The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[rrobs]

That issue is totally off-topic for this thread and will be of little interest to most contributors, I should have thought.

I'm off topic???? That's hilarious!

 

[rrobs]

Written evidence can be sketchy, especially if no sources are cited or no evidence tendered. Anyone can write fake news, or alter a text to suit his predilections.

We have thousands of ancient, historical and religious texts, each telling a different story. How are we to evaluate them?

We have millions of scientific texts, but these cite evidence; they invite peers to criticize them and try to reproduce the results.
Those that fail are set aside. Those that stand are built upon, thus, unlike religious doctrines, basic scientific facts are universally accepted, with new facts continuously being added from the arguments at the peripheries.

But why would we pay any more attention to an unevidenced scripture than we would to the historical accounts in Lord of the Rings?

You think my written evidence is sketchy. I think your written evidence is sketchy. We're at a stalemate.

 

[exchemist]

I'm off topic???? That's hilarious!

The question of what supposedly happens to souls after death has zero to do with the believability of evolution.

 

[Valjean]

You think my written evidence is sketchy. I think your written evidence is sketchy. We're at a stalemate.

Only if we're not asked to support our conclusions.

 

[Bear Wild]

You think my written evidence is sketchy. I think your written evidence is sketchy. We're at a stalemate.

You are at a stalemate in your answers. Valjean gave a clear answer. Why you do not understand it is clearly your problem. It was written that Dagda held the sun still for 9 months so that his child with the goddess Boann could be born in Newgrange before anyone was aware that she had a child. For everyone else only one day had passed. With your logic this is as real as any science fact. As a symbolic story it actually a has very interesting meaning of male and female where Newgrange represents the womb and the sun enters at the birth of a new year. As a fact about the history of the earth it has no meaning. The same is true of other religions. The stories of the bible are only meaningful symbolically. They are meaningless or misleading when interpreted as facts about our world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You absolutely did ask me about the scriptures.

I did not.

You can go back and read what I actually said and asked.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Interesting conclusion. Unfounded, but interesting.

????

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Look in the mirror for further understanding.

I don't remember you pointing out some supposed double standard in my reasoning.
Instead, I pointed such out in your reasoning - and you even acknowledged it in post #344

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whatever you think is fine with me.

Not merely what I think.

It's a fact.

But I get it. You need to argue against the facts when they don't fit your religious belief.

That's the difference between you and me.

I require my beliefs to match the facts.
You on the other hand, require the facts to match your beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. There is no "history" before 4000 years ago. despite the fact writing (a means to record history) was invented 5000 years ago there is no history until 4000 years ago.

You make no sense.
There's more the history then the ramblings of iron age scribes and whatnot.

Calling people before 4000 years ago superstitious sun addled bumpkins is a belief based on no evidence at all and contradicted by real evidence.

The pyramids are more then 4000 years old.
What we found in there, clearly shows people were superstitious.
That alone, which is not the only evidence obviously - not even remotely - already disproves your claim.

You BELIEVE we are the crown of creation and the crown was invented by science.

I don't believe that at all.

...Than what? ..,.Reading tea leaves?

Then any other method.

If we're so damn smart and science is so omniscient

Those are your words, not mine.

than why is life expectancy now decreasing exactly as I predicted 15 years ago?

Citation?

Look and See Science and a failed educational system

Science is one thing. Education systems are a completely different beast. That's more about politics then anything else.

Modern science is afraid to figure out how they built the great pyramids and couldn't duplicate it in a century.

Conspiracy theory in 3..2..1..?

Irrelevant. Logic is logic.

That's extremely relevant considering the point you were making.

"Known" is very ephemeral. In the 1860's surgeons all knew washing their hands was a waste of time as their patients were dying of disease or blood loss. Instead they died of infection.
Incidentally ancient science was aware of germs without ever observing one directly.

No, it wasn't. They didn't know about microrganisms.

Evolution is change in individuals

False.

Evolution is change in populations.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do.

and I simply cited groups of individuals which have "evolved" over 40,000 years.

And in th process, exposed your ignorance again.

 

[tas8831]

Last time!

There are countless examples of sudden change from death to birth or even marriage.

Death, birth, marriage is sudden, therefore, ALL biology is "sudden."

Yet you cannot provide a SINGLE example.

There are countless examples.

Then why can you never provide one?

There are also countless examples of sudden changes in population and group behavior but I don't believe in "groups" and "species' or even "civilizations".

Then why can you never provide one?

One of the best examples of sudden change in species caused by behavior is a very modern one; 'tame minks'. Minks are hard to raise because they are mean. Someone selected sedate and friendly minks and got a new species in a single generation; SUDDEN! But their fur is no good so they won't go into production probably (at least not soon).

No documentation for this "single generation change"? What a shocker.

Seeing as how this is impossible, I don't expect you to produce anything approaching evidence or documentation.

After all, it is pretty obvious by now that you are... you.

There is quite literally no reason to believe anything you write at this point.

At best, you were thinking of the Fox breeding experiments of Belyaev, which took more than a DOZEN generations for less than 20% of foxes to demonstrate the desired characteristics. NOT a single "SUDDEN" one.

I'm thinking you are as reliable on this issue as you are about "broccas area."

No matter how many times this is seen or recorded in history biologists can't see it because they already have the answers and can't imagine that nature would ever select for BEHAVIOR. But it does.

And yet...

You have mere repeated assertions, that you pretend count as "evidence."

Do you now realize how many people are laughing AT you at this point?

Still waiting for your evidence re: all change is sudden.

Or at least an acknowledgement that I met your challenge.

But, given your history, I expected you to do what you have done so far - just ignore it.

 

[tas8831]

Did clad get ANYTHING correct?

NOPE.

You make no sense.
There's more the history then the ramblings of iron age scribes and whatnot.

The pyramids are more then 4000 years old.
What we found in there, clearly shows people were superstitious.
That alone, which is not the only evidence obviously - not even remotely - already disproves your claim.

...

Conspiracy theory in 3..2..1..?

Oh, yeah - I suggest, for a good laugh, checking out the Graham Hancock forums and looking up the world's greatest non-recognized, unpublished expert on all things pyramid. Even folks on Hancock's site find a certain someone... absurd...

Evolution is change in populations.
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do.


And in the process, exposed your ignorance again.

Cladking "predicted" 15 years ago that life expectancy rates would go down...

Where was this "prediction" made? The same place we will find the "evidence" that docile mink were produced in a single generation?

Of course, as with everything else, claddy is wrong about life expectancy:

Life expectancy

 

[tas8831]

Real biology and real physics are "totally exactly the same and have the exact same issues" but far more of biology, and especially "evolution", are just Look and See Science.

As you do not understand science of any sort, and especially, as far as I can tell, biology, your utterings on the subject are laughable at the very best. The ravings of a lunatic, at worst.

I was and am a generalist for many years.

You are an armchair Dunning-Krugerite on all topics.

I am what some would call a 'nexialist" except my specific knowledge of every branch of science (other than "egyptology") is shallow.

Clearly (though it seems actual Egyptologists have never heard your gibberish) - yet you feel that you can make things up and pontificate on things like neuroscience and evolution, despite having had your laughable errors and nonsense refuted over and over, with actual documentation.

When YOU are asked for evidence - over and over - all you can muster are repeated assertions which are never supported and easily refuted.

Yet you still repeat the same dopey mantras day in, day out.

As a nexialist I just stumbled on the answer of how the great pyramids were built (stones were pulled up one step at a time)

No you didn't.

and in so doing happened to discover ancient science that was based on Ancient Language and is virtually identical to the means that animals survive and invent.

That sounds... umm... crazy.


Literally, crazy.


Where did you publish your amazing ultimate knowledge?

The Graham Hancock forums? The forums of the guy that claimed, on TV, that south is "down'?

I am king of no science whatsoever.

Everyone on this forum that has taken beyond grade school science knows this.

I am in the unique position of understanding two different complex metaphysics.

No you aren't. You cannot even spell the words you pretend to understand half the time.

Nobody has ever been in this position before me.

And that is because it is all in your head.

I have been attending to "evolution" since the mid-'50's. I never believed in evolution and still don't.

Who cares?
You admitted that you know nothing of science, and your rejection of evolution stems from your zany, evidence-free fantasies about it.

Like your fake tale about mink becoming docile in a single generation as "proof" that biology happens suddenly. Dumb stuff.

I could never subscribe to any theory that suggests humans are different in any substantial way from other animals

So you know so little about evolution that you do not understand that this is what evolution posits?

It is your religion that demands humanity be put on a Divine Pedestal.

or that consciousness isn't far more important to evolution than intelligence, strength, stamina, or any nonsense that has been proposed as the root of evolution in species.

That is all just hokey nonsense - mere egotistical fever dreams of a person that has admitted to not knowing much about science and claimed to know more than anyone in the same paragraph (in essence).

You can't imagine my surprise when I found ancient scientists were on the same page I am.

True - I cannot imagine anything that goes on in your bizarre narcissistic fantasies.

TTBOMK all experiment supports our version of "change in species".

And yet, you can present exactly ZERO support in any form for this amazing 'knowledge.'

It is almost as if it is all in your head and is not based in reality.

Ancient science had no experiment but relied on the logic of reality as expressed in a metaphysical language.

So in your fantasies, there wasn't even 'look and see science', just a bunch of hokey made up crap - just like what you have,



Still waiting for your evidence re: all change is sudden.

Or at least an acknowledgement that I met your challenge.

But, given your history, I expected you to do what you have done so far - just ignore it.

 

[tas8831]

Physics experiments have been done in the lab.

You mean they looked and saw the results.

NO experiment showing large changes in complex species have been done in the lab.

And you've built pyramids to test your amazing made up claims about them, have you?

But observation and interpretation of selection of behavior which result in large changes have been going on for more than 10,000 years.

No they haven't.

The problem is in interpretation even more than lack of experiment. The data might literally bite us in the nose but we can't see it. I've shown repeatedly in this very thread and you couldn't find it. I could put it in this post and explain it and you still can't see it.

Oh you mean where I documented your mere repeated assertions that you pretended count as evidence?


Sorry - I don't take the ramblings of mentally ill street people as Gospel, nor do I take your mere assertions as having any more substance than the ramblings of such folk.

Let me know when you understand what "observation" means in science, and what science actually does.

Because you clearly don't know.

Everybody sees only what they expect so this sentence won't even register.

I expect to see the ramblings of crazy people on creation/evolution forums.
My expectations have always been met.

 

[cladking]

Science is one thing. Education systems are a completely different beast. That's more about politics then anything else.

I see now you are quoting sentence fragments!

Where do you think baby scientists come from. Very few are home grown.

No, it wasn't. They didn't know about microrganisms.

It was known and forgotten. They observed contagion spread even when man was still living in caves. They saw the spray released in a sneeze. They studied the relationship and someone eventually said "shu was spit out and tefnut was sneezed out". Spit [goes] up. sneezes [go] down. We use a handkerchief to spray germs in all directions and keep the doctors and drug companies busy. We are ignorant because we know nothing and operate on what we believe. They KNEW they were ignorant and operated on what they KNEW.

Evolution is change in populations.

"Population" exist only in our minds. Only individuals exist.

 

[cladking]

At best, you were thinking of the Fox breeding experiments of Belyaev, which took more than a DOZEN generations for less than 20% of foxes to demonstrate the desired characteristics. NOT a single "SUDDEN" one.

They started with a tiny sample size of foxes. I am talking about millions of animals being eradicated and a handful of survivors. This is when change in species occurs.

If you start with a few dozen animals then the odd genes are poorly represented. Most behavior is the result of all genes working in tandem and driven by consciousness. Just as an entire organism works in tandem at all times this is orchestrated by genes and events in the environment. Your ENTIRE way of understanding this reality with taxonomies and reductionism is hiding this reality from you. You are seeing not the reality but your beliefs.

This is not about ME or my ASSERTIONS. This is about the different perspectives we use to view the totality of the evidence and logic.

 

[cladking]

Of course, as with everything else, claddy is wrong about life expectancy:

Life expectancy

It has only now turned down.

It will begin a sharp drop and accelerate. My mid-century it will be down to 76.5 for men and beyond this it is unpredictable and largely dependent on decisions not yet made.

World wide life expectancy will probably continue to increase for many years yet.

 

[cladking]

You are an armchair Dunning-Krugerite on all topics.

By George sometimes you seem to get it! This is what Homo Omniosciencis is; "We Who Assume the Conclusion". I assumed many years ago that everyone makes sense in terms of their premises and that nature can be understood through logic and observation. Lo and behold many years later I discovered that this is exactly how ancient science worked and this science was the premise of all the sun addled writing which turns out to all make perfect sense in terms of the premises.

I always tell children to be very very careful what they choose to believe because we all become our beliefs. Ugly beliefs can create ugly people.

My assumptions might not be "pretty" but I'll hold them up against any scientist's whether they are real scientists or practice Look and See Science. But when I compare them to that which underlies religion I see a lot of similarity from the time I was a boy right up to today. We are a product, all of reality, is a product of the impossible and only those using reductionism expressed as taxonomic thought and belief are capable of not being able to see this. It comes natural to those with faith and less so to those who believe in science.

You don't believe beliefs affect science so you don't see the myriad ways in which it does and that belief underlies science as language. This is largely perspective "error" but there's far more to it than a bad perspective.

 

[cladking]

Clearly (though it seems actual Egyptologists have never heard your gibberish) - yet you feel that you can make things up and pontificate on things like neuroscience and evolution, despite having had your laughable errors and nonsense refuted over and over, with actual documentation.

No real Egyptologist thinks I make things up. Elements of my theory have been wrong (counterfactual) in the past and, no doubt, some are now but these are expunged when they are identified. Real Egyptologists believe the facts I cite are irrelevancies or are being misinterpreted. It is believers in Egyptology as a science and in science as being infallible who say I make things up. A few people refuse to read or consider the facts and logic cited because they don't want to believe WE ARE STINKY FOOTED BUMPKINS who can't see past the tip of our nose.

I never claimed I had to be right about anything at all. Every one of my detractors believe they are right about everything. On this basis alone it is QUITE APPARENT they must be mostly mistaken and I must be at least partly correct. I believe this probably applies to change in species as well but here I know I'm going up against REAL SCIENCE rather than the nonsense and claptrap called "Egyptology". I am much more likely to be much more wrong about change in species.

 

[tas8831]

They started with a tiny sample size of foxes.

So now it is foxes, and you are STILL misrepresenting it.


Is this how you admit you were wrong?

If so, you need a few lessons on honesty and humility.

I am talking about millions of animals being eradicated and a handful of survivors. This is when change in species occurs.

That is one way. A bottleneck - say, remember when you pretended to understand bottlenecks? That was hilarious. Odd - I see that you most recently ranted about bottlenecks just a week ago - can you never learn? About anything?

If you start with a few dozen animals then the odd genes are poorly represented. Most behavior is the result of all genes working in tandem and driven by consciousness.

I would ask for evidence for this New Age BS, but I know you have no evidence for anything you claim, so it would be a waste of time.

Heck - you cannot even admit how TOTALLY wrong you were about "mink' speciating in a single generation!

Why are you so dishonest?

Just as an entire organism works in tandem at all times this is orchestrated by genes and events in the environment. Your ENTIRE way of understanding this reality with taxonomies and reductionism is hiding this reality from you. You are seeing not the reality but your beliefs.

No, I am seeing a man losing touch with reality.

Mink? One generation? Foxes? Dozens of generations? Same thing to Cladking the great fantasizer!

Evidence? no, mere assertions are evidence, and actual evidence is beliefs! Bwaaahaahhaaa!

This is not about ME or my ASSERTIONS. This is about the different perspectives we use to view the totality of the evidence and logic.

No, it is about your empty assertions, your inability to provide the evidence you claim to have, your demonstrated ignorance on pretty much everything you claim to be expert on, your inability to admit your many egregious errors, etc.

Of course, the guy that wrote this:

"Instead they [human infants] must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area"​

should not be taken seriously on ANY topic.

And he isn't. Not even at wacky Graham Hancock's forums.