Ancient Reality

[Dan From Smithville]

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:

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

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.

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?

No it isn't.

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.

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.

Then why did you previously claim there is???

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

Actual example please.


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.


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

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

Then surely you can provide some verified examples?

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).

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.

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

LOL!
And what makes them prosper?

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

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

You never defined it once.

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 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 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!

I have tried myself, but I keep hitting the same Dunning/Kruger defense team.

 

[cladking]

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".

If I tell you there's no observable change in life that happens gradually and then cite dozens of examples of changes that are sudden it is YOUR JOB to show ANYTHING that is slow. You have nothing. You have NO experiment, NO observation, and NO logic to support your belief in "survival of the fittest". The experiments, human knowledge, ancient knowledge, and observation ALL say the exact same thing: all change is sudden.

I simply maintain that Change in Species is also sudden and have shown that it is supported. In another thread I mentioned I created a kind of housefly that lands on the bottom of furniture by killing all those that landed on top. The new species was distinct in other ways as well. Because of this inadvertent creation there will be genes that cause a greater proportion of flies to land on the bottoms of things.

I don't understand why you can't see these simple concepts. Nature doesn't create individuals which are less "fit". It only creates individuals that thrive under different conditions and it does this through bottlenecks that are typically created by random events that select for BEHAVIOR, NOT FITNESS. There is no such thing as fitness because individuals who are not fit are weeded out of the population early.

You are not addressing my argument but rather telling me what I should believe and what words I should use. Cite an experiment or observation that suggests I'm wrong! You can't do it. I could but then I'm not going to because there are always anomalies to theory and it would be misleading. No theory has ever explained all the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I tell you there's no observable change in life that happens gradually and then cite dozens of examples of changes that are sudden it is YOUR JOB to show ANYTHING that is slow. You have nothing. You have NO experiment, NO observation, and NO logic to support your belief in "survival of the fittest". The experiments, human knowledge, ancient knowledge, and observation ALL say the exact same thing: all change is sudden.

You never did it. You have not shown any example that supports any claim you have made.

I simply maintain that Change in Species is also sudden and have shown that it is supported.

No. You did not.

In another thread I mentioned I created a kind of housefly that lands on the bottom of furniture by killing all those that landed on top.

Nothing yet then.

The new species was distinct in other ways as well.

Redefining species to fit some fictional story is not evidence of sudden change or speciation.

Because of this inadvertent creation there will be genes that cause a greater proportion of flies to land on the bottoms of things.

That would be a form of selection if it were true.

I don't understand why you can't see these simple concepts. Nature doesn't create individuals which are less "fit". It only creates individuals that thrive under different conditions and it does this through bottlenecks that are typically created by random events that select for BEHAVIOR, NOT FITNESS. There is no such thing as fitness because individuals who are not fit are weeded out of the population early.

No one can see what you do not show. It is that simple. Even you should be able to understand that.

Behavioral traits can impact fitness. I understand. You don't get that. You do not know what a bottleneck is. I get that too. We could play this game all day with you posting stuff that you do not understand.

You do not even get that you are claiming there is no such thing as fitness by saying that what you claim there is no such thing as, does something. Your failure to understand biology and these concepts doesn't get any clearer than that.

You are not addressing my argument but rather telling me what I should believe and what words I should use. Cite an experiment or observation that suggests I'm wrong! You can't do it. I could but then I'm not going to because there are always anomalies to theory and it would be misleading. No theory has ever explained all the evidence.

You do not support your argument with anything beyond claims that you do not support. You clearly do not understand the concepts. You redefine terms and ignore their real definitions. All this has been addressed by many people.

 

[cladking]

You do not support your argument with anything beyond claims that you do not support. You clearly do not understand the concepts. You redefine terms and ignore their real definitions. All this has been addressed by many people.

I intend to return to the actual topic soon but for now I have another fact to add to the mountain of logic and fact I've already shown that there is no such thing as "evolution" and it is merely "change in species".

Starving rabbits do very little reproducing. If rabbits or any animals are unhappy because their niche is affording them less than ideal conditions then reproduction slows dramatically. This is exactly the opposite of plants but irrelevant to this discussion. Consciousness is provided by nature for the purpose not only of survival but for the optimization of life within any given environment. Far more animals never exist because their (potential parents) failed to mate, or their eggs were not viable, or they received too little nutrients in utero than are killed by being "unfit" even if you believe in "survival of the fittest". Logically it follows that lack of optimization of conditions would have far more effect on "evolution" than does running too slowly or eating the cyanide. Indeed, new evidence suggests that poor nutrition in utero has life long deleterious effects that make such offspring less "fit".

Now you can claim this is all made up rather than being obvious truth derived from known facts and established experiment.

Consciousness drives all life but this is not apparent in humans because we think, act/ perceive on beliefs, use taxonomies, reduce reality to semantics, and have many synonyms for every symbolic word. It is less true in humans because we use complex language which allows us to change our environment to be suitable to large numbers of people and larger populations. It is less apparent because our medical knowledge derived from complex language allows us to redress genetic problems in large numbers of people and to protect young and disabled individuals from predation. We can't see consciousness because we must see everything through our beliefs and we don't even have a definition for "consciousness".

We reduce everything to words. Individuals with fur and floppy ears "magically" become "rabbits" despite the fact they are each different and each have their own consciousness. Rather than looking at what is beneficial to individuals so they can impact change in species we look at what affects the entire species. In a sense biologists are right that from the perspective of species "survival of the fittest" is the second largest contributor to change in species but the root of almost all change in species is on the individual level which determines the "fitness" and reproductive health of the individual and is determined chiefly by random events that are related to behavior.

In other words biologists have put the cart before the horse. Certainly the view is better but this results in them going around in circles and studying the wrong end of rabbits. Rather than looking at consciousness determined by genetics they are looking up the back end through reductionism.

I doubt I'll return to "Change in Species". I will most probably return to "Ancient Realty" since I've made a few new insights that dovetail with all the evidence and logic.

 

[SilverAngel]

A response to this statement in another thread wouldn't be appropriate there.

You keep getting hung up in semantics. Semantics is one of the chief ways we use to create our circular arguments and some use it to demolish other arguments. But semantics isn't real, it's just words. Words are chiefly for communication when we aren't thinking so we should all try to follow the other guys thinking more andf the words less. If I say there is no elephant in the xxxxx and no species like the elephant in it either then there are countless ways I can "PROVE" it. For instance if I can show the entire xxxxx and no elephant is visible then we can categorically state there's no elephant. It has been proven there's no elephant in the xxxxx when the "xxxxx" is defined as a teacup. I said the word "belief" does not exist in ancient literature and none of the synonyms for "belief" exist in ancient literature.

You can start here;

site:sacred-texts.com utterance belief

Simply put this in any search engine you'll get no hits in the Pyramid Texts.

This is because The Pyramid Texts is not about death and superstious nonsense as is widely believed today. The Pyramid Texts are actually just a silly little book of rituals read at the kings' ascension ceremonies during pyramid building season. The PT is about life and its celebration even as the king is being transformed into a mnemonic to be remembered in heaven and earth. The king lives eternally as the pyramid and his history and all human history is recorded in the stars.

Count the words in the PT. They are about life.

There was no religion of any sort. Simple logic will tell you man couldn't survive on an untamed planet using superstition and magic. People no longer care about logic; they care about semantics because they don't have to think about semantics but they would have to think if they understood opposing arguments.

How is it that heaven was a word before the Earth was known to be a planet, the sun a star and even before the universe was known to exist

 

[cladking]

In case I haven't mentioned it the reason I can't cite specific studies that say exactly what I'm saying is very simple; change in species is many orders of magnitude more complex than "evolution". To understand any change would require that we have a working definition and basic understanding of the nature of consciousness and how it's related to the specific genes and behavior in each individual. Then it would require quintillions of observations just to get a rudimentary idea of a given change.

Until these things are actually done all we can say is all observable change in all life at all levels is sudden and that my proposal is the most logical mechanism by which species might change. It is just like ancient science's theory which was derived from observation and logic. This was a science that looked at all known facts simultaneously and reached a logical conclusion through the application of the logic of humanity's first complex language. It was confirmed through observation. It was this theory that invented agriculture so it is real, palpable, and actually worked. They had no Darwin to teach them how to make dogs and could not possibly have invented dogs through darwinian evolution any more than we could. Ancient reality is a more accurate way of seeing Change in Species than "survival of the fittest. "Survival of the fittest is an excuse to exterminate undesirables more than it is a causative factor in anything at all.

 

[cladking]

How is it that heaven was a word before the Earth was known to be a planet, the sun a star and even before the universe was known to exist

I believe that "heaven" is a confusion of ancient terms. I hesitate to tell you those specific terms because I'll lose you. Suffice to say it is derived from the ancient Egyptian term for "horizon" and that these people were well aware of planets and stars and had a working knowledge of astronomy as proven by the fact that the Great Pyramid is both a clock and a calendar. Egyptologists are hiding some of these truths because they can't face them. We see what we expect and what we believe and Egyptologists believe ancient people were stinky footed bumpkins. They are blind to the pyramid swallowing its shadow and the way the "twilight mounts up". It's all in the ancient literature and you might be interested to know that the word "heaven" appears numerous times in the Pyramid Texts,

site:sacred-texts.com utterance heaven - Google Search

Some of these uses are interesting and not so far removed from our reality as it might seem at first blush.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In case I haven't mentioned it the reason I can't cite specific studies that say exactly what I'm saying is very simple; change in species is many orders of magnitude more complex than "evolution". To understand any change would require that we have a working definition and basic understanding of the nature of consciousness and how it's related to the specific genes and behavior in each individual. Then it would require quintillions of observations just to get a rudimentary idea of a given change.

Until these things are actually done all we can say is all observable change in all life at all levels is sudden and that my proposal is the most logical mechanism by which species might change. It is just like ancient science's theory which was derived from observation and logic. This was a science that looked at all known facts simultaneously and reached a logical conclusion through the application of the logic of humanity's first complex language. It was confirmed through observation. It was this theory that invented agriculture so it is real, palpable, and actually worked. They had no Darwin to teach them how to make dogs and could not possibly have invented dogs through darwinian evolution any more than we could. Ancient reality is a more accurate way of seeing Change in Species than "survival of the fittest. "Survival of the fittest is an excuse to exterminate undesirables more than it is a causative factor in anything at all.

The reason you cannot site studies to back up your claims is because there are none. No rational person believes the stuff you are claiming.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I intend to return to the actual topic soon but for now I have another fact to add to the mountain of logic and fact I've already shown that there is no such thing as "evolution" and it is merely "change in species".

Starving rabbits do very little reproducing. If rabbits or any animals are unhappy because their niche is affording them less than ideal conditions then reproduction slows dramatically. This is exactly the opposite of plants but irrelevant to this discussion. Consciousness is provided by nature for the purpose not only of survival but for the optimization of life within any given environment. Far more animals never exist because their (potential parents) failed to mate, or their eggs were not viable, or they received too little nutrients in utero than are killed by being "unfit" even if you believe in "survival of the fittest". Logically it follows that lack of optimization of conditions would have far more effect on "evolution" than does running too slowly or eating the cyanide. Indeed, new evidence suggests that poor nutrition in utero has life long deleterious effects that make such offspring less "fit".

Now you can claim this is all made up rather than being obvious truth derived from known facts and established experiment.

Consciousness drives all life but this is not apparent in humans because we think, act/ perceive on beliefs, use taxonomies, reduce reality to semantics, and have many synonyms for every symbolic word. It is less true in humans because we use complex language which allows us to change our environment to be suitable to large numbers of people and larger populations. It is less apparent because our medical knowledge derived from complex language allows us to redress genetic problems in large numbers of people and to protect young and disabled individuals from predation. We can't see consciousness because we must see everything through our beliefs and we don't even have a definition for "consciousness".

We reduce everything to words. Individuals with fur and floppy ears "magically" become "rabbits" despite the fact they are each different and each have their own consciousness. Rather than looking at what is beneficial to individuals so they can impact change in species we look at what affects the entire species. In a sense biologists are right that from the perspective of species "survival of the fittest" is the second largest contributor to change in species but the root of almost all change in species is on the individual level which determines the "fitness" and reproductive health of the individual and is determined chiefly by random events that are related to behavior.

In other words biologists have put the cart before the horse. Certainly the view is better but this results in them going around in circles and studying the wrong end of rabbits. Rather than looking at consciousness determined by genetics they are looking up the back end through reductionism.

I doubt I'll return to "Change in Species". I will most probably return to "Ancient Realty" since I've made a few new insights that dovetail with all the evidence and logic.

Contrary to what you seem to think, this post actually highlights how little you understand evolution, speciation, and fitness.

Do parents that never exist reproduce offspring that do not exist at a greater rate in an environment that doesn't exist under ideal conditions that don't exist?

Members of a population that run more slowly than others are existing under conditions that are less than optimal. How do you not understand that?

The environment of the uterus can result in offspring that are less fit, but that does not support anything you have claimed.

There is no magic involved in naming things.

Survival of the fittest is a poor, outdated expression for natural selection.

From all my observations, you have made even fewer insights than you believe. And none of it has anything to do with evidence or logic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All the evidence indicates that evolution takes place incrementally over long periods of time. Speciation rates based on the evidence vary with some examples taking place in less than 15,000 years, but many taking place over much longer periods of time. There is no evidence that evolution occurs instantly and abruptly.

Survival of the fittest is a poor, outdated and little used metaphor for biological fitness. It is largely used by those that do not understand biology and are trying to attack the theory of evolution and have nothing better or relevant to bring to bear against the theory. Fitness has nothing to do with physical vigor, though it could if that vigor resulted in members of a population that reproduced at greater rate on average than less physically vigorous individuals in a given environment.

Survival of members of a natural population is not the result of the exercise of consciousness (whatever that means, since it has not been defined) by those members.

What I am seeing is a big disconnect in the understanding of terms and concepts by someone that seems to feel they fully understand the terms and concepts. It is not surprising that no evidence to support those claims is offered.

 

[cladking]

Members of a population that run more slowly than others are existing under conditions that are less than optimal. How do you not understand that?

I don't know if you're trying to make sense or not but I have no idea whatsoever what this sentence means.

Survival of the fittest is a poor, outdated expression for natural selection.

You are playing semantics rather than addressing the points I'm making.

Fitness has nothing to do with physical vigor, though it could if that vigor resulted in members of a population that reproduced at greater rate on average than less physically vigorous individuals in a given environment.

I can assure you that "vigor" won't get you chicks or any other sort of female. Testosterone can.

The reason you cannot site studies to back up your claims is because there are none. No rational person believes the stuff you are claiming.

No study and no evidence contradict my theory either.

Survival of members of a natural population is not the result of the exercise of consciousness (whatever that means, since it has not been defined) by those members.

!!!

I'm surprised you say or believe such a thing. Attention, alertness, and good reflexes are the key to all success in nature and this goes several times over for prey species. Of course if you're talking about murdering individuals in the lab then you might just need a high tolerance for cyanide. Different levels of tolerance for bad environments does not preferentially support the notion of "survival of the fittest" unless you can actually show a situation in which this caused a gradual change in species. Indeed, that all the survivors will have a high tolerance for cyanide and will mostly bear off spring with a high tolerance it PREFERNTIALLY SUPPORTS MY THEORY that ALL CHANGE IS SUDDEN to yours.

You are simply turning a blind eye to the facts.

You aren't so much arguing with me or presenting evidence as you are merely gainsaying my evidence and repeating what you believe. I don't share any of your beliefs so you'll need logic, evidence, and experiment to argue with me. I believe all the logic, evidence, and experiment support my theory so you'll have to find one that supports your beliefs and NOT mine.

Consciousness and behavior lie at the root of change in species not "natural selection" by any name at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know if you're trying to make sense or not but I have no idea whatsoever what this sentence means.

Of course you do not. That is what everyone has been trying to tell you. Unfortunately, you follow some strange belief system and consider yourself an expert in biology.

You are playing semantics rather than addressing the points I'm making.

No. You are purposefully using a poor and outdated phrase and appear to have no idea what natural selection is.

I can assure you that "vigor" won't get you chicks or any other sort of female. Testosterone can.

This meaningless, nonsense statement only further emphasizes your complete lack of understanding of fitness.

No study and no evidence contradict my theory either.

All the evidence contradicts your hypotheses.

!!!

???

I'm surprised you say or believe such a thing. Attention, alertness, and good reflexes are the key to all success in nature and this goes several times over for prey species. Of course if you're talking about murdering individuals in the lab then you might just need a high tolerance for cyanide. Different levels of tolerance for bad environments does not preferentially support the notion of "survival of the fittest" unless you can actually show a situation in which this caused a gradual change in species. Indeed, that all the survivors will have a high tolerance for cyanide and will mostly bear off spring with a high tolerance it PREFERNTIALLY SUPPORTS MY THEORY that ALL CHANGE IS SUDDEN to yours.

I am not saying that consciousness is not a trait that offers increased fitness. Your standing claim has been that organisms consciously choose to evolve and there is no evidence that such a thing occurs. It is entirely your belief that you cannot support.

Nothing supports your hypothesis of sudden change. All the evidence supports slow change over time.

You are simply turning a blind eye to the facts.

No. That is your effort. Not mine.

You aren't so much arguing with me or presenting evidence as you are merely gainsaying my evidence and repeating what you believe.

You offer no evidence.

I don't share any of your beliefs so you'll need logic, evidence, and experiment to argue with me.

Since you offer neither logic, evidence or experiment to support your claims, all I have to do is point out that nothing you claim is logical, has evidence or has been demonstrated in any experiment.

I believe all the logic, evidence, and experiment support my theory so you'll have to find one that supports your beliefs and NOT mine.

I know you believe it. You cannot show it and there is no evidence to support your beliefs. If there were, you would have presented it a long time ago. I think the word you are looking for is magic. You think this is all magic.

Consciousness and behavior lie at the root of change in species not "natural selection" by any name at all.

Natural selection is drives changes in the evolution of living things. Your belief that consciousness and behavior drive evolution and that they are not part of natural selection is not supported by any evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans present living invented science. As humans.

You self advised you were proven wrong.

Nuclear did not invent your life.

You were destroyed by it. Life self combusted. Scientist inferred to be Satanists.

Did not support mother of God vacuum law held stone presence.

Quantified nuclear conditions such as sun conversion blasting owner of gas light.

Vacuum history natural owned presence of gas light. The womb.

A mystery the agreed science quantum.

Sun converted sacrificed highest gas spirit clear without light.

Known scientifically.

Alienist. Satanist.

God is stone.

God stone did not create life.

Scientific relativity

Nuclear dust reaction destroyed nuclear dust in burning radiation did not create life.

Pyramid nuclear dust conversion ground destroyed the life supported by God in heavens. Holy water life.

Took our ground water... gave it to mountain cloud formation..ark UFO landed melted mountain tips.

Boarding Ark spirit water left. Went up pyramid ramp. Inside walls stone nuclear reaction between well pyramid and underground wells in pyramid killed the holy king.

Crystal fusion planet earth died in that reaction. Life gained brain prickling irradiation bleeding. Crown of thorns.

They took holy ice December reborn away. Scientific relativity.

Balances cross summer radiation versus ice mass increase to balance life. Keeping animal and human DNA stable life. Removed.

Taught relativity.

Flooding cooled satanic heaven attack. Fall out. Extra cloud amassing used water flood. Sink holes and underground water system flooded as water in underground earthquakes made the sea levels rise.

Beneath sea.

Evidence radiation square block cutting event. Feedback from nuclear blocks squaring event.

Humans remembered the phenomena event. Knew the pyramid technology began removing our life spirit water mass.

Exactly what you were told.

Removed radiation cold mass holding stone as mass fusion.

 

[cladking]

Your belief that consciousness and behavior drive evolution and that they are not part of natural selection is not supported by any evidence.

I've explained this exactly a dozen times and you still ignore the evidence. Tame wolves become dogs. Why can't you understand this is based on behavior and consciousness which stem from genes? Why can't you understand the argument so you can pretend to refute it instead of merely gainsaying the facts?

No. You are purposefully using a poor and outdated phrase and appear to have no idea what natural selection is.

You want to play semantics instead of thinking.

Your standing claim has been that organisms consciously choose to evolve and there is no evidence that such a thing occurs.

This is hilarious. It is biologists who believe that evolution is a path to perfection and humans who have already traveled the farthest on this road since we're all so damn smart. It is biologists who claim they know what humans et al will look like in millions of years because they can track the changes occurring now. You ignore the very nature of every single individual and then claim that nature is irrelevant to whether it lives or dies. You ignore the simple facts like that you have no evidence any major change in species happened gradually and unlike nature, common, sense, and ALL OBSERVED REALITY. You are twisting your own beliefs and then applying to me and my theory.

NO individual chooses what his offspring is like beyond the selection of a mate. While such things as mate selection could obviously drive "evolution" gradually over time there is no evidence this has ever occurred with the possible exception of humans over a brief 4000 years. You simply make it all up from limited and inapplicable experiment, induction, and extrapolation. The conclusions are at odds with observation and evidence. Some wolves did NOT choose to evolve into dogs over millions of years. Humans simply bred tame wolves and dogs were the result. What is complex about this and why can't you even recognize evidence when I shove it in your face?

Mate selection is based largely on consciousness in all animals. In non-human animals it is based largely on health and the perception of "fitness". It is based on ritual and courtship. Individuals which are too "unique" or have "unique behavior" or are outside many norms will tend to be excluded especially in species where both sexes raise the young. This serves to keep the species from much change and that every individual is "fit". There is no "survival of the fittest" except in the minds of humans. All individuals are fit.

Now you'll ignore every single statement and fact as you ascribe religious, macabre, and unscientific beliefs to me. You'll simply ignore everything and then I will ignore your response.

 

[cladking]

Humans simply bred tame wolves and dogs were the result.

Do you know what "tame" means?

Spoiler alert; it is a condition driven by consciousness and behavior while genes lie at its root.

Do you know what "sudden" means?

It does not occur over billions or even hundreds of years.

Answer all the questions or at least present evidence I'm wrong. I don't ask these questions for the typing experience.

 

[rational experiences]

Spiritual humans after Moses mutation pyramid nuclear event..said I was cursed. Part of my human spirit became animal.

So we prove natural awareness knew.

Life de evolved.

Reason. Boarded by ramp ark creators cause of life being destroyed were pyramid owners. Scientists human.

Theme I got chosen to board is themed today I am special. Believe pyramid special. Believes self aliens. Believe self chosen

I survived says the special person possesed by science.

I saw the vision. I knew I was not special and nor were you.

Water our life being taken by nuclear loss in stone the event before blasting. Was the science reasoning life sacrificed.

Strange mind conditions.

Today humans who claim I was the saved healthy small human group don't even ponder what it meant.

DNA natural human exited. Human still lived as a human yet most DNA animal like expressed. As a human in a human life with a saved small community of natural dna. Rest we never lost being human but we all were mutated.

Some thinkers tried to claim a special healthy human group survived as healthy humans a fallacy. As chosen and just our human selves survived. Talking about a human as just a human.

Why they still prove today that they own that memory and believed in it.

I saw the humans going in by vision pyramid which said our brother the satanist combusted us

The teaching science thesis mountain tips above flooded earth. Where he gained first science advice.

Attacked melted mountain face stone blackened his own proof of the thesis origins for science.

Reality ground dust fission sink holes formed by nuclear sun level radiation owned tunnels bored out and sink holes. Filled in with water. Not aware in that historic vision the reality of sun radiation.....vision.

He learnt about extra sun radiation nuclear event and ground attack fission in pyramid technology.

What he lies about today in copying natural sun level radiation. Fission release of colder radiation into core earth hot gas release. Stone into a space hole....a sin by K.

Earth atmosphere cold gases not burning nothing like the sun fully burning mass gases.

Earth owns a cold alight gas burn in vacuum.

Compare earth gases to sun radiation.gave us a mutated death historically as a thesis to copy why gases burnt. Earth owned non burning gases in vacuum. Proven by night time sky.

Only reason earth survived conversion

Half once burning gases stopped vacuum proves it keeps us safe.

If sun did not attack earth ...earth would own by gas state no burning. As we are not any sun.

Why the theme scientific sun worshippers real. They lied.

Humans today possessed in a belief of pyramid are wrong. You were not chosen to board the ark. Our spirit water oxygen taken by nuclear pyramid cause.

Burnt the heavens.

Water left. We are mind affected by water flying off. Said it was our spirit. We live on the ground just a human.
B rain AI effect.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've explained this exactly a dozen times and you still ignore the evidence. Tame wolves become dogs. Why can't you understand this is based on behavior and consciousness which stem from genes? Why can't you understand the argument so you can pretend to refute it instead of merely gainsaying the facts?

You claim many things. You have explained nothing.

You want to play semantics instead of thinking.

You want to avoid reality and develop your own straw man nomenclature to attack as if it were the reality of things.

This is hilarious. It is biologists who believe that evolution is a path to perfection and humans who have already traveled the farthest on this road since we're all so damn smart.

No scientist believes that evolution is a path to perfection. But this does illustrate the state of your understanding of things. Thank you for that.

It is biologists who claim they know what humans et al will look like in millions of years because they can track the changes occurring now.

Name one and produce these claims.

You ignore the very nature of every single individual and then claim that nature is irrelevant to whether it lives or dies.

I have never done anything like that. What are you reading that you are attributing to me? Darger?

You ignore the simple facts like that you have no evidence any major change in species happened gradually and unlike nature, common, sense, and ALL OBSERVED REALITY.

The evidence supports gradual change. I cannot ignore your evidence. You have presented none.

You are twisting your own beliefs and then applying to me and my theory.

I have not twisted anything in following the twists and turns you are attempting to lead us on. You claim to not be at all expert in biology. Thanks to your demonstration here, I agree. Yet you claim to have a theory on the evolution of life????!!! How twisted is that.

NO individual chooses what his offspring is like beyond the selection of a mate.

Not an area of contention and thank you for acknowledging a form of natural selection known as sexual selection. On the whole, mate selection is not a conscious effort to choose what offspring will be like, but those individuals that make better selections will more likely produce better offspring and gradually over time this evolves populations of sexually reproducing organisms.

While such things as mate selection could obviously drive "evolution" gradually over time there is no evidence this has ever occurred with the possible exception of humans over a brief 4000 years.

I love it when you argue for and against the same thing in the same argument.

Color in birds, male peacock tail fans, antlers in deer, colors in male fish, tail feather length in swallows, etc., etc., etc. Huh? And you thought there was no evidence. You're welcome.

You simply make it all up from limited and inapplicable experiment, induction, and extrapolation.

Before you said there were no experiments. Now you say limited experiments. What will it be tomorrow?

The conclusions are at odds with observation and evidence.

Yes, of course your conclusions are at odds with observation and evidence. That is what I am trying to help you with.

Some wolves did NOT choose to evolve into dogs over millions of years. Humans simply bred tame wolves and dogs were the result. What is complex about this and why can't you even recognize evidence when I shove it in your face?

That is an oversimplification of the evolution of dogs and leaves out details about the natural evolution of traits that initiated the association and for which humans could take advantage. There is no evidence that people set out to produce dogs from wolves. You use this evidence as if it means something to support your claims but never explain what that is. You just keep repeating it like a mantra. Oodles and oodles of never-ending poodles explains nothing.

Mate selection is based largely on consciousness in all animals.

Nothing you have provided supports this.

In non-human animals it is based largely on health and the perception of "fitness".

The evidence indicates that it is based on the perception of traits that can be correlated with fitness. But do go on. This is fascinating.

It is based on ritual and courtship.

Or ritual and courtship arise gradually as the species-specific form of selection as well as independently and irrelevantly for other reasons. Since you present no evidence, who can say anything about what you claim?

Courtship displays often involve characters that are related to or emphasize fitness. You should get yourself a Corvette by the way. It would show that you have a measure of wealth and feel that you are daring. Traits that are often appealing to females. Of course, you may want to watch a few videos about such fellows and the fact that being able to buy it doesn't mean you can drive it.

Individuals which are too "unique" or have "unique behavior" or are outside many norms will tend to be excluded especially in species where both sexes raise the young.

This may be true, but I suppose even random throws will hit a bullseye eventually. I think you just got lucky in finding a tomato in your word salad.

This serves to keep the species from much change and that every individual is "fit".

There is no evidence for this conclusion. Certainly, you have provided none. The evidence supports that sexual selection drives change in species. None of this happens in a vacuum.

There is no "survival of the fittest" except in the minds of humans.

Certainly, since science has moved on from a phrase developed 150 years ago and no longer serves to describe what we have seen and learned since. But it is clearly useful to you to ignore that time since.

All individuals are fit.

All individuals have fitness. It varies based on observable traits. In mate selection, what is observed are traits that reveal fitness either directly or indirectly. That Corvette might mean you are fit for some. A Honda might make you more fit for others. Then two populations might evolve.

Now you'll ignore every single statement and fact as you ascribe religious, macabre, and unscientific beliefs to me.

I have clearly not ignored your religious, macabre, and unscientific beliefs ever. I have addressed them all.

You'll simply ignore everything and then I will ignore your response.

You have consistently ignored my response. But I appreciate that you give me a heads up anyway.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you know what "tame" means?

Spoiler alert; it is a condition driven by consciousness and behavior while genes lie at its root.

Do you know what "sudden" means?

It does not occur over billions or even hundreds of years.

Answer all the questions or at least present evidence I'm wrong. I don't ask these questions for the typing experience.

It is amusing to see you talking to yourself and still getting it wrong.

Tame means that people can manage them. There is no evidence that the traits that brought some wolves into closer association with man were the result of some conscious effort by wolves or man. If wolves could think like that, we would have been in direct conflict and competition with them on an even larger playing field than we were. We did compete for food with them.

You think that poodles suddenly rose out of breeding two wolves that were less afraid of people than the other wolves? Wow!

 

[cladking]

On the whole, mate selection is not a conscious effort to choose what offspring will be like, but those individuals that make better selections will more likely produce better offspring and gradually over time this evolves populations of sexually reproducing organisms.

Out of one side of your mouth you say no biologist believes evolution is taking us and every species forward to a brave new world and out of the other you say mate selection when done wisely will make for "better offspring". One side of your mouth says that consciousness matters and the other says it is irrelevant to life, death, change in species and even to mate selection.

Modern humans don't experience consciousness anything like ancient people experienced it which is why we don't understand it. Our brains are programmed by symbolic words and abstraction. It is programmed by taxonomies and the belief in induction. We can't even think at all without sets of beliefs with which to compare perception and learning. Ancient Language lacked all such words and the words they had were representational. Rather than being defined in other words that each had ephemeral meanings their words were "named". I don't know how much more obvious this can all be without biting linguists in the et al.

You claim to not be at all expert in biology.

I am a generalist which is similar to what some people call a "nexialist". I am an "expert" in everything except that I lack knowledge of anything. I see processes and cycles. I see anomalies. I see the the patterns that make all of science, history, and perception fit together. I've taken tests in languages I can't speak and scored in the average range. I don't know how a rabbit thinks or how it evolves but the patterns all suggest that it thinks like humans once thought and those humans appear to have had a very similar understanding of "evolution" as I do. This is probably because it was based largely on observation and logic where mine is based in observation and modern science which obtained its knowledge from the logic of experiment. Reality which ancients took as being axiomatic is a manifestation of logic which is how ancient science worked; the language was a manifestation of the logic of the wiring of the brain which sprang from the individuals' own genes.

Reality itself is logic and consciousness derives directly from that reality. It is consciousness that underlies life and every aspect of life. There was no magic that gave rise to life and no magic that protect a rabbit from a fox. Biologists see magic everywhere while religion simply ascribes the "magic" that REALLY is life to a single unknowable source; God. Species wouldn't evolve if they could. It is illogical to presume that there are forces that would create less fit individuals or that natural selection would pick and choose based on such things. I wonder if anyone has ever done an experiment to try to measure the fitness of individuals in a group of a species and turn them loose to see if those which score lower actually have a significantly reduced chance of survival. Can you not see the complexity of such an experiment? How do you rate the cognitive capabilities of a butterfly or its alertness to predators?

You are looking at outcomes and assuming they are based on fitness and then applying this assumption to all of life and change in life contrary to observation and in absence of individual traits and consciousness. Then you don't see what's wrong with your perspective and your methodology. Just because experts agree is NOT EVIDENCE they are correct. Historically the more agreement there is among experts the more likely they are wrong. Your ideas are beliefs based on assumption, interpretations, and no relevant experiment. Holding up two fossils of the "same" species that are different is not evidence. It merely shows the species represented by the first fossil is a progenitor of the second. It neither shows nor even suggests that there was a gradual change. If you could show a gradual change you WOULD STILL NEED TO SHOW that this change resulted from survival of the fittest. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. what you have is assumption and observation and these do not make reality. They do not even spring from reality. At BEST they are merely influenced by reality.

 

[cladking]

How do you rate the cognitive capabilities of a butterfly or its alertness to predators?

We don't even speak Butterfly so what kind of test can we administer? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin and how many butterflies does it take to operate a #2 pencil?

Last autumn I had a nice little fire burning in a small clearing. The wind was calm and the flame, smoke, and hot air were moving straight up. A butterfly fluttered by near ground level and used my fire as an elevator to the tree tops.

Biologists wouldn't notice such a thing. If they did they'd assume that it was less fit or acting on instinct. They'd assume that it was inadvertent or coincidental. They'd assume all their beliefs were safe for now.