I’m going to keep skimming along but that’s the tension here … is the OP having an episode of some sort, or is it yanking folks’ chains for the yucks and folks are obliging?
Either way it is puzzling that so many are responding as if there is a real discussion to be had.
Okay there is this:
Nah. Pretty much everyone else here at least understands the very basics of natural selection. You’re not teaching here.
There are a lot of posters here. I give almost everyone a chance. If a bunch of people each engage briefly, it looks like a discussion.
And to be fair, some real discussion can be set off by a troll post.
So to this:
You may be interested in this book:
Examining the psychological debate around “positive illusions” and Jordan’s fixation on the preservation of biological hierarchy, she warns against his dogmatic and certain approach to order, pointing to recent scientific breakthroughs that have diminished the existence of fish as a distinct evolutionary category as evidence that “nature is more boundless and bountiful than anything we can imagine”.[3][7] Miller concludes, contrary to the beliefs of both her father and Jordan, that, whilst the universe is fundamentally chaotic, the subjective search for meaning is attainable, through our interpersonal relationships with one another and curiosity for the world around us.[2][8]
It of course overlaps with points you have made, and I have agreed about, regarding autism nosology in another thread.
And i have learned a new word from you, “nosology”. It sounds so much like “nose” that it looks fake. 
Is the title based on the notion that “fish” is everything left over after we classified the stuff we care about, that lives in water and is multicellular?
So…getting banned from the entire board would be the greatest victory of all?
Can’t read the article without giving them info.
However, I strongly suspect that the dogs domesticated us as much as vice versa.
Yup. Most humans seem to like to think in neat binaries. The universe doesn’t seem to actually work that way.
No sense in discussing anything with somebody who thinks like that. They’ve told you they’re not listening.
Some of the rest of this thread is interesting, though.
I just hope they never work as a prosecutor.
Hunh. I’ve been proven wrong and @Darren_Garrison right. You’ve closed your eyes to the real world.
Greg Egan had a character meet someone with your philosophy, and his sane character said of him:
“I told him that if he was ever embodied in a space-suit, floating among the stars, he ought to try sneezing on the face plate to improve the view.”
The value of posts like the OP’s is not contained in the post. Convincing the obstinate is pointless. Refining an argument and communicating it to others, including a silent audience does have a point. Parallel communication like a message board isn’t practically constrained so outside of massive spam “someone being wrong on the internet” is utterly meaningless.
I learned that word too! And “etiology.”
Is this performance art?
I know nothing about evolution but I know what serious thinking is. This is not it.
Not far off. Yes that it is an arbitrary box: basically that it’s not possible to draw a circle around “fish” that doesn’t have to either leave out some fish-like ancestors or include mammals, and birds. Some “fish” apparently are genetically closer to humans than to some other “fish” Truth in advertising - it’s a book on my to read list having heard a radio show discussion of it, but the story is more about how that represents some human process that has implications far beyond the place of “fish” within evolution and genetics, eugenics and family relationships get in the mix. Our need to perceive neat boxes that reality may not respect. I really need to get around to reading it!
The fish thing has come up before on some science Youtube channels I watch, and the discussion is usually around how a term that is so basic about something so important to humans is basically meaningless. “Fish” is so broad and arbitrary that it’s basically impossible to make a proper definition of it, which is somewhat unusual even for paraphyletic (not evolutionary based) groups. Like, we’re more closely related to bony fishes than sharks are to bony fishes, and that’s also true for lobe-finned fish and lung-fish compared to ray-finned fish, but we group all of them together and not us. So it’s not evolutionary, but it’s also not about body-plan because of things like lampreys, starfish, or jellyfish. You can’t say a fish is “all mobile multicellular aquatic organisms” because most people wouldn’t consider lobster or clams fish. You can’t say it’s about swimming because of things like octopus, salps, or krill. It just comes down to the old porn thing: “I know it when I see it”.
I read the book - it has some real twists and goes to some dark places in history and in the author’s life but it’s well worth reading
(Checks forum) So what you’re saying is you never convince anyone with facts, you just bore, annoy, or wear them out. And you call that “winning”?
So your evidence that Darwin was wrong is to point to one of the very examples Darwin used to explain selection? In this case it was probably a bit of natural selection leading to artificial selection and deliberate breeding.
You are demonstrating your ignorance.
“Survival of the fittest” isn’t even Darwin’s phrasing. Also note that Darwin was working without knowing anything about genetics. Mendel was still doing his discoveries while Darwin and Russell were publishing.
Darwinian evolution predicts genetics. He proposed there had to be a mechanism, evident by everything from breeding livestock to human family resemblances.
You just said “what doesn’t work fails and what does passes on its DNA”, and then say “all individuals are equally fit.”
That’s a self-contradiction. If they are equally fit, any generic variation is happenstance and will be averaged out across a population. For genetics to have a role, it has to contribute some meaningful difference in appearance or behavior.
The “bottlenecks” you are talking about are anything that provides a survival advantage. Not a guarantee, just an advantage. That is necessarily compared against a threat to survival. “Survival of the fittest” could better be stated “differences in individuals that provide survival advantage lead to passing along those advantages more often than the individuals without those advantages pass on their traits,” but that’s a cumbersome mouthful.
Staggering self-blindness. You describe one element of Evolution and then declare there is no “Evolution”. You don’t know the meaning of the words, or you’re a staggering idiot. And “or” is being generous.
What does “free will” have to do with it? What does Einstein have to do with a discussion on Evolution? What are you smoking, and can I have some?
Gradual change in species does occur. Genetic drift is a slow process.
Sudden situation changes do provide impetus for more rapid speciation. But gradual processes are at play that provide the variation in individuals that allows a bottleneck to have survivors.
You keep saying they are equally fit and then saying the sorting causes the speciation. If they are equally fit, there is no distinction to sort.
Fit just means in this context that it has a survival advantage. That advantage is being a better “fit” to its niche.
Once again, flaunting your ignorance as of you know more. If you don’t understand “I think, therefore I am,” that suggests you know nothing about what Descartes was trying to argue. Of course it sounds meaningless when stripped out of all context. “Happy Birthday to You” is meaningless when stripped of all context.
So your idea is to rediscover all science from scratch, reproducing all the errors and missteps that anyone ever made along the way.
Defining evidence as data that fits existing belief is the hallmark of pseudoscience. Science tries to search out data that doesn’t conform in order to test where theories are flawed.
You’ve pretty much declared yourself ignorant and willfully uninformed. Your ideas might as well be gibberish. They have no coherence or explanatory power that is not already a part of standard science.
Yup. Another way to state his claim is, “I have not once in my life persuaded anybody that I might have a point.”
He might have a track record of winning arguments, but only by defining “winning” as “irritating other people until they go away.” It’s not a definition I find useful.
No; it’s faith. Define the “truth” first, and demand all evidence be twisted to fit it or be ignored.
This book was just reviewed on a segment Minnesota Public Radio. I liked the “It’s short” part of the interview.
Its exploration of how and why animals are classified the way they are will make you more curious about the world, Erdrich says.
"It’s more than just a science book. It is a book about love. It is a book about discovering yourself. It is a book about not holding on to the rules that were made up around us and trying to figure out where we fit in the world.” she said.
“And it’s funny. It’s bright. It’s short. There are illustrations that are very beautiful that kind of give you a peek into her mind. It’s just, for me, a nearly perfect book. I have no notes for Miss Miller!”
That resonated more in the early 2000’s when this board saw a lot more traffic, both regulars, drive-bys and curious lookiee-loos. These days it is mostly an ever-smaller and ever more insular group debating among ourselves on our dinosaur media.
Which is fine for what it is. I still enjoy the intra-board chatter. But I don’t think we’re influencing many, if any silent onlookers. It’s why political debate here is so spectacularly low stakes - almost nobody is listening. When we start “debating” nonsense with folks who aren’t even interested in debate, it’s just entertainment for folks who enjoy that sort of thing. More power to those individuals, I’m not demanding we shut it down. But at this point I’d say the moral imperative to fight ignorance of the preposterously nonsensical variety on this particular message board is getting fairly low.
If we’re on the subject, I’d like to give a shout-out to my favorite podcast, No Such Thing as a Fish. It’s a highly informative and very funny weekly podcast from the research staff of the veteran British panel show QI, and its name comes from this exact discussion we’re having.