Ancient Reality

[cladking]

There is evidence showing gradual change and the fossil record is some of that evidence. Your willful refusal to acknowledge what has been known for hundreds of years does not eliminate that evidence.

LOL.

There is no evidence for a gradual change in species and you have shown none. Over this thread (it is off topic here) and numerous other threads I have shown extensive evidence and logic which says (can be interpreted to mean) that ALL change in life at ALL levels and in ALL ways is sudden. My healthy young redbud didn't die gradually over many years but went from the buds being fully open to the leaves drying and falling in a few weeks. The little "sickly" one didn't require years or centuries or millions of years to suddenly start growing but coincided fairly closely with the death of its near twin.

Nothing happens gradually and nothing in the fossil record must be interpreted to mean that anything did. People want to believe in survival of the fittest so they do. Let me ask you a simple question, "why would nature produce sickly, twisted, weak, dumb, or slow individuals? There is no evolutionary advantage to being unfit and those individuals who are unfit tend to be destroyed at a young age in the wild. ALL of their fit brothers and sisters are likely to go on and reproduce creating more generations of fit individuals that are EACH nearly identical to them.

So, I suppose you believe the ancients created dogs by "trial and error" or by accident rather than through theory derived from logic and observation. I suppose you believe they invented cows, donkeys, goats, sheep, and wheat by the same means of just getting lucky. They invented cities through chance and pyramids with superstition and hard work. Then despite their luck they wrote down something else entirely about their understanding of the nature of "Change in Species" or what you call "survival of the fittest".

People have a remarkable ability to be blind to that which they choose not to see.

The surviving redbud will probably be fine and someday make a beautiful little shade tree. "All" of its off spring will be a little more tolerant of wet conditions than the "healthy" one that died. Just because a tree dies or a rabbit gets caught by a fox does not mean that it was even ever so slightly less "fit" than any of the others. It means it was less lucky or possibly less alert. It means that if it hasn't already reproduced that it never will because reproduction is sudden too. You see "unfit", "slow", or "weak" but you have no evidence that nature works this way. You can increase the amount of cyanide you feed guinea pigs until most of them die but this doesn't mean the survivors are more "fit", it merely shows that at the current time under the current conditions the survivors have more tolerance for cyanide. Their off spring will probably have more tolerance for cyanide as well but this isn't the way nature usually selects. If cyanide is introduced naturally into the environment it won't kill off the individuals who are least tolerant, it will kill the individuals who consume the most. Those living on another food will survive to create a new species.

This is simple. Nature doesn't care about tolerant or intolerant individuals; it cares about consciousness and the genes of every individual. There is NO species, NO fitness, and No evolution. Species change they do NOT evolve. This is the ONLY thing we have ever observed and it's the ONLY thing ancient people observed and wrote about. This is still the REALITY.

 

[cladking]

This is simple. Nature doesn't care about tolerant or intolerant individuals; it cares about consciousness and the genes of every individual. There is NO species, NO fitness, and No evolution. Species change they do NOT evolve. This is the ONLY thing we have ever observed and it's the ONLY thing ancient people observed and wrote about. This is still the REALITY.

And this is just one of the ways that religion is more correct than the set of beliefs and inductive logic we call "science". Of course there's real science based on experiment and deduction but most of us color in between the gaps with what is obvious and through induction. We interpolate and extrapolate almost all of the reality we believe is before us. We are blind to the results of behavior, individuality, and consciousness. We make value judgements that such considerations and free will itself are old wives tales while religion teaches these are all important. Religion teaches the results of ancient science that behaving oneself is more important than things like greed, selfishness, nihilism, and annihilation of the less "fit". Behavior and consciousness are far more important to the success of EVERY species than feathering one's nest.

We each choose our beliefs and then become our beliefs through the selective process of seeing only our beliefs and acting only on our beliefs. "Knowledge" is fundamental but any knowledge that isn't visceral knowledge is suspect; it might not be true. Ancient reality was different because it was the same for every individual and sprang from the root of consciousness itself; the body/ mind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And this is just one of the ways that religion is more correct than the set of beliefs and inductive logic we call "science". Of course there's real science based on experiment and deduction but most of us color in between the gaps with what is obvious and through induction. We interpolate and extrapolate almost all of the reality we believe is before us. We are blind to the results of behavior, individuality, and consciousness. We make value judgements that such considerations and free will itself are old wives tales while religion teaches these are all important. Religion teaches the results of ancient science that behaving oneself is more important than things like greed, selfishness, nihilism, and annihilation of the less "fit". Behavior and consciousness are far more important to the success of EVERY species than feathering one's nest.

We each choose our beliefs and then become our beliefs through the selective process of seeing our only beliefs and acting only on our beliefs. "Knowledge" is fundamental but any knowledge that isn't visceral knowledge is suspect; it might not be true. Ancient reality was different because it was the same for every individual and sprang from the root of consciousness itself; the body/ mind.

You have certainly chosen a set of beliefs. I do not see any profit in further discussion, since you have no interest in even attempting to understand the concepts or to recognize the existing evidence that anyone can view. Good luck to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL.

There is no evidence for a gradual change in species and you have shown none. Over this thread (it is off topic here) and numerous other threads I have shown extensive evidence and logic which says (can be interpreted to mean) that ALL change in life at ALL levels and in ALL ways is sudden. My healthy young redbud didn't die gradually over many years but went from the buds being fully open to the leaves drying and falling in a few weeks. The little "sickly" one didn't require years or centuries or millions of years to suddenly start growing but coincided fairly closely with the death of its near twin.

Nothing happens gradually and nothing in the fossil record must be interpreted to mean that anything did. People want to believe in survival of the fittest so they do. Let me ask you a simple question, "why would nature produce sickly, twisted, weak, dumb, or slow individuals? There is no evolutionary advantage to being unfit and those individuals who are unfit tend to be destroyed at a young age in the wild. ALL of their fit brothers and sisters are likely to go on and reproduce creating more generations of fit individuals that are EACH nearly identical to them.

So, I suppose you believe the ancients created dogs by "trial and error" or by accident rather than through theory derived from logic and observation. I suppose you believe they invented cows, donkeys, goats, sheep, and wheat by the same means of just getting lucky. They invented cities through chance and pyramids with superstition and hard work. Then despite their luck they wrote down something else entirely about their understanding of the nature of "Change in Species" or what you call "survival of the fittest".

People have a remarkable ability to be blind to that which they choose not to see.

The surviving redbud will probably be fine and someday make a beautiful little shade tree. "All" of its off spring will be a little more tolerant of wet conditions than the "healthy" one that died. Just because a tree dies or a rabbit gets caught by a fox does not mean that it was even ever so slightly less "fit" than any of the others. It means it was less lucky or possibly less alert. It means that if it hasn't already reproduced that it never will because reproduction is sudden too. You see "unfit", "slow", or "weak" but you have no evidence that nature works this way. You can increase the amount of cyanide you feed guinea pigs until most of them die but this doesn't mean the survivors are more "fit", it merely shows that at the current time under the current conditions the survivors have more tolerance for cyanide. Their off spring will probably have more tolerance for cyanide as well but this isn't the way nature usually selects. If cyanide is introduced naturally into the environment it won't kill off the individuals who are least tolerant, it will kill the individuals who consume the most. Those living on another food will survive to create a new species.

This is simple. Nature doesn't care about tolerant or intolerant individuals; it cares about consciousness and the genes of every individual. There is NO species, NO fitness, and No evolution. Species change they do NOT evolve. This is the ONLY thing we have ever observed and it's the ONLY thing ancient people observed and wrote about. This is still the REALITY.

Just Wow! Good luck to you. Publish soon.

 

[tas8831]

We truly are Homo Omnisciencis.

No actual scientists recognize this dopey nonsense. Why do you keep pushing it?

 

[tas8831]

This is basic anatomy or neurology. I would suggest you google "speech centers wiki". If you don't find it I'll look for you.

All this time and you have not learned a single thing. Your fantasies are not basic anything - as I had demonstrated many times, you are amazingly ignorant of neuroanatomy. And you are not very observant at that - Observe:

I write "Show me this second motor speech area."

You advise to search wiki for ""speech centers wiki"".

Not that I need to (as I just finished teaching neuroanatomy), but I thought I'd humor you. Not disappointed. No mention of any of the fantastical nonsense you have mentioned before. Nothing about "broccas" area, nothing about this floating motor speech center in the "middle of the brain" nor in the "midbrain".
Here is a brain map from the first wiki link from that search you suggest:

You will not understand this, but none of those areas are in the "middle of the brain". So sorry. And so you won't (but you will) make this anatomical blunder in the future, this shows where the midbrain actually is, that reddish area:

ALL experiment and ALL observation shows ALL change in ALL life is sudden.

Then why is it literally impossible for you to provide even a SINGLE legitimate reference, citation, link, quote that supports your made up nonsense?

It is you claiming a gradual change in species but nothing, not even the fossil record, supports your beliefs.

Hilarious. Clueless.
Tell us all, Oh Master of All Pretend Science - if a mutation occurs, does a new species arise? Don't hold back, use all of the actual science you need to explain.
Keep in mind, however, that your usual mere assertions do not count.

ALL changes that are gradual appear to be insignificant.

Oooh oooh - another question for the Master in his own mind - do you think that there is a 1-to-1 relationship between mutation and phenotype?

This is what is shown by the existence of "missing links".

No it isn't.

The links are missing because a bottleneck created a sudden change; the missing links NEVER existed.

How does a bottleneck cause sudden speciation? Please be very specific.
Define "sudden" and "speciation" in this context.
And since you claim all evidence and experiment supports your position, provide some support that does not consist of you writing the same things.

Because there was a population bottleneck there are few specimens on either side of the sudden change but especially post-event.

Cool assertion.
Makes no sense, but cool.
Do you realize that you just shot down your own position? Of course you do not. That is all part of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

There IS no difference.

Then why did you previously claim there is???

We select for desired traits or characteristics based on our specific needs. Nature selects "randomly" but tends to select for behavior exactly as humans do.

Give one example please.
And not just one you made up - I mean an actual example demonstrating this in nature.

Selecting unusual behavior causes large changes in species.

Actual example please.

Tame wolves produce dogs but selecting for vicious wolves would create something else very similar to existing wolves.

How do you know this?
Evidence please.
If tame wolves produce dogs, how do we get pugs? What bottleneck produced them and how?
Spare no detail, please.

Selecting for wolves that eat no or little meat would create a strange new animal. But ALL change is sudden because this is the nature of ALL life both individual and by "species".

Cool! Wow, you wrote the SAME THING for the 1,129th time, so it MUST be totally true!

Every individual that dies or survives these bottlenecks was "fit" but conditions change and all life and all reality is random and capricious.

Please define "bottleneck" in the biological sense, because it is becoming clearer to me that you have no idea what it means.

Strange survivors create a strange new species.

Then surely you can provide some verified examples?

It always depends on what caused the extinctions and the genetics of the survivors. This is a simple enough concept. If you believe you have evidence that refutes it I'd be very interested in seeing it.

That isn't how it works. You've not presented any evidence for your case - in fact, you seem hard pressed to demonstrate you even understand the material (as I just demonstrated above, you flubbed up the motor speech thing AGAIN but will, doubtless, claim victory).

This is what ALL experiment shows. We simply misinterpret results.

Then - FOR ONCE - show one such experiment.
And given that you cannot grasp the fundamentals of genetics, much less evolutionary biology, I laugh at your claim that others misinterpreted anything.

There is no such thing as "fitness" as defined by Darwin. It doesn't exist. ALL individuals are fit or dinner.

Like I've thought all along, you simply do not know how Darwin defined fitness.
Typical for people like you.

Some prosper under different conditions than others as DEFINED BY THEIR GENES, not by biologists or inductive reasoning.

LOL!
And what makes them prosper?

Individuals acquire different genes through localized population bottlenecks experienced by their ancestors.

Um... wow...
No, individuals acquire 'different' alleles via recombination events produced via mutation and reproduction.

ALL life is determined GENETICALLY and experienced INDIVIDUALLY.

So it should be easy for a master of all science like you to then how speciation occurs.

SNIPPED GIBBERISH

Not again.

You never defined it once.

I do appreciate your knowledge in many of these areas but I don't believe you can apply this knowledge to what I am saying. There simply is no experiment, and may be no experiment possible in real time, to show some gradual change in species. So we are stuck largely with observation and you are looking at all the wrong things. You are looking inductively at species but life doesn't exist on this level. Life is individual and until you look at the specific individuals that survive a bottleneck you can not possibly understand change in species. The actual nuts and bolts of change in species is exceedingly complex and instead of looking at the proper level you are looking in terms from which you can see and then assuming that what you see is representative of reality. IT IS NOT. It's not my fault that reality is always far more complex than our definitions and equations. It is what it is WYSIWYG (unless you use induction). Of course you'll claim this post is all just words and ignore it.

Not one word in that word salad even addresses the question of what a "peer" is in peer review.

You could have just said "I don't know".

You can't show gradual change

You can't show sudden change, certainly not as you fantasize it. Your shallow, nearly non-existent knowledge of evolution in general has made you glom on to something of a strawman as it stands - "gradual change" is stochastic in nature. I once had a creationist that thought he knew it all - rather like you - declare that evolution posits that fingers got longer via evolution 1 mm at a time, and was thus impossible. he could - also like you - not understand how foolish that strawman was, not would he listen (or read) to explanations showing his error.
But I'll let you keep making these errors and fallacious claims.

and you can't show "survival of the fittest" except by murdering large percentages of a population. Murdering large numbers of individuals is not how nature operates. It is random but effects are not.

And there we have it in black and white - you do NOT, despite all your bluffing and posturing, know what "survival of the fittest" actually means.
And that is despite myself and others having EXPLAINED it to you many times.

I'm guessing you think that the "affa-david" of that drunk blond moron in Michigan really IS evidence of fraud!

 

[cladking]

And what makes them prosper?

ALL individuals are fit and all individuals will prosper under the conditions that are ideal to them. Just because an individual survives a near extinction does not assure that the conditions are ideal but it is certainly true that it and its offspring live in a world in which they can survive. For some conditions will be ideal. Populations will be clustered in these areas for the new species. Most dogs now live in houses and farms. One doesn't expect to see fainting goats in the wilds of Antarctica.

All individuals need access to water, food, and shelter and others of its kind to reproduce.

Biologists want to turn this into rocket science based on inductive reasoning and semantics. Every single thing that happens to every single individual is plenty simple enough. But individuals do not control their fates or their environment and these are forever in a state of flux which are also likely caused by plenty simple "laws". The problem is in the REAL WORLD where every theory and every prediction breaks down because it is immensely complex since in the real world EVERY SINGLE process, event, and "law" applies to every single thing. The condition of every single thing in the universe affects every single other thing in a real, tangible, and palpable way. In the real world there would be "evolution" exactly as you picture it but it would take 1000 times as long and no environment is sufficiently stable to allow such changes to occur gradually. Long before the giraffes could grow a neck the sun would have become a red dwarf. We are merely imagining that nature behaves according to what we can observe but the only thing we can really observe in the fossil record is that species change. We merely image the cause is "survival of the fittest" because we want to believe in survival of the fittest rather than the "hand of God" or unknown processes.

19th century scientists did a number on us and on the human race.

 

[cladking]

Then why is it literally impossible for you to provide even a SINGLE legitimate reference, citation, link, quote that supports your made up nonsense?

Did you see Dawn Wells died?

Deaths in 2020 - Wikipedia

I just saw her in a promotion a few days ago and now she's gone. She was an individual after being conceived and born suddenly and then died suddenly after a sudden infestation with countless billions of germs that each were born and died suddenly as well.

You even contradicted yourself again when you suggested mutation plays a role in the change in species. Mutation is quite sudden and usually occurs within hours of conception. There is no long drawn out process leading to a mutation but from the exact same standpoint mutation is not entirely random either. It depends on specific unknowable conditions and unknowable predispositions, prerequisites, and preconditions. It depends on all the stars being in a line and the will of God. It really doesn't matter exactly what caused a specific mutation since the affected individual will still live his life at the hands of fate and odds. In some things his odds will be better and in some worse than the typical member of his "species". Chance and "natural law" will determine whether the gene is passed down or not. Not "fitness" and not "adaptability". These are more just words with ephemeral definitions that change to suit the speaker than they are that can be applied to individuals in meaningful ways. They're good words but they can't be applied with the level of human knowledge at THIS time.

"Evolution" came from the mind of Darwin and has no referent in the real world where the fossil record exists. Species change but nothing in life "evolves" for very long. You can't step into the same river twice and within just a few eons the river would be gone anyway replaced by a mountain chain or an ocean.

We believe in the less fit because it's easier to kill or depose the less fit for our own gain. They make refrigerators that cost as much as the old refrigerators that lasted for years and years for sale to the "proletariat". We don't even complain anyway so why not. It's good for the stockholders and who cares if vast resources are wasted since there will be plenty of money made in fighting "global warming".

If I'm all over the map in this post maybe it's more you than me and maybe it's because you respond to words instead of ideas. You are engaging in semantics and I'm talking about the causes of the observable changes in most species. I'm even telling you WHY we got saddled with so much nonsense from the 19th century. Between misapprehension of our past and our future there is misapprehension of what is and its causes. People want to believe in "science" without realizing that real science doesn't require much of any belief. Of course real science does much better creating the magic trick we call "technology" than it does at producing "understanding" or "creation".

 

[cladking]

I guess Nashville isn't in the middle of the country either.

If you sought the meaning of my words INSTEAD of the meaning of each word we might be able to communicate. Finish reading my sentences BEFORE composing a rebuttal.

 

[cladking]

Between misapprehension of our past and our future there is misapprehension of what is and its causes.

"Ancient reality" is wholly dissimilar to our reality. Thinking in three dimensions with a language that is representational rather than symbolic is wholly unlike thinking in a one dimensional language which leads to a "train of thought". Most importantly ancient reality required the construction of no models and the acquisition of no beliefs. Learning was entirely different where there are no "definitions", no reductionism, no induction, and no taxonomies. They learned "words" and names" while employing mnemonics while we use taxonomies as mnemonics. It's an entirely different way to see the world. It's why they said that a man's attention was what was in the center of his eye and why they didn't say "he thought about it" and INSTEAD said he acted the second moment after perception.

The Pyramid Texts Index

ALL the clues to understanding Ancient Language are right in front of us but we are hell bent to believe every detail of existence passed down in language or interpolated from experiment. Then we wonder why experiment is starting to show observer effect!

The perception of every reality is based on the axioms which underlie the observer and ancient people had a wholly different set of axioms and a different sort of language to express them. EVERY science and its direction is determined by the definitions and axioms upon which it is founded and ours is founded on the very concept of "definition" by definition. Every science is merely a tool and a perspective to see bits and pieces of reality but some perspectives are very poor to see some things. Just as you can't see a spinning coin in only three dimensions or a razor blade edge on, you can't see natural language if you use symbolic language to think and you can't see "evolution" if you want to believe some individuals have more right to life.

Human beings are highly complex and are the result of their place and time but less visibly they are a product of the type of language they speak and of their beliefs as well as their assumptions and what they take as being axiomatic.

These thoughts are not complex but seem to be because they lie outside of what we believe. We choose to believe that there are natural laws or the law of God but the reality is there is no evidence for the former and nobody can look directly at the latter. We are adrift with nothing to tie us to reality except experiment and possibly ancient science founded on logic and observation.

Without understanding metaphysics we can't Understand our Knowledge or use it for Creation.

 

[gnostic]

And this is just one of the ways that religion is more correct than the set of beliefs and inductive logic we call "science".

And what religion is more correct than science?

And are you about physical/natural sciences or social sciences?

 

[cladking]

And are you about physical/natural sciences or social sciences?

There's nothing wrong with science. We merely use experiment to reveal an underlying reality. The problem is with individuals who forget that this reality they glimpse Is dependent not only on the parameters and nuts and bolts of experiment design but ALSO on the way we think and the definitions we use. We build models of reality but these models are not identical from one scientist to the next and none are based strictly on experiment because even our science has become somewhat complex. We each (almost everybody) color in the unknowns between experimental fact. We each take numerous things as being true because they are apparent. Many of the things we accept as factual simply are not yet all of our interpretations and models are constructed of them. This doesn't even figure that things which would be obvious from another perspective and should be included in our thinking are invisible to us. Our science is NECESSARILY human, individual, and language dependent yet we ignore this.

Certainly in fields like chemistry or mechanics such dependency is of minor importance in construction of models and in the ability to properly use the knowledge that exists. It is of relatively little importance even in prediction since few areas are dependent solely on these. But "science" as we practice it is a continuum of specialties based almost strictly on experiment to those based almost solely on beliefs of those who came before. These are fields like sociology or anthropology but also includes evolution.

You can't separate the effects of language and our way of thinking from any specialty. Every thinker uses the same terms and same assumptions. Some are excellent metaphysicians and do a good job of factoring out beliefs but most do not. "Metaphysics" as it concerns modern science is sufficiently simple that few schools emphasize it all all and leave it up to students to acquire it or not. Even people who are more adept at understanding it must think about it and its implications to knowledge.

Every science has its own strengths and weaknesses and these will determine the directions it takes. "Experiment" is a very good way to keep knowledge tied to reality but in our modern age too many think that expertise and having great knowledge is sufficient to see reality. IT IS NOT. Consensus is irrelevant in every specialty. Indeed, when everyone is in agreement it tends to indicate that everyone is wrong. The ONLY time everyone tends to agree is when the agreement is rooted in assumptions shared by all. If any of these assumptions is wrong then so is everybody. This is the history of science and it is visceral metaphysical knowledge for me, at least.

And what religion is more correct than science?

It depends on the subject. And it depends on the definitions.

One could say that the Catholic church et al are likely correct about E = M x C ^ 2 since they almost all believe in it now and there is obviously some truth to the equation.

What I meant was that ALL religions emphasize behavior over genetics. They don't ascribe absolution for having bad genes, being unfit, or having a dirty id. They expect people to do the right thing, have good thoughts, and enjoy the consequences of their actions. Science now often dismisses all these things and says there is no right and wrong. Religion emphasizes consciousness and its relationship to God and the3 spiritual world while science maintains everything is already known and it's a free for all out there where turning resources into garbage for profit is good for the customer, the leaders, stockholders and the future. Religion says "waste not want not" because religion neglected to jump the shark in 1913 when the scientific world did. Religion proposes one God and one creation while scientists now believe there is no creation at all or that there are an infinite number of creations that leap into existence eternally!!! Scientist believe there is no reality while even the crummiest church want you to be sure to tithe. Religion says life is about consciousness and scientists don't even have a working definition for consciousness. Change in species is covered in ancient literature but science only dates back to an unsupported assumption (bottlenecks don't exist) in the 1870's. I could go on and on because in many areas religion is almost certainly far more correct than most scientists. Obviously the dogmatic beliefs of many "church people" are generally going to be of little utility or accuracy but this doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong or utterly wrong in every case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ALL individuals are fit and all individuals will prosper under the conditions that are ideal to them.

All individuals have fitness and this can and does vary between individuals. based on their genome and the selection pressure on them.

Just because an individual survives a near extinction does not assure that the conditions are ideal but it is certainly true that it and its offspring live in a world in which they can survive. For some conditions will be ideal. Populations will be clustered in these areas for the new species. Most dogs now live in houses and farms. One doesn't expect to see fainting goats in the wilds of Antarctica.

Congratulations. You don't know what you are saying here and none of us do either. I can't figure out what you wanted to impart here, if anything.

All individuals need access to water, food, and shelter and others of its kind to reproduce.

Ok. Living things have basic requirements to live. Not something in dispute.

Biologists want to turn this into rocket science based on inductive reasoning and semantics.

There is no indication of that. Biologists want to answer questions based on the evidence using the methods of science. You should look into that. It's cool.

Every single thing that happens to every single individual is plenty simple enough.

No idea what this is supposed to mean. I see no indication that you know what it means either. Just stuff thrown out to reinforce denial.

But individuals do not control their fates or their environment and these are forever in a state of flux which are also likely caused by plenty simple "laws". The problem is in the REAL WORLD where every theory and every prediction breaks down because it is immensely complex since in the real world EVERY SINGLE process, event, and "law" applies to every single thing. The condition of every single thing in the universe affects every single other thing in a real, tangible, and palpable way. In the real world there would be "evolution" exactly as you picture it but it would take 1000 times as long and no environment is sufficiently stable to allow such changes to occur gradually. Long before the giraffes could grow a neck the sun would have become a red dwarf. We are merely imagining that nature behaves according to what we can observe but the only thing we can really observe in the fossil record is that species change. We merely image the cause is "survival of the fittest" because we want to believe in survival of the fittest rather than the "hand of God" or unknown processes.

It looks like a mix of your lack of knowledge in the subject matter, word salad, assertions that fly in the face of the evidence and what is actually taking place and more empty assertions.

Let me summarize what you have stated here. Nothing does anything. Everything does something. There are laws that you don't grasp that do something. They run everything, but there is no time for them to do anything. Evolution does not occur in sufficiently stable environments. Which turns out to be the only reasonable statement you have made here and refutes your claims to boot. Survival of the fittest is now a cause even when it is not. You really do not understand this material, but believe you conclude on it and report on it at a level exceeding expert knowledge. That about sums it up.

19th century scientists did a number on us and on the human race.

Whatever that means.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There's nothing wrong with science. We merely use experiment to reveal an underlying reality. The problem is with individuals who forget that this reality they glimpse Is dependent not only on the parameters and nuts and bolts of experiment design but ALSO on the way we think and the definitions we use. We build models of reality but these models are not identical from one scientist to the next and none are based strictly on experiment because even our science has become somewhat complex. We each (almost everybody) color in the unknowns between experimental fact. We each take numerous things as being true because they are apparent. Many of the things we accept as factual simply are not yet all of our interpretations and models are constructed of them. This doesn't even figure that things which would be obvious from another perspective and should be included in our thinking are invisible to us. Our science is NECESSARILY human, individual, and language dependent yet we ignore this.

Certainly in fields like chemistry or mechanics such dependency is of minor importance in construction of models and in the ability to properly use the knowledge that exists. It is of relatively little importance even in prediction since few areas are dependent solely on these. But "science" as we practice it is a continuum of specialties based almost strictly on experiment to those based almost solely on beliefs of those who came before. These are fields like sociology or anthropology but also includes evolution.

You can't separate the effects of language and our way of thinking from any specialty. Every thinker uses the same terms and same assumptions. Some are excellent metaphysicians and do a good job of factoring out beliefs but most do not. "Metaphysics" as it concerns modern science is sufficiently simple that few schools emphasize it all all and leave it up to students to acquire it or not. Even people who are more adept at understanding it must think about it and its implications to knowledge.

Every science has its own strengths and weaknesses and these will determine the directions it takes. "Experiment" is a very good way to keep knowledge tied to reality but in our modern age too many think that expertise and having great knowledge is sufficient to see reality. IT IS NOT. Consensus is irrelevant in every specialty. Indeed, when everyone is in agreement it tends to indicate that everyone is wrong. The ONLY time everyone tends to agree is when the agreement is rooted in assumptions shared by all. If any of these assumptions is wrong then so is everybody. This is the history of science and it is visceral metaphysical knowledge for me, at least.



It depends on the subject. And it depends on the definitions.

One could say that the Catholic church et al are likely correct about E = M x C ^ 2 since they almost all believe in it now and there is obviously some truth to the equation.

What I meant was that ALL religions emphasize behavior over genetics. They don't ascribe absolution for having bad genes, being unfit, or having a dirty id. They expect people to do the right thing, have good thoughts, and enjoy the consequences of their actions. Science now often dismisses all these things and says there is no right and wrong. Religion emphasizes consciousness and its relationship to God and the3 spiritual world while science maintains everything is already known and it's a free for all out there where turning resources into garbage for profit is good for the customer, the leaders, stockholders and the future. Religion says "waste not want not" because religion neglected to jump the shark in 1913 when the scientific world did. Religion proposes one God and one creation while scientists now believe there is no creation at all or that there are an infinite number of creations that leap into existence eternally!!! Scientist believe there is no reality while even the crummiest church want you to be sure to tithe. Religion says life is about consciousness and scientists don't even have a working definition for consciousness. Change in species is covered in ancient literature but science only dates back to an unsupported assumption (bottlenecks don't exist) in the 1870's. I could go on and on because in many areas religion is almost certainly far more correct than most scientists. Obviously the dogmatic beliefs of many "church people" are generally going to be of little utility or accuracy but this doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong or utterly wrong in every case.

Back to your philosophy of we cannot know anything so just believe whatever you make up.

 

[cladking]

All individuals have fitness and this can and does vary between individuals. based on their genome and the selection pressure on them.

All individuals have DIFFERENT genes. They are all equally fit. You can murder all the guinea pigs with little tolerance for cyanide or all the people with the wrong beliefs but this doesn't mean that lack of tolerance for cyanide or bad beliefs makes individuals less "fit". A low tolerance for cyanide is usually irrelevant to all individuals who have the common sense not to be a guinea pig and all beliefs are "bad beliefs". The belief in "survival of the fittest" is one of the worst beliefs of all because it's not just guinea pigs getting murdered.

You don't know what you are saying here and none of us do either.

Are you actually incapable of understanding that ideal conditions for every individual don't exist? How's that cyanide working for the low tolerance guinea pig.

Maybe you aren't trying to understand because you like to believe.

...but believe you conclude on it and report on it at a level exceeding expert knowledge.

My knowledge is highly limited in biology and genetics. But I have a different perspective on experiment and data and this perspective is apparently very close to the science that created agriculture so we stinky footed bumpkins can murder guinea pigs in the tens of thousands and people by the millions.

I never pretended to know more than any expert but experts have been wrong before and they are probably wrong now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All individuals have DIFFERENT genes. They are all equally fit. You can murder all the guinea pigs with little tolerance for cyanide or all the people with the wrong beliefs but this doesn't mean that lack of tolerance for cyanide or bad beliefs makes individuals less "fit". A low tolerance for cyanide is usually irrelevant to all individuals who have the common sense not to be a guinea pig and all beliefs are "bad beliefs". The belief in "survival of the fittest" is one of the worst beliefs of all because it's not just guinea pigs getting murdered.

All individuals are not equally fit. You regularly reveal that you do not understand that or fitness. I get that. Lack of tolerance to cyanide would only matter in the presence of cyanide and then those with greater tolerance would be those most likely to reproduce in greater numbers on average and pass their tolerance to future generations. Thus they would have greater fitness.

Are you actually incapable of understanding that ideal conditions for every individual don't exist? How's that cyanide working for the low tolerance guinea pig.

Maybe you aren't trying to understand because you like to believe.

I am not sure what you are going on about. I never claimed that ideal conditions exist for individuals. Perhaps it is not my understanding that needs to be your main concern.

My knowledge is highly limited in biology and genetics.

I agree.

But I have a different perspective on experiment and data and this perspective is apparently very close to the science that created agriculture so we stinky footed bumpkins can murder guinea pigs in the tens of thousands and people by the millions.

Experiments are not the only way to test hypotheses or the validity of theories. You consistently claim otherwise.

I never pretended to know more than any expert but experts have been wrong before and they are probably wrong now.

That is not what I am seeing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All individuals have DIFFERENT genes. They are all equally fit. You can murder all the guinea pigs with little tolerance for cyanide or all the people with the wrong beliefs but this doesn't mean that lack of tolerance for cyanide or bad beliefs makes individuals less "fit". A low tolerance for cyanide is usually irrelevant to all individuals who have the common sense not to be a guinea pig and all beliefs are "bad beliefs". The belief in "survival of the fittest" is one of the worst beliefs of all because it's not just guinea pigs getting murdered.



Are you actually incapable of understanding that ideal conditions for every individual don't exist? How's that cyanide working for the low tolerance guinea pig.

Maybe you aren't trying to understand because you like to believe.



My knowledge is highly limited in biology and genetics. But I have a different perspective on experiment and data and this perspective is apparently very close to the science that created agriculture so we stinky footed bumpkins can murder guinea pigs in the tens of thousands and people by the millions.

I never pretended to know more than any expert but experts have been wrong before and they are probably wrong now.

You do not understand fitness. You do not understand what a bottleneck is. You make up taxonomical nomenclature on a whim. Survival of the fittest is an outdated phrase. A rabbit does not have to be the fastest to outrun the fox. Just faster than the fox. No one is saying that the fastest rabbit is more fit even though a slower rabbit might still outrun the fox.

 

[cladking]

Experiments are not the only way to test hypotheses or the validity of theories. You consistently claim otherwise.

Ironically I actually do but you are probably misunderstanding something else to lead you to this conclusion. You probably misunderstand the point of this thread that there is another totally different way to interact with the world and to learn about it. There is a different programming for the human brain that generates the science used by our ancestors to develop the theory of "Change in Species" by which agriculture was invented. It was virtually identical (no doubt) to theory which gave rise to termite cities, beaver lakes, or bee hives. Human science was more complex not because humans are "smarter" than termites but because humans had something no other species on earth had; 40,000 years ago a mutation that tied the speech center to higher brain functions arose!!!! Humans are not significantly smarter than other life forms but we each don't have to start at the beginning because we are each taught the results of many centuries of accumulated knowledge. Without complex language we are little different with a similar consciousness to termites or beavers. Humans could not have advanced without the mutation that gave rise to complex language.

Be this as it may you are missing my point. It is my contention that ALL observation and ALL experiment support the mechanisms of "Change of Species" and we are misinterpreting experiment. Far worse most of the so called "Theory of Evolution" involves no experiment and ONLY inductive reasoning and observation. We believe in evolution because we want to believe. We believe because Darwin made assumptions that led him inexorably to the conclusion that species change gradually as less fit individuals died off. You can NOT show this is true and there is NO experiment that shows it is true.

Just because modern science can be, and probably is, wrong is not due to any weakness or fault in modern science. EXPERIMENT ties modern science to reality but we have misinterpreted experiment and invented "Evolution" from inductive reasoning and NOT experiment. We came to these mistaken conclusions because we used the "wrong" perspective to study the subject. Instead of looking at consciousness and individuals we looked at chance and species. We assumed the conclusion from the very beginning. We ALSO assumed a visible mechanism was involved so we saw it.

ALL change in ALL life is sudden and this applies in ALL ways ALWAYS.

 

[cladking]

Humans could not have advanced without the mutation that gave rise to complex language.

But this complex language changed because it became too complex. It was "human programming" and as we learned it became increasingly complex until some people simply couldn't keep up. These individuals who couldn't understand Ancient Language still had the vocabulary of Ancient Language but couldn't master the formatting. They used this same vocabulary to invent a "Pidgin Ancient Language" which was the precursor of all modern languages that linguists call "PIE". It was simply structured differently since it didn't need to agree with theory any longer. It was structured just like our languages.

Modern languages are adequate for thinking because we each follow our own thoughts though the programming does necessarily lead us into circular reasoning, but they are poor at communication. Once we invented modern science it was again possible to make progress.

Most of what we think and believe are confusions of ancient science and Ancient Language. Even comedy is closely tied to Ancient (natural) Language and the deviation from it. When speaking of pre-history (-2000BC) there is far more truth in ancient literature and the Bible than ANY book on anthropology or history. We have it all wrong. Language is programming and the programming in which leadership was conducted changed in 2000 BC in an event we know only as the story of the "Tower of Babel". Up until 2000 BC people were much more like a termite or a bee than like any Egyptologist. Of course by this time a large percentage of the population spoke the pidgin languages so they were just like any Egyptologist.

There was a single language that was metaphysical in nature and it has already splintered into seven billion different languages. Now THERE'S your "evolution".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ironically I actually do but you are probably misunderstanding something else to lead you to this conclusion. You probably misunderstand the point of this thread that there is another totally different way to interact with the world and to learn about it. There is a different programming for the human brain that generates the science used by our ancestors to develop the theory of "Change in Species" by which agriculture was invented. It was virtually identical (no doubt) to theory which gave rise to termite cities, beaver lakes, or bee hives. Human science was more complex not because humans are "smarter" than termites but because humans had something no other species on earth had; 40,000 years ago a mutation that tied the speech center to higher brain functions arose!!!! Humans are not significantly smarter than other life forms but we each don't have to start at the beginning because we are each taught the results of many centuries of accumulated knowledge. Without complex language we are little different with a similar consciousness to termites or beavers. Humans could not have advanced without the mutation that gave rise to complex language.

Be this as it may you are missing my point. It is my contention that ALL observation and ALL experiment support the mechanisms of "Change of Species" and we are misinterpreting experiment. Far worse most of the so called "Theory of Evolution" involves no experiment and ONLY inductive reasoning and observation. We believe in evolution because we want to believe. We believe because Darwin made assumptions that led him inexorably to the conclusion that species change gradually as less fit individuals died off. You can NOT show this is true and there is NO experiment that shows it is true.

Just because modern science can be, and probably is, wrong is not due to any weakness or fault in modern science. EXPERIMENT ties modern science to reality but we have misinterpreted experiment and invented "Evolution" from inductive reasoning and NOT experiment. We came to these mistaken conclusions because we used the "wrong" perspective to study the subject. Instead of looking at consciousness and individuals we looked at chance and species. We assumed the conclusion from the very beginning. We ALSO assumed a visible mechanism was involved so we saw it.

ALL change in ALL life is sudden and this applies in ALL ways ALWAYS.

You keep claiming things, but you never really support those claims. You might as well try on a pair of ruby slippers and chant "There's no place like home".