[__ Science __ ] Darwinistspeak: "Individuals don't evolve, populations evolve!"

[Paul E. Michael]

Darwinists, because they are unable to present any arguments, are constantly resorting to parroting Darwinistspeak slogans such as this common little gem:

Individuals don't evolve, populations evolve.

In chanting such Darwinistspeak, they are shooting themselves in the feet. A population is individuals. So, if by the word "populations" the Darwinist is not referring to individuals, then by it he/she is not referring to populations. On the other hand, if by the word "populations" the Darwinist is referring to populations, then by it, he/she is referring to individuals. Thus, what the self-defeating Darwinist is handing you is this:

Individuals don't evolve, [individuals] evolve.

Because the Darwinist knows he/she has no hope of responding rationally to this truth about his/her Darwinistspeak self-contradiction, all the Darwinist can ever do is to react to being confronted with it by chanting things like, "You just don't understand evolution!" Yet, the Darwinist is someone who, within the space of a single, two-clause sentence, proudly contradicts what he/she asserts in the first half by asserting what he/she asserts in the second half. So, in light of such glaring Darwinist folly, it rings laughably hollow when the Darwinist turns around and tries to taunt you with accusations of failing to understand something.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Ok, let's address this. The theory of evolution is population mechanics. So it is true that populations evolve. Whenever a selection preasure isolates and/or spreads a genetic advantage we can observe a population evolves.


For example, when we see a ring species isolated from farther relative gene pools, we can observe the population going in multiple evolutionary directions.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Ok, let's address this.

I like how you seem to say you're going to "address" what I wrote in the OP, yet then, you immediately proceed to not respond rationally to anything I wrote in it, and instead, merely heap together a pile of Darwinistspeak in a cognitively meaningless way. Please stop spamming my thread.

Is a population one or more individuals? Yes or No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

So it is true that populations evolve.

Is a population one or more individuals? Yes or No?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Is a population one or more individuals? Yes or No?

Yes a population is multiple individuals. The theory of evolution doesn't measure individual changes, but changes in a population which causes speciation.

So evolution happens in populations.


So, try again.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Is a population one or more individuals? Yes or No?

I answered 5his in the other quote as yes. It's as you tried to lampshade in your op. You either the theory of evolution and/or you are just trying to make a "gotcha" to distract the audience.

The theory of evolution does not measure individual change, but changes in populations to demonstrate speciation.

An individual can have multiple mutation, but unless those mutations spread throughout the population there is no notable change which will not lead to speciation.


Gotcha questions d9bt destroy or replace theories. A gotcha just allows smugness and a validation to remain ignorant on a topic.

 

[Barbarian]

Ok, let's address this. The theory of evolution is population mechanics. So it is true that populations evolve. Whenever a selection preasure isolates and/or spreads a genetic advantage we can observe a population evolves.

AIG apparently watches Pokemon, and has confused that with reality.

Individuals don't evolve; they are stuck with the genome they were given at conception.

Populations evolved as the allele frequencies of those populations change over time. That's the definition of evolution.

Pokemon notwithstanding.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Is a population one or more individuals? Yes or No?

Yes

Thus, when you say "populations", you are referring to individuals. So, when you chant the Darwinistspeak slogan, "Individuals don’t evolve, populations evolve," you are contradicting out of the one side of your mouth what you are affirming out of the other side of your mouth: "Individuals don’t evolve, [individuals] evolve."

You'd have already known this, had you actually read my OP. But, you made it clear by your first post in this thread that you never had, nor have even the slightest intention of reading what I have written, or trying to respond rationally to it. Which is why, in all your spamming/noisemaking, you have not even touched what I presented in my OP.

Please stop spamming my thread.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Here,

Individuals don't evolve

you contradict what you say here,

Populations evolved

A population is individuals, so, if by your word "populations" you are referring to populations, then by it you are referring to individuals, and are thus saying:

[Individuals] evolved

which is you glaringly contradicting what you say out of the other side of your mouth:

Individuals don't evolve

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The theory of evolution does not measure individual change

In addition to Darwinists contradicting themselves by both saying "Individuals don’t evolve" and saying "[Individuals] evolve", Darwinists even say "[Parts of individuals] evolve". For example:

• "eyes evolve"
• "skeletons evolve"

Darwinists even say "[Parts of parts of individuals] evolve":

• "the arches on our feet evolved"

 

[Milk-Drops]

Thus, when you say "populations", you are referring to individuals.

Yes, but just like making wine you need multiple grapes. One grape can not nit make wine. Just like how one organism isn't the bench mark for speciation/evolution.

So, when you chant the Darwinistspeak slogan, "Individuals don’t evolve, populations evolve," you are contradicting out of the one side of your mouth what you are affirming out of the other side of your mouth: "Individuals don’t evolve, [individuals] evolve."

Yep, just gotcha game. I'm sorry if you have trouble understanding the difference in sums bigger than the number 1.

You'd have already known this, had you actually read my OP. But, you made it clear by your first post in this thread that you never had, nor have even the slightest intention of reading what I have written, or trying to respond rationally to it. Which is why, in all your spamming/noisemaking, you have not even touched what I presented in my OP.

You are acharming individual.

Please stop spamming my thread.

Let me know when you have an actual argument.

 

[Milk-Drops]

In addition to Darwinists contradicting themselves by both saying "Individuals don’t evolve" and saying "[Individuals] evolve", Darwinists even say "[Parts of individuals] evolve". For example:

• "eyes evolve"
• "skeletons evolve"

Darwinists even say "[Parts of parts of individuals] evolve":

• "the arches on our feet evolved"

Ah, you don't read nor understand what you post.


It's not a cotradiction to address how specific parts of an organism have evolved. Since we already understand that the theory of evolution addresses the changes in populations that leads to speciation, we can look at the parts that have changed, (skeletons, arches in feet, eyes, etc).


We can look at different populations of large cats and compare there genetics to see how each population has evolved to adapt to their specific niche.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, but just like making wine you need multiple grapes. One grape can not nit make wine. Just like how one organism isn't the bench mark for speciation/evolution.

By definition....

Organisms of a species living together in a group at a particular place are called a “population” in Biology. A population refers to an assortment of organisms in a given location. These organisms, since they belong to the same species, can interbreed and produce more of their kinds. Hence, when asked what is a population in Biology, one can elaborate it like this:

A population is a group of organisms of one species that interbreed and live in the same place at the same time.

Population

Population is a group of organisms of one species that interbreed and live in the same place at the same time.

www.biologyonline.com

Again, AIG depends on redefining terms to avoid scientific definitions.

 

[Barbarian]

It's not a cotradiction to address how specific parts of an organism have evolved. Since we already understand that the theory of evolution addresses the changes in populations that leads to speciation, we can look at the parts that have changed, (skeletons, arches in feet, eyes, etc).

Precisely. If, for example, some grizzly bears responded to ice age conditions to get white fur and dark skins (which meant both camouflage and more heat absorbed from the sun) we say their fur and skin evolved.

But of course that also means the population evolved. It isn't really that hard to understand.

 

[Barbarian]

Since the definition of biological evolution is "a change in allele frequencies in a population", only populations evolve.
Individuals can't evolve; they are stuck with the genome they're born with. Populations, of course, can and do evolve. We see it happen constantly.

 

[KV-44-v1]

In addition to Darwinists contradicting themselves by both saying "Individuals don’t evolve" and saying "[Individuals] evolve", Darwinists even say "[Parts of individuals] evolve". For example:

• "eyes evolve"
• "skeletons evolve"

Darwinists even say "[Parts of parts of individuals] evolve":

• "the arches on our feet evolved"

James 1:8 NASB - being a double-minded man, unstable in - Bible Gateway
Trying to back K2K evo makes one x2 minded. Even more so in Christians who try to juggle the belief.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Again, AIG depends on redefining terms to avoid scientific definitions.

No, they depend on the Bible.

What terms did they originally define, but then "redefine"?

 

[Rookie]

Since the definition of biological evolution is "a change in allele frequencies in a population", only populations evolve.
Individuals can't evolve; they are stuck with the genome they're born with. Populations, of course, can and do evolve. We see it happen constantly.

Which side are you on??

You really believe the evolutionary and ant-mathmatical myth that E=0+0+0. (E for everything, the first zero is nothing, the second zero is out of nowhere, and the third zero is for no reason)

 

[Barbarian]

Which side are you on??

I go with the truth.

You really believe the evolutionary and ant-mathmatical myth that E=0+0+0.

Evolutionary theory makes no such predictions. You would probably be surprised that Darwin considered God to be the Creator, and wrote that God just created the first living things.

 

[Barbarian]

Again, AIG depends on redefining terms to avoid scientific definitions.

No, they depend on the Bible.

The term "population" is not defined in the Bible.

What terms did they originally define, but then "redefine"?

Evolution, macroevolution, microevolution, population. Among others.