What would it mean to your science beliefs if evolution is false?

[cladking]

It is also a belief that the moon orbits the earth. Beliefs are simply what you are convinced of by the evidence.

This is false. Two bodies orbit their center of gravity.

 

[cladking]

There is not one piece of evidence that should convince anyone that evolution is true.

And this is why I'm saying it's a bad paradigm.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think I did say science is "mere" experiment. Theory is founded on only experiment in real science but real science employs deduction and induction at various stages.



Yes, but logical statements are still impossible in modern language. No matter how logical a statement seems to be someone can deconstruct it so it is false and illogical.

Logic is very important in devising experiment.

Fine "only experiment'. You are still wrong.

Logic is quite possible in modern language. One merely has to be careful. Impossible for you does not mean impossible for others

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is false. Two bodies orbit their center of gravity.

Okay, when two objects are orbiting each other and the barycenter is totally within the more massive body then the less massive body is judged to be orbiting the other. He was correct that the Moon orbits the Earth. On the other hand Charon and Pluto orbit each other. The barycenter is outside of Pluto.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And this is why I'm saying it's a bad paradigm.

Then you only demonstrate that you are unable to judge this properly. Very few theories rely on only one piece of evidence. One strong piece of evidence is much weaker than millions of moderately strong pieces of evidence.

Meanwhile there is no scientific evidence for any other explanation. The paradigm is incredibly strong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There was once a farmer who hired a young boy to help with chores around the farm. The boy was strong and eager so could do as much work as most men. He was also very fast and had great dexterity. When left alone to work he stayed at it until the job was complete. One day the farmer assigned the boy to sorting a large crib of potatoes in the basement into tubs of good potatoes and bad potatoes. He figured the kid would finish about lunchtime but when he went to check on him about quarter hour early the boy was sitting and contemplating this third potato. He hadn't been able to decide which were good and which bad.

No two things are identical and we each classify things differently just as we each parse things differently. If you have a million people sort colored tiles into semicircles you will not end up with a rainbow. Nature sorts many things but still every grain of sand on the beach is different. If you look closely you'll see some aren't even grains of sand. If nature sorts life in terms of something we can't even define, such as consciousness then how are you to know? And how are you to know the mechanism of this sorting?

later

This is just nonsense.

It doesn't tell anyone anything about the basis of taxonomy. About the only thing you can get out of the story is that even in that story, the boy was looking for some evidence to base the sorting on. And not just make it arbitrary.

That people classify things differently does not support the claim that taxonomy is arbitrary.

It is possible that a rainbow could be the result, but it tells us nothing about taxonomy. Seems like a dodge to me.

I am not sure what sorting in nature you are referring to and could care less about dissimilarity of sand grains, since neither of those things say anything about taxonomy or declare it arbitrary.

You keep alluding--really declaring--that you know consciousness, but the taxonomies we use are man made and not grown on trees by nature.

We know the mechanism, because the taxonomists tell us how they did it.

Do you have some valid reason for declaring taxonomy arbitrary? How do you reconcile that with all the evidence that it is not arbitrary? Or is it that you will not provide a reasonable and logical answer because you cannot?

 

[rational experiences]

A human just like everyone says I look at planets. Not owning them. Chooses a subject topic then talks non stop.

What for?

Science he says I'm a titled human as a scientist. Self idolisation.

Okay but you don't own any status about anything except being the human.

As natural science.

Natural science is only observation by a human and not thesis.

Oh he says but I thesis for experimental human designs.

Which if function proved my thinking capability correct. By subject I chose to theory upon.

Okay yet it's not machines your invention that you automatically theory?

No. Everything isn't a machine.

So your machines in reality by status are very dangerous to the nature of life inside where human life is living on just the planet body?

Of course said the scientist I'm telling you myself female. I know I'm life's destroyer.

I use all thesis together of multi strings of various expressed thesis. When all my arguments correlate in AI data it tells me that my current day theories is subjective to minimise taking all biology back to a microscopic one form.

As I must have owned cause just one by my invention to own the term I'm a God as a human. To then say my thesis just in my head won't manifest everything or anything.

As my invention not creation never was creation. It's human science only.

My intention is not to let everything just be as any type of body anywhere in natural terms.

I invent to get the inventive thesis only.

Why I named myself the destroyer....having no self control.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I specifically stated that this is how ancient science worked. Ours requires experiment even though much of what we take for granted has never been shown experimentally.

Nothing in our thought or language is logical. It's not even illogical because it's impossible to determine. But this is still the basis of "Look and See Science". It mussta been this or it can only be that.

Ancient science could use logic because Ancient Language was metaphysical and wholly and completely logical. It would be somewhat similar to directly applying mathematics to reality.

Ancient Language was logical because LOGIC is the basis of reality and the human brain which exists in reality created that language. I doubt this can be explained more simply.

Modern languages arose from the the rubble of the tower of babel and the existing pidgin languages used by the slower witted.

I have never seen any reason to consider anything said on here about ancient science and ancient language is real. I just consider them to be something you made up. No more real than Santa or an honest politician.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps you should cite at least one piece of evidence that supports your beliefs preferentially to mine.

Don't you find asking for someone to produce evidence to be ironic?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There was once a farmer who hired a young boy to help with chores around the farm. The boy was strong and eager so could do as much work as most men. He was also very fast and had great dexterity. When left alone to work he stayed at it until the job was complete. One day the farmer assigned the boy to sorting a large crib of potatoes in the basement into tubs of good potatoes and bad potatoes. He figured the kid would finish about lunchtime but when he went to check on him about quarter hour early the boy was sitting and contemplating this third potato. He hadn't been able to decide which were good and which bad.

No two things are identical and we each classify things differently just as we each parse things differently. If you have a million people sort colored tiles into semicircles you will not end up with a rainbow. Nature sorts many things but still every grain of sand on the beach is different. If you look closely you'll see some aren't even grains of sand. If nature sorts life in terms of something we can't even define, such as consciousness then how are you to know? And how are you to know the mechanism of this sorting?

later

Maybe you could provide some actual answers to that list of questions you claimed you would answer. A real answer to the question on taxonomy would be nice too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmmm. Now I am skeptical as to the sincerity with which you hold your beliefs. It's as if the game is to see how long you can keep people arguing against an obviously nonsensical idea.

I have wondered about that too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Speciation is rare but it is observed still. The Russian minks are one example. There is apparently little genetic diversity in this species making its domestication far more difficult.



Reliance on induction is exactly why Egyptology is wrong about every single thing. Induction is always observer dependent and always highly suspect.



I already have repeatedly and endlessly. Obviously experiment interpretation does not follow automatically from experiment in most individuals most of the time. There are steps involving such things an induction and deduction. but the exact means that this occurs is related to modern language and consciousness neither of which are well understood nor defined.



An individual finding a restaurant is unrelated to human progress as I define the term.

Where can we learn more about the Russian minks? More than just what you claim about them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The simplest definition for modern science is Observation > Experiment.

"Science" is means to study reality according to a set of rules that are consistent with reality. Experiential science learns about reality first hand through mostly trial and error. Only the simplest predictions and learning are possible but this is exceedingly important to many individuals. Modern science reveals reality through experiment. Ancient science studied reality directly through observation and the application of a logical, binary, and metaphysical language.

I can imagine other possible sciences but not sufficiently well to define them so their existence is hypothetical. It might be noted that every single species can be thought of as a type of science because bees don't think exactly like rabbits. The similarities are sufficient that some communication occurs. Experimental science is, of course, unique to homo omnisciencis so far as anyone knows.

Keep in mind though that modern scientific metaphysics by definition includes not only the axioms and definitions but every experiment ever performed.

Ancient metaphysics was all contained within Ancient Language.

That isn't even a definition, simple or otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I more than half agree. Even though finding that survival of the fittest doesn't cause change in species would be revolutionary in biology some of the considerations would cause a total rewrite in many other areas. Anthropology would be completely stood on its ear, Egyptology would be found out, and logic would be taken aback. Across the board some effects would be highly disruptive to the status quo in science. It would even impact AI if it comes to be believed there is no such thing as "intelligence". You can't create something artificially that doesn't exist. Alchemy would come back into vogue.

Finding that survival of the fittest caused speciation would be revolutionary. It would be extraordinary. Earth-shattering.

Do you know why? Survival of the fittest doesn't cause speciation.

Yes, science is supposed to adapt to reflect all experiment but then even tiny changes in science occur one funeral at a time. Usually these funerals apply to specialists rather than much of the scientific community.

This doesn't seem to be saying anything.

I believe the redevelopment of ancient science could happen pretty quickly and this goes double if the "Book of Thot" really does lie under the NE corner of G1 as ancient writing implies. I doubt it's really plausible to use this in the education of specialists but, obviously, everyone would come to have some familiarity with it.

More that seems to say nothing.

It's very difficult to predict how everything would play out but then it's very difficult to predict when Egyptology will get their heads out of their 19th century ruts. Based on current experience it seems unlikely they'll accept any science at all until there is no choice. Someday "Egyptologist" will be the punchline of every joke.

Even more stuff that seems to be saying nothing relative to science, the discussion or anything established as fact.

On our current trajectory it might be half a century before neuroscience even starts to define "consciousness" and until this happens Evolution might be accepted "science".

Another unsupported claim that can be dismissed. Since the author apparently sees no value in supporting their claims, why should I bother considering them?

I believe it is of critical importance to the human race to correct the errors of 19th century science sooner rather than later. Timing is critically important because we will be tested in various ways over the next century with the most immediate test probably being Tower of Babel 2.0 which may already be underway. We have a scientific society without sufficient numbers of people who understand it and how it is interrelated to the economy and commonweal. These are not only interesting times but dangerous ones as well.

This appears to be an admixture of unsupported claims and irrelevant material.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Imagine that it really did take a million years for dogs to evolve into a new species. At exactly what moment do dogs no longer exist. Obviously it's when the last one dies but the term "dogs" is just a word. First there would be a dog and then something less doggy until eventually there's nothing dog-like at all.

How about a dog that has a wolf as a parent? Is it a dog. How three wolves as grandparents?

This doesn't offer any evidence or logical reason to dismiss evolution. Your argument is about the classification of dogs and not the evolution of dogs.

At what point does an embryo become a dog? At what point is a dog no longer a dog? Are all mutations dogs? What is the standard for defining something as a dog? If dogs must be able to breed dogs then are dead puppies dogs?

Again, this is argument over the details of naming something a dog and says nothing for or against evolution.

All dogs and all life is individual.

No idea what you meaning to say here. It doesn't tell us anything about evolution.

If all dogs are conscious then how can all dogs be a single entity?

No idea where you are going with this either. Do you think all dogs are part of a greater collective? The Borg Dog? Maybe a superorganism called Clifford?

They are all just words and "dog" is a word that is a null set. The word "dog" is just a symbolic place holder used as a mnemonic for homo omnisciencis to communicate about our world. Certainly the word "dog" appears in many other languages and is known to exist in Prairie Dog but I maintain that in all other languages it is representative, binary, and metaphysical. It is not symbolic or analog. There is no degree of "dogness" in Crow.

Arguing over the useage of a word isn't evidence against evolution. It really says nothing about it at all.

Do you mean the Native American people or are you claiming some language for crows that you claim to be familiar with? I have to ask, since it is hard to tell what you are going to throw into a post in lieu of an on point response.

Since no one knows what homo omnisciencis is and no one has provided any information about them at all, it can justifiably be considered made up so, it doesn't matter what you claim about them.

Biology is studying creatures that not only no longer exist but never really existed in the first place because all life is consciousness and all consciousness is individual.

A meaningless claim with no justification.

Without understanding consciousness you can not understand life or how "species" evolve.

I have found no reason to consider that statement valid, useful or remotely factual.

This is a very complex subject so we really should get cracking on it.

You can't get cracking on something that doesn't exist.

 

[cladking]

Or is it that you will not provide a reasonable and logical answer because you cannot?

I've done so several times and you dismiss them because you can not parse my words. You assume I'm a crackpot so my words are nonsense and then parse them in your own terms instead of mine. People can't see what they don't believe and you simply don't believe anything I say to discuss it. "...but the taxonomies we use are man made and not grown on trees by nature." Yes. They are man made but the objects they contain are not. Look up "trees" in the dictionary and then to make sure you understand EACH definition look up the words in the definition and the words in those definitions, etc. Now remember you must parse the word "tree" every time anyone uses it. Then think back to that definition in the dictionary. How do you tell the difference between a bush and a tree? Does every family tree look the same? At exactly what point is a tree no longer a tree and turns into lumber? Everyone thinks he knows everything but can't see the forest the trees or the trees for a forest. They can describe the mites on the back leg of a bark beetle that only infest oaks but don't understand the forest or when a woods becomes a forest.

It's just this simple. There is no logic except in reality, mathematics, and animal language. Everything else is a belief. The discussion here is the widespread belief not only in Evolution but in the idea that we don't need to understand no stinkin' consciousness to know everything about everything. People who know everything are often greatly disturbed when they learn there most cherished beliefs are falsities. Whether you're hamstrung by not telling a good potato from a bad potato or you don't even notice everything you've ever read or heard had to be deconstructed the fact remains everything you think you know is just a belief. Good scientists usually know this though few actually state it in this or similar way. One way to say it is that science changes one funeral at a time and another way to say it is that Egyptologists are wrong about every single thing and a better paradigm likely exists to explain "Change in Species".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmmm. Now I am skeptical as to the sincerity with which you hold your beliefs. It's as if the game is to see how long you can keep people arguing against an obviously nonsensical idea.

I continue to wonder about this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've done so several times and you dismiss them because you can not parse my words. You assume I'm a crackpot so my words are nonsense and then parse them in your own terms instead of mine. People can't see what they don't believe and you simply don't believe anything I say to discuss it. "...but the taxonomies we use are man made and not grown on trees by nature." Yes. They are man made but the objects they contain are not. Look up "trees" in the dictionary and then to make sure you understand EACH definition look up the words in the definition and the words in those definitions, etc. Now remember you must parse the word "tree" every time anyone uses it. Then think back to that definition in the dictionary. How do you tell the difference between a bush and a tree? Does every family tree look the same? At exactly what point is a tree no longer a tree and turns into lumber? Everyone thinks he knows everything but can't see the forest the trees or the trees for a forest. They can describe the mites on the back leg of a bark beetle that only infest oaks but don't understand the forest or when a woods becomes a forest.

It's just this simple. There is no logic except in reality, mathematics, and animal language. Everything else is a belief. The discussion here is the widespread belief not only in Evolution but in the idea that we don't need to understand no stinkin' consciousness to know everything about everything. People who know everything are often greatly disturbed when they learn there most cherished beliefs are falsities. Whether you're hamstrung by not telling a good potato from a bad potato or you don't even notice everything you've ever read or heard had to be deconstructed the fact remains everything you think you know is just a belief. Good scientists usually know this though few actually state it in this or similar way. One way to say it is that science changes one funeral at a time and another way to say it is that Egyptologists are wrong about every single thing and a better paradigm likely exists to explain "Change in Species".

I do not dismiss. I recognize that you do not provide direct and reasonable answers to questions. You are very good at claiming. And that is where it ends.

I gave you a list of the questions I have asked and never received answers to. I regularly point out your misuse of terminology and you neither acknowledge those nor deny them. Like the questions, you ignore those.

All I anyone sees from you is claims. You offer nothing to discuss.

I have seriously tried to find something to work with and haven't. It is not me alone either.

You have obviously want to talk about these things, but you leave your audience with nothing to work with. If you think science is so wonderful, I wonder why you don't follow the lead of science and communicate similarly.

I was reading a review at lunch. I finished the introduction and was struck by the fact that barely two paragraphs in and the authors were giving definitions of the main terms they were focusing on so that we could know what they were talking about and also to see if they stuck to those definitions in the rest of the work. They provided reference to prior work on the subject (to be fair, that is the main point of a review, but still), they referenced evidence, alternatives, and the current state (at the time of the review). In contrast, you make claims, use terms without defining them and deliver those claims as if they were undisputed fact with no discussion or alternative possibilities. Your presentation of your ideas is very unscientific.

 

[cladking]

I have never seen any reason to consider anything said on here about ancient science and ancient language is real

How do you explain that Ancient Language has no word for thought and no abstractions while breaking Zipf's Law?

Maybe you could provide some actual answers to that list of questions you claimed you would answer

What question is that?

And, no, I still will not define "survival of the fittest" for the umpteenth time. Look it up! Why can't anyone just type a few words into the address bar and enter it? Would you like me to define "metaphysics" for the 50th time (remember "the basis of science"?).

Why does nobody ever answer my questions like "can you cite a single experiment that preferentially supports your belief in Evolution to my belief in "Change in Species"? I answer every single sincere question EVEN WHEN THEY COULD BE TYPED INTO THE ADDRESS BAR and I am ignored. Then people tell me I won't answer questions. You can handle the answers. You can't see the answers. You expect me to put things in words that support the belief in Evolution but I believe that belief is a failed paradigm. Just like "they mustta used ramps" it has failed.

Do you know why? Survival of the fittest doesn't cause speciation.

I don't expect an answer but huh?

Where can we learn more about the Russian minks? More than just what you claim about them.

I don't know much about them. Type it in an address bar and you'll know as much as I. I have heartold that the minks turned color in just 0one or two generations but it took years to tame them.

This doesn't seem to be saying anything.

Some crackpot named Max Planck said it. Complain to him.

More that seems to say nothing.

Perhaps if you understood ancient science or its metaphysics it would mean something to you.

Even more stuff that seems to be saying nothing relative to science, the discussion or anything established as fact.

Gainsaying is not refutation!!! It is not even an argument. I believe you don't even understand what you are gainsaying.

This appears to be an admixture of unsupported claims and irrelevant material.

Gainsaying is not the basis for a discussion.

I have found no reason to consider that statement valid, useful or remotely factual.

You can't get cracking on something that doesn't exist.

This is leading nowhere at all. If you have a question or an argument or need an elaboration I will respond only to that.

 

[cladking]

I do not dismiss. I recognize that you do not provide direct and reasonable answers to questions. You

WHAT QUESTION?

I can only answer within my knowledge and how my theory applies to that specific question as I understand it.

I have said repeatedly that reality is more than infinitely complex because all things affect all other things and are based on conditions that don't even last for a moment. Time is probably not quantum and may be as divisible as we believe the number line. Change in species is many orders of magnitude more complex so I can't cite the conditions that led to any specific species. But my paradigm holds that just as dogs arose suddenly from wolves when man imposed an artificial bottleneck based on behavior/ consciousness this is the exact same mechanism by which all species arise. I believe this paradigm is a simpler and more accurate means by which to interpret all experiment and observation. I'd love to talk about this but am more interested how individuals think they'd react to finding Darwin was wrong about everything.

I shouldn't need to define the same terms over and over again.