Fascinating!

[tas8831]

I have no "folk neurophysiology" because there is no referent for the word in modern language until it is defined. Your request is nonsense so I ignored it.

IOW - you cannot handle the science that you bring up for reasons unfathomable, and all you have is dopey mythology.

You are no longer worth the effort. You are out of your league, and can't even see it.

 

[tas8831]

Evidence?


"He" was a mutation? Please explain.

Also, explain your folk neuroanatomy/neurophysiology.

Apparently, this one uses words that he cannot understand and tries to hide this with excessive verbiage.

Just like deeje and nPeace.

Hmmm... What a coincidence.

 

[tas8831]

So I suppose your contention is the tides are unaffected by Alpha Centari, butterflies in China, Pluto (it's not even a planet ya' know), Mars, and the sun.

WOW!!! Where is that "boring button" when you really need it? What a drab, unimaginative, and unscientific world you must live in!

I can't even imagine a world where everything is known and you can't imagine anything else.

LOL!

These people and their sad projection...

Imagination, it seems, is all the religionists have th4ese days - facts escape them, reality abandons them.

This one says that Adam 'was a mutation', but apparently can neither define nor understand what he even means.

 

[tas8831]

In other words it's perfectly logical to you that we know everything about ancient people because their writing looks like sun addled maniacs mustta written it!

This from the fellow that wrote about horses and genetics yet admits to understanding neither.

Put a sock in it, sonny. You are not up to speed. You come across as childish.

 

[cladking]

I am merely proposing that nature uses the power of the brain (consciousness) to allow individuals to model reality for survival. In humans there was a mutation that tied higher brain functions more closely to the speech center. This mutation was of very limited utility to the individual and would have died out in most species but humans were very social and somewhat more clever. It was this mutation that bred true and gave early humans the ability to pass complex learning from generation to generation giving rise to the human race.

Language is programming so the first human language was merely an elaboration on the the language which had allowed our predecessors to model reality. We became capable of seeing a great deal more reality.

This programming language became overly complex and collapsed at the "tower of babel" so now we model our beliefs instead of reality.

These are simple enough concepts and the evidence is everywhere.

 

[ecco]

I am merely proposing that nature uses the power of the brain (consciousness) to allow individuals to model reality for survival. In humans there was a mutation that tied higher brain functions more closely to the speech center. This mutation was of very limited utility to the individual and would have died out in most species but humans were very social and somewhat more clever. It was this mutation that bred true and gave early humans the ability to pass complex learning from generation to generation giving rise to the human race.

Language is programming so the first human language was merely an elaboration on the the language which had allowed our predecessors to model reality. We became capable of seeing a great deal more reality.

This programming language became overly complex and collapsed at the "tower of babel" so now we model our beliefs instead of reality.

These are simple enough concepts and the evidence is everywhere.

Simplistic concepts with no evidence to support them.

 

[tas8831]

All animals are scientists and directly model reality in their brains. We model beliefs. They model knowledge and understanding.

Please demonstrate how it is that you understand precisely what goes on in non-human animal brains in terms of how they model their reality.

 

[tas8831]

I think a lot like ancient people so I talk a little like them.

Please provide evidence that you know what ancient people thought.

 

[tas8831]

If you confused our science by redefining most of the terms, misinterpreting experimental results, and jumbling the quantities in every equation it would have a lousy track record too.

Is that what you did/do?

But ancient science was expressed in a metaphysical language whose meaning was literal.

Nope.

I believe it's much more true that babies simply have yet to learn how to process the huge amount of data that is reality. Much of it is acquired through AND WITHIN language (confused language)

You believe it - who cares?

What is the supporting evidence for what you 'believe'?

Babies are incapable of learning much science until they are two

Do you ever actually read what you write and wonder "How can I be this clueless?"?

Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area

So we can add neuroanatomy and development to the list of things that you vastly overestimate your competence in.

One does not "grow" a "broccas" [sic] area.

My gosh man, get the help you need.

 

[tas8831]

I see nobody responded to my contention that the ability of an individual to survive is more closely correlated to its "tastiness" than its "fitness" or ability to "adapt". Darwin was nonsense in the 1880's and it's nonsense now. Darwin led us down a dark path and used Look and See Science to do it. Now you can't even see the evidence stacked up against it and the continued lack of experimental justification.

Why bother?

You are as much of an expert on evolution as you are on neuroanatomy.

You seem clueless of the basics - like what 'fitness' means, and you are clueless as to the fact that you are clueless.

I must admit that I have been transfixed by your posts over the course of the last hour or two - I had more or less forgotten how absurd your claims were until I read something you had written earlier.

And like a driver rubber necking at a car crash, I cannot seem to look away... The fractal craziness is too attractive.

 

[tas8831]

Darwin was wrong. Why can't you address what I say?
...

I am self taught.

That explains some of this.

The self-taught suffer doubly by having both a poor teacher and a substandard education.

 

[tas8831]

This is a simple concept. I use all published translations of everything that might have been written in Ancient Language and I've read them many times.

Maybe you can't appreciate how little exists in AL because you never even opened the link I provided twice.

And you're self-taught, right?

Got it.

 

[tas8831]

I cannot get passed the idea that he thinks that beavers one day came up with the idea of dams, communicated that idea, tested various designs, settled on the one we see today and that it was all done with some sort of scientific process. What I cannot get passed is that a lot of his "evidence" is what he believes and there is nothing physical to back it up.

I like how he thinks there should be 'experiments' to show what words mean. Or something.

 

[tas8831]

There was a single mutation in an individual we know only as "Adam" and the Egyptians called "S3h". This was the first human and he bred with the proto-humans and his progeny became the human race.

The mutation simply tied the speech center (wernickes area) to higher brain functions. It is this which defines the human race, not intelligence, not thumbs, and not any invention, process, or characteristic.

But the human race changed at the tower of babel and we are now homo omnisciencis and believe we know everything.

For starters, Wernicke was a person, so Wernicke's area should be capitalized.
Second, Wernickes area is not the 'speech center'.
Third, where is you actual EVIDENCE for ANY of these mere assertions?

Self-taught, you said, yes?

 

[tas8831]

People resist change. Some resist it until they can't resist it any longer but most people simply never do change.

I've had to make numerous changes to accept this new knowledge but most people will have to make far more and far more important and fundamental changes.

People resist being told they are wrong by a person that does not understand the basics of the things he argues against but insists that he is the one true genius among all men for very good and obvious reasons.

 

[tas8831]

You are ignoring my argument.

What argument?

I am saying all change in life from every perspective is "sudden". This means the successor to every species is sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" for most practical purposes. Barring mutation or bottlenecks there is almost no difference between parents and offspring.

Oh, THAT "argument".

Self-taught, admits that he doesn't know much about genetics, lectures me about how evolution really works... or doesn't.

No evidence exists that I am wrong yet I can show exactly where Darwin went wrong.

And yet you didn't.

You merely assert it.

Assertions are not evidence. They are definitely not proof.

I would write "Try again", but I hope you don't.

 

[tas8831]

My prediction was correct - lengthy, meandering verbiage, not even on topic....

In other words it's perfectly logical to you that we know everything about ancient people because their writing looks like sun addled maniacs mustta written it!

We were talking genetics and neurophysiology and your lack of knowledge of both. And you ramble on about ancient people. I will be omitting the off-topic gibberish in your post.

.....

Nothing on topic. Meandering gibberish.

No evidence. Just unsupported assertions, as usual.

BOOOOORRRINGGGGGGG.

Yet, I cannot look away...

 

[tas8831]

I have no "folk neurophysiology" because there is no referent for the word in modern language until it is defined. Your request is nonsense so I ignored it.

LOL!

Johnny Ancient Langauge here can't figure out what modern words mean!

Spell "Broca", Mr.Wizard!

If you would like an answer to what evidence supports my explanation for proto humans > homo sapiens > homo omnisciencis then there is ample evidence and to my knowledge all experiment supports it.

Well show me the evidence, and provide examples of the experiments that support you.

More assertions and meanderings will render your claims GARBAGE,

... snip meandering gibberish...

Sure there are many things that agree with me and none that do not. Things like a second speech center that translates analog higher brain functions to the original speech center. Are you aware this second structure varies in location between individuals. Obviously it is acquired and if they ran testing on children under two they'd find it's not there.

I do not believe one word you wrote.

Show me the actual evidence and the experiments that prove this.

Babies babel because they are born with Ancient Language and must unlearn it and grow a second speech center.

Provide the evidence and experiments that prove this.

I know you have all the real answers, who doesn't?

Funny thing - I never claimed to have all the answers. That would be YOU.
Unlike YOU, however, when I make positive claims, I CAN actually support them.

ALL EXPERIMENT, physical evidence, and logic agree with me.

Show the physical evidence and experiments.

You have no experiment and no evidence to contradict me so

You present no evidence or experiment, just assertions.

You'll tell me consciousness is irrelevant to evolution

Yes. And you will pretend to have presented evidence and logic and facts and yet not a single example of any of that will be seen.

and Darwin is the father of evolution.

Darwin wrote a famous book abut it, yes.

You'll tell me science can predict the movement of the pendulums while ignoring the fact that religious people with a pencil can as well.

Using science... duh...

Meanwhile you probably can't calculate the effect of a butterfly on the tides and nobody can calculate the effect next week.

Can YOU?

Could Ancient People?

Why all the woo?

This probably means nothing at all to you because you know the tides are caused by the moon and there's only one equation and it's butterfly free.

yes, your unhinged, nonsensical rantings only affect me as entertainment and they produce a bit of pity for you. But not much because you are so obnoxious and duplicitous.

 

[tas8831]

You are talking about artificially imposed bottlenecks and I am talking about natural ones.

And genetically, what would be the difference?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I like how he thinks there should be 'experiments' to show what words mean. Or something.

I was thinking of the wrong Woo-King when I answered your last two posts about this one. It has been a while since I bothered to respond to this one and it is hard to differentiate them in the field. I misidentified the specimen initially. Fortunately, I have my trusty "Key to Creationist Field Guide" and sorted it all out.