the Greek thought wasn't talking about the steps of pregnancy in progress. Nice try.

Not without the title of the book and a page number it doesn't. Either way, YOu are trying to object to evolution today and doing that by referring to a hundred years ago simply doesn't work.

The referral of the beginning of the theory of evolution is fair.

If its genesis of the theory is false, then the theory is false. "Simple".

(Hermit: do you understand now why Kant's context really arguments man as descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees? if and when. is not if and then.)

Hang on are you using the fact that people were influenced by Darwin to support the claim that Darwin was influenced by others. That's just odd, and wrong.

You yourself are under the influence of Darwin thoughts.

Darwin grew up under the influence of species evolving from inferior to superior, worst to better, simpler to more complex. This is why the theory was titled "evolution" because such was the only meaning of that word in those years.

Really? I thought natural selection was a process by which the less fit tended not to survive to breed while the more fit did. The notion of things being 'favourable' is putting the cart before the horse. I really would recommend that you get clear about the processes underpinning evolution before making claims like this.

On the contrary, according to Darwin if no favorable then no natural selection. Period.

He didn't ignore, he was unaware of both mutations and anything that could mutate as it hadn't been discovered yet.

You are suffering a weird mutation in nature with those words, your nose is getting longer.

Darwin was an ignorant about mutations and genetics. His variations are supposed to be solely favorable accumulations of... of what? Mutations cause the lost of characteristics, so Darwin was wrong the whole way after all.

Of course they can: failed theories are either reduced or eliminated. Reduction involves making connections between the ontology, methodology and attitudes of the old theory and the new. Elimination is self explanatory. That said, what exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure that the central mechanisms of evolution remains unchanged since Darwin. Perhaps you can explain the change you describe.

Great, show me one of those mechanisms.

Tell me how it comes that bacteria is not affected by antibiotics after a bad treatment.

This is to say, the individual was supposed to take antibiotics two times a day for ten days. The individual felt better after three days and stop taking the antibiotics. He got sick again later on, and it was the same class of bacteria, which stayed in his body surviving the former treatment. At this time the new treatment with the same antibiotics didn't work.

Explain -you can use analogies if you want- what happened? How it comes that bacteria is not affected by the same antibiotic treatment?

Responding that is "natural selection" "survival of the fittest", and lose phrases without meaning is not accepted as an answer to the question of explaining the mechanism.

To be more clear, if one ask you the mechanism of a car to move by itself, saying put the key on ignition and turning it On is not the explanation of the mechanism. The explanation of the mechanism is to explain how the engine works, what causes the engine to start working, and includes the phases of gasoline passing to a chamber, the igniting spark, the explosion, the exhaust, and etc. etc. This is what explaining a mechanism is about.

You keep saying degeneration, yet you seem unclear as to how evolution even works.

If you are incapable to answer the mechanism acting for bacteria not being affected by the second treatment of the same antibiotics, the one who never understood evolution will be you.

(I know the mechanism and it is not "evolution".)

Darwin claimed that natural selection is about favorable steps. The "variations" (mutations) must be favorable. Mutations are steps of variation in species, as general understanding.

Nope, he claimed it's about the accumulating of slight, successive, favorable variations. It's a fundamental difference

With that argument of yours one and more times, it appears that you are trying to sell me tires...

That's no counter argument now is it. Can you explain how accumulation is the same as acting?

It is the same because he wrote that his (imaginary) natural selection acts solely by the accumulation of slight, favorable... variations.'

You can omit "accumulations" and it practically says the same, natural selection acts solely by slight, favorable... variations.

Yes, it really is that simple - they are unable to avoid predators, unable to find mates, they die and with it the particular damage dies with them.

That is not natural selection, that is bad luck. A guy is crossing the street, a lightning kills him, that is bad luck. A guy lives in a rough neighborhood full of criminals, he can't find even a girlfriend because his job and low salary, he never got married, never had children and finally the criminals killed him, that is not "natural selection", that is bad luck.

Very well, if you don't mind, I would like to read at least the mechanism, how it comes such a selective pressure, when you mention "selective" means something or somebody is choosing what will be the change.

Will you expand your idea?

It's really simple, in a particular environment, the creature best suited survives and breeds, passing on its genes. The creature less well suited simply dies, not passing on its genes. This is how genes that promote survival get passed on, they survive. those that don't promote survival die with their owner. The selection happens naturally without any help at all.

Lets see. This was observed in countries with misery and not poverty. People barely eats, their bodies are practically skin and bones. The UN sent later on help to these people. When the helpers arrived they noticed that these poor healthy people had children like crazy, that a man has sex with the woman and she gets pregnant right away, at the first shot.

They compared them with healthy people, and without the use of contraceptives, the healthy people won't have such "capability" of having the woman pregnant at the first shot. Women wishing to get pregnant and having daily sex, sometimes she gets pregnant after a few days, after a few weeks, even after months and years.

But, in these populations of people living in misery, the pregnancy is way outstanding. The children learn to walk and are ready to find their own food when they reach three years of age. However, malnutrition is found in the whole population.

This reality found in Bangladesh and other countries, it totally discards your "natural selection" because when you compare the health of the average man from the US with a man from Bangladesh, the "most fittest" in theory is the American man. However, when is about reproduction, the man from Bangladesh is way more fittest than the American man.

Excuse me, but your theory really sucks. It misses the target all the time.

Oh, I see. But it happens that is a problem with the whole humans. Are you saying that "selective pressure" is taking humans out of the game and choosing other species to survive? Did you check with other species if they are suffering the same symptoms? In case is yes, then your selective pressure is malfunctioning?

I don't have to, anything that makes them less fit to survive relative to others tends to lead to them not surviving and when they don't survive, nor do their genes. That's it.

Again, it appears that you know the theory of evolution very well, but you ignore a lot of biology and physical reality.

The question asked is about a reality that is happening now, not a assumption.

The question is about the whole human race having this problem with chromosome Y. The question was if the rest of species are having the same problem, does that mean that "selective pressure" is malfunctioning?

Great, so a disease or chemical causes man to lose fingers and have atrophied extremities, and the environment is mostly dry and sand storms start to cover fertile areas, man can only crawl looking for food and water.

Again, I didn't say that, you did, it's your straw man, not mine. Whatever fits the environment is what will survive to breed. that's it.

I'm using the example of humans losing the lower extremities and crawl over a land which is now sand, because the climate changed and after drought fertile fields died without water and were attacked by insects, and etc. Same scenario than species in the past losing some characteristics but surviving in their new environment.

You say, according to your theory, that these species lost some characteristics because those were not needed anymore in the new environment. You call to that "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest".

However, when I ask you about humans losing their legs and crawling on the floor as their way to mobilize themselves, and I'm telling you that losing their legs is not showing at all that humans don't need them anymore for the new environment, your answer is obscure.

And applying the same losing of characteristics in all the species, there is not a single evidence that their new status is helping them to live better in a new environment.

Lets say the whale, which used to have legs. It was capable to survive in water and dry land. Today will survive in water alone and die if tries to live in dry land.

You have losing of characteristics equal losing of greater complexity and being more simpler, and being more simpler equals less chances to survive in a greater or lower variety of environment.

Wait a minute. The environment in the past has not been uniform, for this reason you see different kind of species and different kind of classes, etc. From such a different worldwide environment you say -as evolutionist- you have obtained the "models" of the ancient man, and from them you explain the changes. Tell me, is't the environment today similar or completely different that the environment of the first men?

Absolutely and there are a lot of predecessors that didn't make it. The reason that all modern humans are basically the same and not speciated, is because we are all related to quite recent common ancestors who left Africa only a few hundred thousand years ago.

So, you have the chart. You look at "man" in your million years ago chart, and the current man "just a few hundred thousands years ago"

Both are different. However, no "upheavals" Kant's style" are shown for the changes of the million years old man into the current man. It shows no major changes in the environment.

The question still stands. Using your chart, of course you can predict, that is what charts are used for as well.

According to the evolutionist chart, how man will be a million years from ow? This is a fair question.

The situation here is that I'm not talking about "ifs" but about current humanity depending of braces to alienate their teeth, prescribed glasses, wigs, surgeries by lots, and not only cosmetic but necessary surgeries for survival, additives in life like vitamins and medicines.

Show me an example of yours without "ifs".

And yet still those most fit to survive and breed will do so. Or in this case, we move into a period with little selective pressure and plenty of genetic drift - there's plenty of shuffling of the deck but little gets eliminated - that's precisely the opposite situation to the one you propose: there's more variation, not less.

You are including your wishes (we move into a period with little selective pressure), not so an analytical response.

There is a trend which can't be controlled by wishes, neither with imaginary scenarios. There is losing of strength in different aspects in humans, and it is continuous.

What is interesting is that you have completely ignored the one thing I asked you to respond to. That's really quite telling...

I'll post it again in a separate post so you can give it your full attention.

No, I'm not ignoring it.

What is happening is that you have great knowledge of theoretical stuff, but when is time to apply such knowledge your answers reveal that in reality you don't know much about biology. See? one thing is biology itself, as a branch of knowledge, and a different thing is a theory of biology.

Biology is not subjected to the theories of biology, but theories of biology are subjected to biology.

You can obtain knowledge in biology without the need of theories.

Theories are just attempts to explain the phenomenon, theories don't rule anything, they are necessary as an attempt to explain why changes happened. Biology itself only requires to analyze the changes and reproduce them in lab when is needed, obtain data, compare data, observe behavior, compare behavior, etc.

The theoretical part is just a complement in the branch of biology.

Your presentation is just that, the theoretical part.

I asked you above, to explain a mechanism of bacteria surviving a second treatment of antibiotics after a failed former treatment.

It is expected not a theoretical response but and answer explaining the causes of such failure with the second treatment. What happened?

 

[Kharakov]

Just making sure- you do understand that a favorable mutation during one period isn't necessarily favorable forever, right?

I didn't read the pages and pages nitpicking on inconsequential details of evolutionary theory. Wait, they are inconsequential, right?


As to bacteria, and any being at the energy threshold level of existence, realize that faster reproduction is sometimes favored, producing proteins that block certain antibiotics is favored at other times.

Latent genes can become reactivated in the presence of the antibiotics, via some signalling mechanism (probably useful bacteriophage, or cute, hand written RNA notes with little hearts drawn on them).

 

[Hermit]

The referral of the beginning of the theory of evolution is fair.

If its genesis of the theory is false, then the theory is false. "Simple".

(Hermit: do you understand now why Kant's context really arguments man as descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees? if and when. is not if and then.)

Darwin's theory of evolution is not Anaximander's theory of evolution, nor is it Kant's.

And no, in the marginal footnote you quotemined Kant does not assert that homo sapiens evolved from the orang-utan or the chimpanzee. With sufficient reading comprehension you would have noticed that Kant was speculating that if a third epoch was brought about among the orang-utans or the chimpanzees by way of a natural revolution, they too might in time develop the innermost organ enabling the faculty for understanding concepts, which would then gradually evolve through social culture - just like it has already happened in humans. It's no accident that Kant started that footnote with the crying newborn and what it tells him.

 

[George S]

<footnote> When I started this thread I didn't think it would become a thread about evolution by natural selection.</footnote>

Evolution by natural selection is a simple concept. Over generations a population changes -- that is evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is the theory that the observed evolution of species is due to nature, not any god (or if you must anthropomorphize, Mother Nature).

Our breeding of dogs and other domestic animals is environmental selection. We are the environment that selects. We happen to know about it. However, the shaping of the Gnu by predators is not a conscious act. Yet, it is the same thing. Small change over many generations.

 

[humbleman]

Just making sure- you do understand that a favorable mutation during one period isn't necessarily favorable forever, right?

I didn't read the pages and pages nitpicking on inconsequential details of evolutionary theory. Wait, they are inconsequential, right?


As to bacteria, and any being at the energy threshold level of existence, realize that faster reproduction is sometimes favored, producing proteins that block certain antibiotics is favored at other times.

Latent genes can become reactivated in the presence of the antibiotics, via some signalling mechanism (probably useful bacteriophage, or cute, hand written RNA notes with little hearts drawn on them).

I can say yes, they are inconsequential. The observation reveals that species are not following the assumed trend the theory of evolution dictates.

No. That is not why the second treatment of antibiotics won't work after the failed first treatment which was incomplete and caused the nocive bacteria to stay in the body.

The common idea is bacteria becoming more "resistant" and similar, an idea which is incorrect. In order to understand what is happening you better check first how antibiotics work.

 

[George S]

Just making sure- you do understand that a favorable mutation during one period isn't necessarily favorable forever, right?

I didn't read the pages and pages nitpicking on inconsequential details of evolutionary theory. Wait, they are inconsequential, right?


As to bacteria, and any being at the energy threshold level of existence, realize that faster reproduction is sometimes favored, producing proteins that block certain antibiotics is favored at other times.

Latent genes can become reactivated in the presence of the antibiotics, via some signalling mechanism (probably useful bacteriophage, or cute, hand written RNA notes with little hearts drawn on them).

I can say yes, they are inconsequential. The observation reveals that species are not following the assumed trend the theory of evolution dictates.

Evolutionary theory does not predict nor dictate anything other than those who survive to breed contribute to the gene pool, those that do not do not contribute.

No. That is not why the second treatment of antibiotics won't work after the failed first treatment which was incomplete and caused the nocive bacteria to stay in the body.

No.

The common idea is bacteria becoming more "resistant" and similar, an idea which is incorrect. In order to understand what is happening you better check first how antibiotics work.

No. Bacteria have many generation in a short time. Once in a while a bacterium is an imperfect copy -- an imperfect clone. Once in a great while this bacterium has resistance to the antibiotic that kills its clones. No bacterium becomes more resistant. The gene pool certainly can.

 

[humbleman]

The referral of the beginning of the theory of evolution is fair.

If its genesis of the theory is false, then the theory is false. "Simple".

(Hermit: do you understand now why Kant's context really arguments man as descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees? if and when. is not if and then.)

Darwin's theory of evolution is not Anaximander's theory of evolution, nor is it Kant's.

And no, in the marginal footnote you quotemined Kant does not assert that homo sapiens evolved from the orang-utan or the chimpanzee. With sufficient reading comprehension you would have noticed that Kant was speculating that if a third epoch was brought about among the orang-utans or the chimpanzees by way of a natural revolution, they too might in time develop the innermost organ enabling the faculty for understanding concepts, which would then gradually evolve through social culture - just like it has already happened in humans. It's no accident that Kant started that footnote with the crying newborn and what it tells him.

The ideas of Anaximander weren't used by me as part of the root of the theory of evolution, but as a referral that before the theory in question, former thinkers idealized humans as descendants of a former species. Anaximander's ideas can be taken more as "transformation" rather than "evolution".

For your understanding, theories themselves are also speculations.

The misunderstanding is that theories are the facts or observations themselves.

Theories are attempts to explain a phenomenon of a certain class as a consequence of a former phenomenon of the same class.

It is obvious that Kant was speculating, making a hypothesis. These speculations were the root for the creation of a theory with a systematic method.

I have read Kant, and recognizing that this dude was good, on the other hand he is a great disappointment. I wasted hours and hours reading his thoughts about space, to later read that he decided to consider space as subjective just because he found out that time was subjective. His writings about human races were typical of the influence of a common prejudice in that era.

The relationship idealized by him between orangutans and chimpanzees with humans was used to establish the theory of evolution.

They didn't call it "the theory of change" but the theory of "evolution" because the theory will always imply a change from inferior to superior.

When evolutionists decided later on to make the word "evolution" into a technical term meaning whatever they want, such was the end of the primeval theory of evolution.

The change on the meaning of the technical word "evolution" in the theory was made because the primeval theory of evolution was false.

Knowing that religious people will jump of happiness because the failure of the theory of evolution, is when evolutionists decided to say they were "updating" their theory.

But in science, you only update valid theories, the ones found false are just discarded. The primeval theory of evolution was false and legally discarded.

Evolutionists survived thanks to their cover up. Here, opponents are defending a fallacy, trying to deny that Darwin was indeed wrong. Their "*ss" is in trouble, because having Darwin wrong the whole theory -old and new- are found false.

Face it and be conscious that because a stupid fanaticism of being against religion, evolutionists are propagating a fallacy defending it with obstinate behavior. New generations are inheriting their big lie, but evolutionists won't care as long as religion is continually attacked with their superfluous ideas.

 

[humbleman]

<footnote> When I started this thread I didn't think it would become a thread about evolution by natural selection.</footnote>

Evolution by natural selection is a simple concept. Over generations a population changes -- that is evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is the theory that the observed evolution of species is due to nature, not any god (or if you must anthropomorphize, Mother Nature).

Our breeding of dogs and other domestic animals is environmental selection. We are the environment that selects. We happen to know about it. However, the shaping of the Gnu by predators is not a conscious act. Yet, it is the same thing. Small change over many generations.

Actually, the main point here is the primeval ideas from which the theory of evolution was built.

Darwin never said that natural selection was solely a "change".

Darwin gave requirements in his natural selection, he established conditions for his natural selection.

His natural selection will act SOLELY by accumulating favorable, slight... steps.

See?

Darwin didn't propose just "changes", but that the changes will follow the conditions of his theory.

Decades later, the conditions, the requirements, the doctrine of Darwin was found false.

Here, evolutionists decided to change the doctrine, and this new doctrine is what you have inherited, when the technical word "evolution" in the new theory simply means "change without an arrow, without a direction".

Here, I'm demonstrating that "the change it does have a direction: degeneration".

Then, the theory of evolution is found false again.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Here, I'm demonstrating that "the change it does have a direction: degeneration".

Then, the theory of evolution is found false again.

I still haven't seen your demonstration.

I still haven't seen anything even remotely like a demonstration.

As far as I can tell, you're not even trying to articulate one.

You're merely repeating here and there that you're demonstrating.

Here is what 'demonstration' means, just in case:

Demonstration
The act or process of providing evidence for or showing the truth of something

EB

 

[George S]

<footnote> When I started this thread I didn't think it would become a thread about evolution by natural selection.</footnote>

Evolution by natural selection is a simple concept. Over generations a population changes -- that is evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is the theory that the observed evolution of species is due to nature, not any god (or if you must anthropomorphize, Mother Nature).

Our breeding of dogs and other domestic animals is environmental selection. We are the environment that selects. We happen to know about it. However, the shaping of the Gnu by predators is not a conscious act. Yet, it is the same thing. Small change over many generations.

Actually, the main point here is the primeval ideas from which the theory of evolution was built.

Darwin never said that natural selection was solely a "change".

Darwin gave requirements in his natural selection, he established conditions for his natural selection.

His natural selection will act SOLELY by accumulating favorable, slight... steps.

See?

Darwin didn't propose just "changes", but that the changes will follow the conditions of his theory.

Decades later, the conditions, the requirements, the doctrine of Darwin was found false.

Here, evolutionists decided to change the doctrine, and this new doctrine is what you have inherited, when the technical word "evolution" in the new theory simply means "change without an arrow, without a direction".

Here, I'm demonstrating that "the change it does have a direction: degeneration".

Then, the theory of evolution is found false again.

I don't care what Darwin or anyone else said. Appeals to authority are fallacies. Appeals to ancient authority are even worse.

When our species separated from the Chimps there was an imperfect DNA copying incident. Two chromosomes attached end to end. All the genes are there so that ancestor of humans but not chimps looked like his parent just as did the brother who was the ancestor of all chimps but not humans. Sufficiently alike so they raised him or her. Each line has survived to this very day. There are many branches from that human ancestor -- all but homo sapiens extinct.

So was that fusion a degeneration? Chimps are still around virtually unchanged.

 

[bilby]

<footnote> When I started this thread I didn't think it would become a thread about evolution by natural selection.</footnote>

Evolution by natural selection is a simple concept. Over generations a population changes -- that is evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is the theory that the observed evolution of species is due to nature, not any god (or if you must anthropomorphize, Mother Nature).

Our breeding of dogs and other domestic animals is environmental selection. We are the environment that selects. We happen to know about it. However, the shaping of the Gnu by predators is not a conscious act. Yet, it is the same thing. Small change over many generations.

LOOK OUT!! HE'S GOT A GNU!

 

[Tharmas]

...
Darwin grew up under the influence of species evolving from inferior to superior, worst to better, simpler to more complex. This is why the theory was titled "evolution" because such was the only meaning of that word in those years.
...

Interestingly, Darwin didn't use the term "evolution" in The Origin of Species, probably to avoid confusion with the idea of progress, which you correctly point out was the popular meaning of the term in the mid 19th century. Darwin used terms like "transmutation," "descent with modification," and "natural selection" throughout The Origin.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Up to here you were using the guerrilla style responding my message, throwing a stone and running to hide somewhere.

In your last answer you seem to ignore in purpose the context which implies that man coming from fish is assumed by the first steps in his development, the Greek thought wasn't talking about the steps of pregnancy in progress. Nice try.



The referral of the beginning of the theory of evolution is fair.

If its genesis of the theory is false, then the theory is false. "Simple".

(Hermit: do you understand now why Kant's context really arguments man as descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees? if and when. is not if and then.)

Hang on are you using the fact that people were influenced by Darwin to support the claim that Darwin was influenced by others. That's just odd, and wrong.

You yourself are under the influence of Darwin thoughts.

Darwin grew up under the influence of species evolving from inferior to superior, worst to better, simpler to more complex. This is why the theory was titled "evolution" because such was the only meaning of that word in those years.

Really? I thought natural selection was a process by which the less fit tended not to survive to breed while the more fit did. The notion of things being 'favourable' is putting the cart before the horse. I really would recommend that you get clear about the processes underpinning evolution before making claims like this.

On the contrary, according to Darwin if no favorable then no natural selection. Period.

He didn't ignore, he was unaware of both mutations and anything that could mutate as it hadn't been discovered yet.

You are suffering a weird mutation in nature with those words, your nose is getting longer.

Darwin was an ignorant about mutations and genetics. His variations are supposed to be solely favorable accumulations of... of what? Mutations cause the lost of characteristics, so Darwin was wrong the whole way after all.

Of course they can: failed theories are either reduced or eliminated. Reduction involves making connections between the ontology, methodology and attitudes of the old theory and the new. Elimination is self explanatory. That said, what exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure that the central mechanisms of evolution remains unchanged since Darwin. Perhaps you can explain the change you describe.

Great, show me one of those mechanisms.

Tell me how it comes that bacteria is not affected by antibiotics after a bad treatment.

This is to say, the individual was supposed to take antibiotics two times a day for ten days. The individual felt better after three days and stop taking the antibiotics. He got sick again later on, and it was the same class of bacteria, which stayed in his body surviving the former treatment. At this time the new treatment with the same antibiotics didn't work.

Explain -you can use analogies if you want- what happened? How it comes that bacteria is not affected by the same antibiotic treatment?

Responding that is "natural selection" "survival of the fittest", and lose phrases without meaning is not accepted as an answer to the question of explaining the mechanism.

To be more clear, if one ask you the mechanism of a car to move by itself, saying put the key on ignition and turning it On is not the explanation of the mechanism. The explanation of the mechanism is to explain how the engine works, what causes the engine to start working, and includes the phases of gasoline passing to a chamber, the igniting spark, the explosion, the exhaust, and etc. etc. This is what explaining a mechanism is about.

You keep saying degeneration, yet you seem unclear as to how evolution even works.

If you are incapable to answer the mechanism acting for bacteria not being affected by the second treatment of the same antibiotics, the one who never understood evolution will be you.

(I know the mechanism and it is not "evolution".)

Darwin claimed that natural selection is about favorable steps. The "variations" (mutations) must be favorable. Mutations are steps of variation in species, as general understanding.

Nope, he claimed it's about the accumulating of slight, successive, favorable variations. It's a fundamental difference

With that argument of yours one and more times, it appears that you are trying to sell me tires...

That's no counter argument now is it. Can you explain how accumulation is the same as acting?

It is the same because he wrote that his (imaginary) natural selection acts solely by the accumulation of slight, favorable... variations.'

You can omit "accumulations" and it practically says the same, natural selection acts solely by slight, favorable... variations.

Yes, it really is that simple - they are unable to avoid predators, unable to find mates, they die and with it the particular damage dies with them.

That is not natural selection, that is bad luck. A guy is crossing the street, a lightning kills him, that is bad luck. A guy lives in a rough neighborhood full of criminals, he can't find even a girlfriend because his job and low salary, he never got married, never had children and finally the criminals killed him, that is not "natural selection", that is bad luck.

Very well, if you don't mind, I would like to read at least the mechanism, how it comes such a selective pressure, when you mention "selective" means something or somebody is choosing what will be the change.

Will you expand your idea?

It's really simple, in a particular environment, the creature best suited survives and breeds, passing on its genes. The creature less well suited simply dies, not passing on its genes. This is how genes that promote survival get passed on, they survive. those that don't promote survival die with their owner. The selection happens naturally without any help at all.

Lets see. This was observed in countries with misery and not poverty. People barely eats, their bodies are practically skin and bones. The UN sent later on help to these people. When the helpers arrived they noticed that these poor healthy people had children like crazy, that a man has sex with the woman and she gets pregnant right away, at the first shot.

They compared them with healthy people, and without the use of contraceptives, the healthy people won't have such "capability" of having the woman pregnant at the first shot. Women wishing to get pregnant and having daily sex, sometimes she gets pregnant after a few days, after a few weeks, even after months and years.

But, in these populations of people living in misery, the pregnancy is way outstanding. The children learn to walk and are ready to find their own food when they reach three years of age. However, malnutrition is found in the whole population.

This reality found in Bangladesh and other countries, it totally discards your "natural selection" because when you compare the health of the average man from the US with a man from Bangladesh, the "most fittest" in theory is the American man. However, when is about reproduction, the man from Bangladesh is way more fittest than the American man.

Excuse me, but your theory really sucks. It misses the target all the time.

Oh, I see. But it happens that is a problem with the whole humans. Are you saying that "selective pressure" is taking humans out of the game and choosing other species to survive? Did you check with other species if they are suffering the same symptoms? In case is yes, then your selective pressure is malfunctioning?

I don't have to, anything that makes them less fit to survive relative to others tends to lead to them not surviving and when they don't survive, nor do their genes. That's it.

Again, it appears that you know the theory of evolution very well, but you ignore a lot of biology and physical reality.

The question asked is about a reality that is happening now, not a assumption.

The question is about the whole human race having this problem with chromosome Y. The question was if the rest of species are having the same problem, does that mean that "selective pressure" is malfunctioning?

Great, so a disease or chemical causes man to lose fingers and have atrophied extremities, and the environment is mostly dry and sand storms start to cover fertile areas, man can only crawl looking for food and water.

Again, I didn't say that, you did, it's your straw man, not mine. Whatever fits the environment is what will survive to breed. that's it.

I'm using the example of humans losing the lower extremities and crawl over a land which is now sand, because the climate changed and after drought fertile fields died without water and were attacked by insects, and etc. Same scenario than species in the past losing some characteristics but surviving in their new environment.

You say, according to your theory, that these species lost some characteristics because those were not needed anymore in the new environment. You call to that "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest".

However, when I ask you about humans losing their legs and crawling on the floor as their way to mobilize themselves, and I'm telling you that losing their legs is not showing at all that humans don't need them anymore for the new environment, your answer is obscure.

And applying the same losing of characteristics in all the species, there is not a single evidence that their new status is helping them to live better in a new environment.

Lets say the whale, which used to have legs. It was capable to survive in water and dry land. Today will survive in water alone and die if tries to live in dry land.

You have losing of characteristics equal losing of greater complexity and being more simpler, and being more simpler equals less chances to survive in a greater or lower variety of environment.

Wait a minute. The environment in the past has not been uniform, for this reason you see different kind of species and different kind of classes, etc. From such a different worldwide environment you say -as evolutionist- you have obtained the "models" of the ancient man, and from them you explain the changes. Tell me, is't the environment today similar or completely different that the environment of the first men?

Absolutely and there are a lot of predecessors that didn't make it. The reason that all modern humans are basically the same and not speciated, is because we are all related to quite recent common ancestors who left Africa only a few hundred thousand years ago.

So, you have the chart. You look at "man" in your million years ago chart, and the current man "just a few hundred thousands years ago"

Both are different. However, no "upheavals" Kant's style" are shown for the changes of the million years old man into the current man. It shows no major changes in the environment.

The question still stands. Using your chart, of course you can predict, that is what charts are used for as well.

According to the evolutionist chart, how man will be a million years from ow? This is a fair question.

The situation here is that I'm not talking about "ifs" but about current humanity depending of braces to alienate their teeth, prescribed glasses, wigs, surgeries by lots, and not only cosmetic but necessary surgeries for survival, additives in life like vitamins and medicines.

Show me an example of yours without "ifs".

And yet still those most fit to survive and breed will do so. Or in this case, we move into a period with little selective pressure and plenty of genetic drift - there's plenty of shuffling of the deck but little gets eliminated - that's precisely the opposite situation to the one you propose: there's more variation, not less.

You are including your wishes (we move into a period with little selective pressure), not so an analytical response.

There is a trend which can't be controlled by wishes, neither with imaginary scenarios. There is losing of strength in different aspects in humans, and it is continuous.

What is interesting is that you have completely ignored the one thing I asked you to respond to. That's really quite telling...

I'll post it again in a separate post so you can give it your full attention.

No, I'm not ignoring it.

What is happening is that you have great knowledge of theoretical stuff, but when is time to apply such knowledge your answers reveal that in reality you don't know much about biology. See? one thing is biology itself, as a branch of knowledge, and a different thing is a theory of biology.

Biology is not subjected to the theories of biology, but theories of biology are subjected to biology.

You can obtain knowledge in biology without the need of theories.

Theories are just attempts to explain the phenomenon, theories don't rule anything, they are necessary as an attempt to explain why changes happened. Biology itself only requires to analyze the changes and reproduce them in lab when is needed, obtain data, compare data, observe behavior, compare behavior, etc.

The theoretical part is just a complement in the branch of biology.

Your presentation is just that, the theoretical part.

I asked you above, to explain a mechanism of bacteria surviving a second treatment of antibiotics after a failed former treatment.

It is expected not a theoretical response but and answer explaining the causes of such failure with the second treatment. What happened?

I'm not going to bother fisking this farrago of insults and nonsense. Instead, I'll do what you have signally failed to do and respond to your specific challenge:

I asked you above, to explain a mechanism of bacteria surviving a second treatment of antibiotics after a failed former treatment.

Here's the really simple version: you have a colony of bacteria. They are not all the same. Some are quite sensitive to an antibiotic, some are barely sensitive at all. When you take the first course of the antibiotic you change the environment to one that is toxic to the bacteria. All of the sensitive bacteria are no longer fit to survive in the environment and die. Many, but not all, of the insensitive bacteria die. Those that survive begin reproducing at a fairly standard bacterial rate of doubling every twenty minutes. Within a day or two they are back to their original numbers. The difference is that now there are no sensitive bacteria, only insensitive ones. As a result, next time you take the antibiotics, only a few bacteria die as they are now better adapted to the new environment. Now that they are comfortable, they enter a phase of genetic drift in which new variations spread out as mutations and Horizontal Gene Transfer increase the diversity of the population.

That's the quick version. Here's a long version:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3982203/

Any questions?

I note you are still avoiding a proper response to my description of evolution. I'll post it again later for you as a helpful vade mecum and you can try again. Sadly, when I first left school I was fortunate to work for a few years at The unfortunately named National Institute for Research into Dairying where I specialised in the varying gut bacteria of milk cows. I've only got an HNC here, but I have three years of hands on experience dealing with gut bacteria, and to be fair, cowshit. It was only after I went to university that I changed gender.

The fact is that you are too good at avoiding the truth not to realise what the truth is. The way you worm around it shows that, however dimly, you know you are wrong. That leaves the question why you are doing it.

I still think it's religion and I just want to point out that the only reason religion hates evolution is that it answers the question, posed so many times by religion: there's so much good design in the world, how could it have got there without a designer. The fact is that evolution explains neatly just how that design got there without a deity. The stupid thing is that this isn't an argument about God, it's an argument against one argument for God. The faithful should just let it go and use other arguments, rather than making fools of themselves trying to fight a fight they are doomed to lose against people who understand the beauty and power of this explanation.

 

[Kharakov]

Just making sure- you do understand that a favorable mutation during one period isn't necessarily favorable forever, right?

I didn't read the pages and pages nitpicking on inconsequential details of evolutionary theory. Wait, they are inconsequential, right?


As to bacteria, and any being at the energy threshold level of existence, realize that faster reproduction is sometimes favored, producing proteins that block certain antibiotics is favored at other times.

Latent genes can become reactivated in the presence of the antibiotics, via some signalling mechanism (probably useful bacteriophage, or cute, hand written RNA notes with little hearts drawn on them).

The observation reveals that species are not following the assumed trend the theory of evolution dictates.

No. Unless you're simply nitpicking on some little bits of the wording, rather than the theory itself? The theory has a modern form you can address, you know.

No. That is not why the second treatment of antibiotics won't work after the failed first treatment which was incomplete and caused the nocive bacteria to stay in the body.

Generally, the slower reproducing bacteria that have the mutation that produces the protein reproduce... slower. And are a smaller percentage of the total population. The gene probably is turned on in a small percentage of the population over time, those bacteria happen to survive. Maybe there is an equally likely chance that the gene will turn off in a large population with the gene.

The common idea is bacteria becoming more "resistant" and similar, an idea which is incorrect.

Your idea then. I'm not too familiar with it?

I'm familiar with the idea that bacteria that have resistance genes are a smaller percentage of the population, in general, because producing anti-antibiotics is costly energy wise, so taps into energy that could be spent on reproduction. If the rest of the population gets killed off, they become more prevalent.

If there are too few of them, and the big portion of the population of bacteria gets killed off, the host's immune system takes care of the rest. If you leave enough bacteria behind that they can get a foothold, there is a better chance that the antiantibiotic bacteria establish themselves in the host.

 

[fromderinside]

Sheesh. The change in population due to loss of those who are susceptible is not the bacteria becoming becoming more resistant. It is those reproducing are more fit given conditions. Evolving. Or, as George S puts it:

Modern evolutionary theory is the theory that the observed evolution of species is due to nature, not any god (or if you must anthropomorphize, Mother Nature).

 

[Subsymbolic]

<footnote> When I started this thread I didn't think it would become a thread about evolution by natural selection.</footnote>

Evolution by natural selection is a simple concept. Over generations a population changes -- that is evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is the theory that the observed evolution of species is due to nature, not any god (or if you must anthropomorphize, Mother Nature).

Our breeding of dogs and other domestic animals is environmental selection. We are the environment that selects. We happen to know about it. However, the shaping of the Gnu by predators is not a conscious act. Yet, it is the same thing. Small change over many generations.

LOOK OUT!! HE'S GOT A GNU!

Why is it that Gnu lovers always seem to believe in dog?

 

[George S]

<footnote> When I started this thread I didn't think it would become a thread about evolution by natural selection.</footnote>

Evolution by natural selection is a simple concept. Over generations a population changes -- that is evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is the theory that the observed evolution of species is due to nature, not any god (or if you must anthropomorphize, Mother Nature).

Our breeding of dogs and other domestic animals is environmental selection. We are the environment that selects. We happen to know about it. However, the shaping of the Gnu by predators is not a conscious act. Yet, it is the same thing. Small change over many generations.

LOOK OUT!! HE'S GOT A GNU!

Why is it that Gnu lovers always seem to believe in dog?

I don't know why I capitalized it. If I had chosen the antelope I don't think I would have said Antelope.

Back to the sub-topic -- evolution.

Evolution by natural selection is a simple concept. Over generations a population changes -- that is evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is the theory that the observed evolution of species is due to nature, not any god (or if you must anthropomorphize, Mother Nature).

Our breeding of dogs and other domestic animals is environmental selection. We are the environment that selects. We happen to know about it. However, the shaping of the antelope by predators is not a conscious act. Yet, it is the same thing. Small change over many generations.

As fromderinside says, no individual bacterium evolves.

It is those reproducing are more fit given conditions.

Fitness in the context of evolution is fitness to survive and reproduce.

 

[George S]

<footnote> When I started this thread I didn't think it would become a thread about evolution by natural selection.</footnote>

Evolution by natural selection is a simple concept. Over generations a population changes -- that is evolution. Modern evolutionary theory is the theory that the observed evolution of species is due to nature, not any god (or if you must anthropomorphize, Mother Nature).

Our breeding of dogs and other domestic animals is environmental selection. We are the environment that selects. We happen to know about it. However, the shaping of the Gnu by predators is not a conscious act. Yet, it is the same thing. Small change over many generations.

LOOK OUT!! HE'S GOT A GNU!

Why is it that Gnu lovers always seem to believe in dog?

I believe that the dog kind exists due to evidence, not "belief in."