Fascinating!

[Dan From Smithville]

And genetically, what would be the difference?

As I recall, he had no idea what bottleneck is.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Most of them do seem to fall into a handful of discrete categories, don't they....

 

[tas8831]

As I recall, he had no idea what bottleneck is.

He has no idea of pretty much anything biological he brings up.
I especially liked how he said creatures can just grow a "broccas" area...

 

[tas8831]

I saw that video as well.

They hid the fact that the strings are different lengths. It should have been obvious to me by their behavior but it's easy to be fooled, sometimes.

It is apparently child's play to fool some people. Nearly all the time. Even themselves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Most of them do seem to fall into a handful of discrete categories, don't they....

It is something I too have noted over the years. There are some very unique individuals within those rough groups, however.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He has no idea of pretty much anything biological he brings up.
I especially liked how he said creatures can just grow a "broccas" area...

Wow....Just Wow!

I did not get that for. I started losing interest at beavers having a language like human language. Well, heck, everything has a language like a human language. Stated as a fact as if there was not only evidence that supported the idea, but that it was common knowledge.

A very unique world view, based on what, I have no idea.

I have often wondered about cause and effect in these groups. Does being in the group exacerbate any mental issues or do these groups draw in a disproportionately large number of people with mental issues? Or is a synergistic mix?

 

[cladking]

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.

This is remarkably simple.

Logically there is an explanation for human history and why it started 1200 years after the invention of writing. Logically if human Ancient Language had no words whatsoever for "belief" or "thought" it means they didn't have the concepts of belief and thought. You can't get simpler than this.

Then throw in the fact that termites invented agriculture and airconditioned cities and they obviously lack the concept of "belief" as well. I merely extrapolated what I already know to account for more observation.

We think we are intelligent but the reality is we are merely conscious. Language is the mode in which we think and governs the perspective of consciousness and the way we think. It's not intelligence that sets humans apart from termites; it is our confused language and different way of thinking.

 

[cladking]

And genetically, what would be the difference?

Artificial bottlenecks are "man-made". We use various parameters to determine what the off-springs might be like.

Natural bottlenecks are generally determined by the behavior of individuals. Specific behavior is bred out rather than specific genes or unfit individuals.

 

[cladking]

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

You merely assert it.

I've said this at least once in this thread and several times besides.

Darwin claimed that populations are relatively stable over long periods of time. If this were true "evolution" would be virtually invisible and no missing links would exist. He was wrong!!! Very very wrong. It is the extreme changes in the numbers of individuals in a "species" that causes most massive changes in species. It has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" and this concept is the root of the suppression of individual humans.

Life is consciousness and individual. All changes in life are sudden. Seeing "evolution" in terms of "species" leads to confusion since "species" is merely a taxonomic word. If we simply remember the nature of taxonomies as mnemonics and think accordingly then lumping similar individuals into "species" can aid in thinking and communication instead of confuse us.

Ford invented the moving assembly line and Darwin invented Look and See Science. We went wrong and are on a 150 year detour from a 4000 year detour.

 

[tas8831]

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

No evidence exists that you are correct in ANYTHING you've claimed. All you have against Darwin is a misrepresentation/misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest" and a child-like grasp of genetics/biology.

I've said this at least once in this thread and several times besides.

You can say things all you want.

Saying things does not make then true or correct.

Darwin claimed that populations are relatively stable over long periods of time. If this were true "evolution" would be virtually invisible and no missing links would exist.

Wow, sort of like real life. Thanks for undercutting your layman's assertions.

He was wrong!!! Very very wrong.

Even very confident assertions, using exclamation points, are still just assertions.

Where are your experiments? Where is your evidence? Where is ONE professional biologist that studies evolution agreeing with your unsupported assertions?

It is the extreme changes in the numbers of individuals in a "species" that causes most massive changes in species.

Evidence please.

It has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" and this concept is the root of the suppression of individual humans.

Only by idiots that never bothered to try to understand what "survival of the fittest" actually means.

Let me guess - you are among the simpletons that still thinks that "survival of the fittest" = 'might makes right'?

So, no evidence, no experiments, just some repetitive assertions coupled with a laughable ignorance of what a common phrase means.

And so cute - "the root of the suppression of individual humans". I guess you never heard of religion.

Life is consciousness and individual.

Prove it.

All changes in life are sudden.

Assertion.

Seeing "evolution" in terms of "species" leads to confusion since "species" is merely a taxonomic word.

You are as educated and informed in biological terms as you are in everything else.
Species has a working definition. That there is no definitive definition of species is testament to the fact of evolution - if everything were discreet 'creations' as ancient scroll assert, then it SHOULD be pretty easy to tell "kinds" apart - so thanks for another own goal.
That you never bothered to learn it while pontificating erroneously on things you cannot grasp is what I expect from creationists.

If we simply remember the nature of taxonomies as mnemonics and think accordingly then lumping similar individuals into "species" can aid in thinking and communication instead of confuse us.

Or, we could just read a biology book and actually learn basic biology and evolution.

Still no evidence or experiments.

Ford invented the moving assembly line and Darwin invented Look and See Science. We went wrong and are on a 150 year detour from a 4000 year detour.

Dopey editorializing to cover up your utter failure to deliver.

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

Another false claim from you.

I do not accept your laughably inept assertions as evidence for anything other than the clear fact that you have at best a middle schooler's grasp of biology.

"\grow a broccas area"????

I eagerly await your corroborating evidence and experiments that show you NOT to be the pompous buffoon that you, so far, appear to be.

 

[tas8831]

And genetically, what would be the difference?

Artificial bottlenecks are "man-made". We use various parameters to determine what the off-springs might be like.

Natural bottlenecks are generally determined by the behavior of individuals. Specific behavior is bred out rather than specific genes or unfit individuals.

it is so cool how you answered a simple straightforward question:

"And genetically, what would be the difference?"

And in your silly, naive "reply" you did not once even MENTION genetics.

I see you for what you really are, and no number of unsupported, repetitive assertions will change that.

You've got nothing but ego.

 

[tas8831]

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.

This is remarkably simple.

Logically there is an explanation for human history and why it started 1200 years after the invention of writing. Logically if human Ancient Language had no words whatsoever for "belief" or "thought" it means they didn't have the concepts of belief and thought. You can't get simpler than this.

Then throw in the fact that termites invented agriculture and airconditioned cities and they obviously lack the concept of "belief" as well. I merely extrapolated what I already know to account for more observation.

We think we are intelligent but the reality is we are merely conscious. Language is the mode in which we think and governs the perspective of consciousness and the way we think. It's not intelligence that sets humans apart from termites; it is our confused language and different way of thinking.

Again, you utterly and completely FAIL to do what was asked.

I asked for you to DEMONSTRATE something, and your entire response is mere assertion and editorializing.

Again, you are clearly in all of this way over your head. You cannot even demonstrate or support or supply evidence for ANY of your claims, you just reiterate the claims and expect others to accept it.

Sorry, Charlie. You're failing terribly.

 

[cladking]

Again, you utterly and completely FAIL to do what was asked.

I guess it never occurred to you that I never claimed to be able to "understand precisely what goes on in non-human animal brains in terms of how they model their reality."

All I can do is make deductions about what it's like to "think like an Egyptian" and then extrapolate that to animals.

Perhaps you could understand me if you dropped the preconceptions that I'm a fool, incorrect, and get my beliefs from the Bible. Perhaps if you actually tried to understand something would make sense.

Ancient people didn't "think" and they had no "beliefs". They used no taxonomies, categories, or symbolism. They used very few words because language was like computer code.

 

[cladking]

We model our beliefs and the process of comparing sensory input to these beliefs is called thought.

They modeled reality itself directly in terms of ancient theory. They had no thought and no beliefs. They would have seemed like animals to us. Why should animals be any different than ancient man other than the degree of complexity in the language and the many generations of knowledge accumulation?

 

[cladking]

"Specific behavior is bred out rather than specific genes or unfit individuals."

"And genetically, what would be the difference?"

You are still imagining weak and unfit genes are weeded out so you don't see my response. I am merely maintaining that genes lie at the heart of behavior so when a behavior is weeded out of a species the survivors breed a new species (a new group of similar individuals) that are different than the parent species. Thus there are no missing links. Most change in species is the result of this and mutation rather than "survival of the fittest". The old, weak, sick, and those with "bad" characteristics caused by genes are simply picked off by predators great and small. Young and healthy are highly beneficial to individuals who can't drive to the drug store or belong to a species that hasn't invented agriculture.

Genes are all important to behavior and behavior is all important to change in species. Genes have little to do with "evolution".

 

[ecco]

I am merely maintaining that genes lie at the heart of behavior so when a behavior is weeded out of a species the survivors breed a new species (a new group of similar individuals) that are different than the parent species.

Wrong.

 

[cladking]

Wrong.

So, I guess beavers that don't care much for water had a traumatic experience.

"Species" exhibit exceedingly wide range of behaviors. Those engaging in less typical behaviors do so principally because it is an expression of their genes. These individuals are different and when all the others are wiped out they breed a new "species".

Are you going to maintain that every bottlefly is exactly the same as every other bottlefly. How then can some be more fit or adaptable than others?

All anecdotal and experimental evidence says species arise from behavior rather than fitness.

 

[ecco]

I am merely maintaining that genes lie at the heart of behavior so when a behavior is weeded out of a species the survivors breed a new species (a new group of similar individuals) that are different than the parent species.

Wrong.

So, I guess beavers that don't care much for water had a traumatic experience.

"Species" exhibit exceedingly wide range of behaviors. Those engaging in less typical behaviors do so principally because it is an expression of their genes. These individuals are different and when all the others are wiped out they breed a new "species".

Are you going to maintain that every bottlefly is exactly the same as every other bottlefly. How then can some be more fit or adaptable than others?

All anecdotal and experimental evidence says species arise from behavior rather than fitness.

The thing that is wrong is your concept of species. Until you truly understand what "species" means, you can't get anything else right.

 

[tas8831]

Again, you utterly and completely FAIL to do what was asked.

I guess it never occurred to you that I never claimed to be able to "understand precisely what goes on in non-human animal brains in terms of how they model their reality."

And yet, when I wrote this:

"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."​

You replied:

"This is remarkably simple"​

Did you not?

Why did you claim that demonstrating "how it is that you understand precisely what goes on in non-human animal brains in terms of how they model their reality" is "remarkably simple", then, upon being exposed as a fraud, write, 'Gee, golly, I never said it was remarkably simple for ME'????

All I can do is make deductions about what it's like to "think like an Egyptian" and then extrapolate that to animals.

Then you should have said so instead of presenting yourself as already KNOWING this stuff.

Perhaps you could understand me if you dropped the preconceptions that I'm a fool, incorrect, and get my beliefs from the Bible. Perhaps if you actually tried to understand something would make sense.

How can I drop that preconception when the overwhelming majority of your posts on here reinforce them?

"grow a broccas area", he writes....

And yet, here you go again:

Ancient people didn't "think" and they had no "beliefs". They used no taxonomies, categories, or symbolism. They used very few words because language was like computer code.

Ancient people didn't think???

And didn't you just wonder why there is a preconceived notion about you being "a fool, incorrect, and get my beliefs from the Bible."?

 

[tas8831]

"Specific behavior is bred out rather than specific genes or unfit individuals."

"grow a broccas area"

You are still imagining weak and unfit genes are weeded out so you don't see my response.

No, I am still imagining an egotist thinking that because he merely has an idea about something that it must be true.

I know how this stuff works - that is why when I see someone like you pontificate on a subject with totally dopey nonsense, I ask simple questions to see if folks like you are legit..

You see, you had claimed:

You still do not understand bottlenecks. I do not know why you continue to use that term, knowing that. Bottlenecks are a reduction in genetic variation due to a near extinction event. A bottleneck would be a relatively sudden change that would require a long time to recover from and add genetic diversity.

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

Right? I mean, that is what you wrote.

So in response to YOUR implicit claim that 'natural' and 'artificial' bottlenecks are somehow different in their effects, I asked:

"And genetically, what would be the difference?"​

and your amazing, on topic reply was:

Artificial bottlenecks are "man-made". We use various parameters to determine what the off-springs might be like.

Natural bottlenecks are generally determined by the behavior of individuals. Specific behavior is bred out rather than specific genes or unfit individuals.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about, since population bottlenecks have very clear affects on genotypes/genomes and leave 'signatures' in genomes (you must, surely, know all about this, right?).

I am merely maintaining that genes lie at the heart of behavior so when a behavior is weeded out of a species the survivors breed a new species (a new group of similar individuals) that are different than the parent species

You cannot seem to grasp the simplicity of my question - all I asked was how a 'natural' and 'artificial' bottleneck differ genetically, as you were trying to make a distinction. In your layman parlance, an artificial bottleneck might be due to selective breeding, or maybe loss of habitat do to deforestation. A 'natural' one might be due to a natural disaster, or the founder effect.

But that is just setting up the biological 'conundrum.' The response to it, regardless of the cause, genetically, is....? Well, you tell me.

Thus there are no missing links

What is a "missing link"? And why are you implying that there should be, but we don't see them?

Most change in species is the result of this

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS?????

Your just-so stories are NOT NOT NOT evidence for anything.

and mutation rather than "survival of the fittest". The old, weak, sick, and those with "bad" characteristics caused by genes are simply picked off by predators great and small. Young and healthy are highly beneficial to individuals who can't drive to the drug store or belong to a species that hasn't invented agriculture.

What is SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST according to you?

Genes are all important to behavior and behavior is all important to change in species. Genes have little to do with "evolution".

My goodness, why have you not written up this paradigm-changing grand master plan of biology for publication in a prestigious journal?

Oh, whats that?

These journals do not accept repeated assertions as evidence?
These journals do not accept mere assertions that counter established, evidence-supported science as falsifications?

Oh...