“What works” and “fittest” mean exactly the same thing.
I’m trying to figure out if this thread is popcorn worthy.
So far no, but hope springs eternal!
I read this OP to my husband and he immediately suggested that video. It’s seemed to spark the same reaction for a lot of people.
Quoted for truth. This is only slightly different from those who think they have won an argument by shouting the loudest (an in-person tactic that I have seen more than a few times in my life).
Where did Darwin say something different than this?
In a sense every individual on earth is the same species because we have a common ancestor. In a more real sense every individual on earth is its own species because there can be no two identical individuals. We have unique DNA and unique experience gained from unique models.
Dogs were inside of wolves and coaxed out through an artificial bottleneck that excluded aggressive and frightened individuals.
No. What works is a mechanism, “fitness” is a post hoc label with no meaning.
Cool. Sounds like artificial selection. I know a guy who used the example of artificial selection in dogs to come up with an idea called “natural selection” - sounds like you’ve rediscovered his work.
You missed the point I think. Real bottlenecks do the exact same thing; they select for unusual behavior and these survivors with their unusual DNA create a brand new species. There is no “Evolution” and no “survival of the fittest”. It’s nonsense born of the Great Chain of Being and 19th century prejudice. Species change when typical behavior fails at bottlenecks. Species change through DNA and behavior not through fitness.
The map science has drawn does not fit the terrain at a great number of points because the science is categorical recursion and many of the forces that shape reality can not even be defined much less categorized. Where did Darwin consider “free will”? How did Einstein define constraint?
cladking Monday, August 10 at 8:47 PM
You missed the point I think. Real bottlenecks do the exact same thing; they select for unusual behavior and these survivors with their unusual DNA create a brand new species.
We call that “evolution”
cladking Monday, August 10 at 8:47 PM
Species change when typical behavior fails at bottlenecks. Species change through DNA and behavior not through fitness.
“fitness” is the result of behavior and DNA.
It’s fun to pretend to have invented an old discovery, but embarrassing to get carried away with the fantasy.
About 95% of this is pure bullshit, but the other 5% of it is just a restatement of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which has been around since the 50’s. It also is not in any way inconsistent with Darwin’s work.
Well sure, as Pauli once put it, the premise of the OP is so flawed it’s not even wrong
What I’m wondering, and maybe I’m missing something obvious here, but why did he start this thread in the Pit? It was most likely going to wind up here anyway, but it seems like an odd decision to me.
“Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.”
Back to my chicken example on post #2:
Now I really don’t see any bottleneck or “coaxing” for something like this to occur…
Maybe I’m missing something, but…
WHAT THE FUCK IS BEING PITTED HERE?
Nothing. It seems that our resident royalty, the King of Clad, is tired of having his threads in the regular forums closed, so His Majesty hit on the idea of regaling us with his anti-science genius observations here in the Pit.
The previous thread in GD had as its main theme the idea that every physicist in the world was wrong about everything, especially the fools who thought they could use math to calculate things. This one has a more modest objective – just to prove that Charles Darwin was wrong about everything, too.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s going to be very entertaining.
Doesn’t that violate one of the very few explicit rules that we have for the Pit?
I thought i might post something like
Or
But i see it’s been done.
@cladking , you might want to read the Wikipedia article
Which says things like:
In the fourth edition (1866) of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that “the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.”[88] Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin’s conception of evolution.[86]
You also might enjoy some of Steven J Gould’s books.
The cool thing about this is that the cladking will eventually tire of us and go away.