Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Polymath257]

I don't suppose you noticed that this failure coincides closely with Einstein and that cosmology has been mired in the 1920's.

How can philosophy contribute to progress when there is no progress?

Yes, I think this failure on the part of philosophy is because most philosophers think in classical terms that are simply wrong. They have yet to fully appreciate the revolution in thinking that happened in the early 20th century.

Cosmology has certainly NOT been mired in the 1920's. There were major theoretical advances in the 1940's, major observational advances in the 1960's (CMBR!), a HUGE increase in basic data in the 21st century with COBE and WMAP as well as supernova data. With all of this, we have been able to answer questions (such as the age of the universe, rate of expansion, curvature) that were major questions when I was young.

That is hardly being 'mired'.

 

[cladking]

“ There are some suggestions that middle and inferior temporal gyri and basal temporal cortex reflect lexical processing ... there is consensus that the STG from rostral to caudal fields and the STS constitute the neural tissue in which many of the critical computations for speech recognition are executed ... aspects of Broca’s area (Brodmann areas 44 and 45) are also regularly implicated in speech processing.

"Critical computations for speech recognition" could certainly be interpreted as "translator" if you didn't already know everything about the brain and how nature works. Obviously the need for "critical computations for speech recognition" is a need centered in higher brain functions. That the speech center (wernicke's area) is hooked up to the ears certainly suggests that you might be missing the forest for the trees.

... the range of areas implicated in speech processing go well beyond the classical language areas typically mentioned for speech; the vast majority of textbooks still state that this aspect of perception and language processing occurs in Wernicke’s area (the posterior third of the STG).[12]”

...And perhaps this hasn't always been so. We don't have an ancient Egyptian to study. We have no insights at all into how he thought except that he din't have a word that meant "thought" and no words necessary to see his world through reduction. We can very safely assume this is true for every other life form on the planet as well.

You resist this as an hypothesis solely because it lends credence to the story of the "Tower of Babel" in ancient Sumerian literature and in the Bible. Like most believers in science you believe NOTHING in the Bible can be right and NOTHING in science can be wrong. The world is black and white and theory is inviolable and the Bible is impossible. You study the brain without even a definition for "consciousness" and don't know where to look to find it but the ONLY clue you need is that Ancient Language had no word for thought. This is what sets Homo Omnisciencis apart from nature and reality. We don't experience consciousness in the same way as all other life forms. We experience it indirectly; "I think therefore I am".

If we actually understood consciousness, we wouldn't even look for it in the brain. If we understood it then we'd know that the only "word' that approaches its true nature would be "soul", and of course this is misleading.

 

[cladking]

Yes, I think this failure on the part of philosophy is because most philosophers think in classical terms that are simply wrong. They have yet to fully appreciate the revolution in thinking that happened in the early 20th century.

Cosmology has certainly NOT been mired in the 1920's. There were major theoretical advances in the 1940's, major observational advances in the 1960's (CMBR!), a HUGE increase in basic data in the 21st century with COBE and WMAP as well as supernova data. With all of this, we have been able to answer questions (such as the age of the universe, rate of expansion, curvature) that were major questions when I was young.

That is hardly being 'mired'.

I don't "really" disagree. Obviously a great deal of experimenting, observing, and hypothesizing has taken place since the 1920's. A great deal more is known today and real "progress" is taking place.

I say it's stuck principally because a reconciliation of the fundamental forces were the next step back in the 20's and this still hasn't happened. We are probably getting closer to it but my sense of it is that it will require some revolutionary thinking to get there from here.

 

[cladking]

Or maybe we should be humble in areas that our sole source of knowledge in are only a few misinterpreted Wiki pages and a vivid imagination, and go with what hundreds of educated, experienced, and dedicated researchers in the specific fields in question have discovered after decades of work?

I don't doubt experts' facts or their extensive knowledge. I doubt their interpretations of the evidence. I don't always doubt it except in several specific areas.

Like ALL Homo Omnisciencis I am engaging in circular reasoning. Principally I started with the assumption that all things are exactly what they appear to be and from there I eventually came to the assumption that everybody has always made perfect sense in terms of their premises. That first assumption is the very basis of consciousness in all other species and the reason they don't experience reality as we do. But I'm "all knowing" just like everyone else so I processed my knowledge just like everyone else. I used modern language just like everyone else but the models I've made might allow better interpretation.

Obviously experts know far more than I do. But I keep asking you the pertinent questions and you ignore them. If reality is chaotic then why are we using reductionistic words and science to describe it? Why were there no such words in Ancient Language yet they still invented agriculture and cities? How can a person believe anything whatsoever if his language has no word for "belief"? I have shown science and language have put the cart before the horse and you merely dismiss it. It is established fact that reality is chaos but "science has no place in its journal" for it.

I don't know anything at all except a possible explanation for all of human history back to "Adam" and a possible explanation for "evolution", "consciousness", and how to get past the Unified Field Theory. This ties all branches of science together and even combines it with math, animal science, and ancient science. It even shows how religion arose. Unlike everyone else I don't claim that I must be right. I merely claim by theory is not excluded by any experiment, observation, or logic of which I am aware.

 

[tas8831]

"Critical computations for speech recognition" could certainly be interpreted as "translator"

Only to those unfamiliar with physiology and desperate to prop up their fantasies to save face.

I find your habit of ignoring most of what people write to be indicative of the shallowness of your position.

You hone in on minutiae that you think you can spin to your favor, while running away from major issues in which you are unequivocally in error.
Until you can muster the intellectual courage to confront your shortcomings, I see no reason to indulge your fantasies. I will simply reiterate what you have ignored and not waste the time refuting your naive notions over and over only to have to make the same claims again.

- not every person has arms of precisely the same length,

Oh, I see! That's kindda like not everyone's arm has to end at the hand.

One really has to try to be as obtuse and annoyingly silly as you are on a regular basis.

My understanding is the natural speech center (wernicks'e area)

Your understanding, as is the norm, is that of a child.

"Natural speech area"? More fabricated concepts/terminology to substitute for your clear ignorance of the subject - so special. Wernicke's is NOT 'the speech area.' It is referred to as the general interpretive area.
Golly - even your Wernicke's wiki link that you provided to try to rescue your exposed ignorance yet again cuts your legs out from under you:

" It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language (in contrast to Broca's area that is involved in the production of language). "​

Do you EVER get tired of making a fool of yourself?

does have the same "borders" from one individual to the next (and it is at least partially bifurcated).

Amazing - the lengths you will go to to try to rescue your erroneous notions. Again, YOUR OWN link:

Neuroimaging suggests the functions earlier attributed to Wernicke's area occur more broadly in the temporal lobe and indeed happen also in Broca's area.

“ There are some suggestions that middle and inferior temporal gyri and basal temporal cortex reflect lexical processing ... there is consensus that the STG from rostral to caudal fields and the STS constitute the neural tissue in which many of the critical computations for speech recognition are executed ... the range of areas implicated in speech processing go well beyond the classical language areas typically mentioned for speech; the vast majority of textbooks still state that this aspect of perception and language processing occurs in Wernicke’s area (the posterior third of the STG).[12]”
​

Support for a broad range of speech processing areas was furthered by a recent study .... Distinct areas of the brain were activated with the frontal cortex (associated with ability to put information into sequences) being more active in the syntax condition and the temporal lobes (associated with dividing information into its constituent parts) being more active in the inflection condition. However, these areas are not mutually exclusive and show a large amount of overlap. These findings imply that while speech processing is a very complex process, the brain may be using fairly basic, preexisting computational methods.[13]​

Curious - do you ever read the entirety of ANYTHING you link to in your own "support"? Given that such is a rarity (you trying to provide external support for your false and dopey claims), I should think that you should have plenty of time to do so.

Bifurcate:
bi·fur·cate
verb
past tense: bifurcated; past participle: bifurcated
/ˈbīfərˌkāt/

1. divide into two branches or forks.
   "just below Cairo the river bifurcates"

So, I will not hold my breath waiting for you to provide evidence that Wernicke's is now "is at least partially bifurcated" as opposed to your previous most-certain and frequently asserted (with no support, of course) position that there is a (unnamed) bifurcated speech center in the' middle of the brain'.

Because Wernicke's is also not in the middle of the brain.

Keep in mind that when I say your biology claims are like those of a child I am not being dismissive or insulting - I am drawing conclusions. The level of knowledge you exhibit on these issues - the incorrect spellings, the off-the-wall depictions and descriptions of location and function, the certainty with which you present totally incorrect claims, your refusal to admit error, etc. - reminds of the way a child acts.

There's more than one way to skin a cat and there are an "infinite" number of perspectives and ways to process what is known.

Maybe - but at some point these different ways of processing should converge on the same 'truths' to be considered valid and useful. Your way seems to rely on farcical and fantastical notions that run counter to even basic information, all pointing to a counterfactual and indefensible position.

We are just in the habit of seeing things in about the same way as we learned about them. We used reductionism to see bits and pieces of reality so now we look at the bits and pieces instead of all of it at once.

And if you are implying that your way is to look at something all at once, I submit that you may want to reassess the reliability and utility of that child-like antic.

Despite the fact we know the brain isn't a clockwork we use a clockwork science to investigate a clockwork reality.

Your way tells us things that your own Wiki links debunk. I think you should try a new, valid way of looking at things.

We use an analog language to try to understand a digital reality. We use an analog language in a digital brain.

Mebbe we should think of the broca's area area as the place where the stripped gears meet.

Or maybe we should be humble in areas that our sole source of knowledge in are only a few misinterpreted Wiki pages and a vivid imagination, and go with what hundreds of educated, experienced, and dedicated researchers in the specific fields in question have discovered after decades of work? As opposed to the lofty, made-up, foundationless and counterfactual notions of someone that has claimed that behavior via bottlenecks drives evolution, and done so for years, and upon being asked to provide evidence for this, then denies he even suggested such a thing such a thing, and upon having mutliple examples of his suggestions and claims of exactly that presented, just ignores it all (IOW, either a liar or someone with memory and cognitive issues)...?


And even more indicative of an adult-thinking person with some humility and legitimate zeal for true knowledge, would be NOT simply omitting all reality-bombs in posts we reply to, regardless of the mental anguish it may cause - like you did in this response, the only part you replied to in black, what you omitted in red:

cladking:Why do I keep reading this same sort of thing in the literature and you keep gainsaying it?

" Further, because of considerable variability across brains in terms of shape, size, and position relative to sulcal and gyral structure, a resulting localization precision is limited.[6]"

Because as a self-taught layman, you are over-interpreting it. Cool wiki page, though.

It is in the region of the inferior frontal gyrus. It is not in the EXACT SAME IDENTICAL AREA in all people - which is to say the exact borders are not identical in all people. Just as not all people have the same color of hair on our scalp, yet we have hair on our scalp - not every person has arms of precisely the same length, but we all have arms in the same location, so too do we all have a Broca's area on the inf. frontal gyrus, just not with the exact same 'borders.' Not that hard to grasp, if one actually tries.

Again, I get it - you cannot handle the fact that you are wrong on these things and are desperate to find a way to save fave.
But you just look... desperate. Why is it so hard for you to admit error?
Weird that in your link, you failed to see or understand this:

"Broca’s area is now typically defined in terms of the pars opercularis and pars triangularis of the inferior frontal gyrus, represented in Brodmann’s cytoarchitectonic map as areas 44 and 45.[1]"​

Whats that? Your link says I AM RIGHT????

Huh...

And it goes into more detail:

Broca's area is often identified by visual inspection of the topography of the brain either by macrostructural landmarks such as sulci or by the specification of coordinates in a particular reference space... Further, because of considerable variability across brains in terms of shape, size, and position relative to sulcal and gyral structure, a resulting localization precision is limited.[3]

Nevertheless, Broca’s area in the left hemisphere and its homologue in the right hemisphere are designations usually used to refer to pars triangularis (PTr) and pars opercularis (POp) of the inferior frontal gyrus. The PTr and POp are defined by structural landmarks that only probabilistically divide the inferior frontal gyrus into anterior and posterior cytoarchitectonic areas of 45 and 44, respectively, by Brodmann’s classification scheme.[4]​

Double-huh. Context, Johnny "broccas area"... context...

I guess you just missed that.... or felt justified in ignoring it because you found the word "variability", which, I suppose, to you means it can be found willy-nilly any old place in the brain.

Which is dumb.

 

[tas8831]

Like ALL Homo Omnisciencis I am engaging in circular reasoning.

You are not "Homo Omnisciencis".

NOBODY is "Homo Omnisciencis"

"Homo Omnisciencis" is a made up fantasy - made up by someone that does not understand the first thing about what "evidence" is, human anatomy, physiology, biology in general, evolution in particular, genetics, spelling, logic, etc.

This is not 4th grade, where you get write stories and pretend they are real.

 

[cladking]

You are not "Homo Omnisciencis".

NOBODY is "Homo Omnisciencis"

That's odd that you think we are the exact same species as our ancestors despite having no memory of them and not even being able to understand their language which lacked most of the words of modern language. The lack of understanding is as complete as our lack of understanding of every other species on the planet.

I made up the term to differentiate us from our predecessors whom biology named Homo Sapiens or "wise people". There are two things that differentiate us; language and the belief we know everything. If we can't poke fun at ourselves then what's the point of knowing everything? Of course I might be right about the broca's area being a product of modern language too.

If I'm correct about our fundamental differences, wouldn't you agree we are a distinct species? If each individual thinks completely differently and acts differently would or would that not constitute a different species? If our differences are so extreme that we don't understand what or why they did things and don't even understand their explanations it seems the differences are more extreme than a brow ridge or a different sized brain.

How far do we have to evolve before we are not the same as pyramid builders?

 

[gnostic]

You are not "Homo Omnisciencis".

NOBODY is "Homo Omnisciencis"

"Homo Omnisciencis" is a made up fantasy - made up by someone that does not understand the first thing about what "evidence" is, human anatomy, physiology, biology in general, evolution in particular, genetics, spelling, logic, etc.

The Homo Omnisciencis was made up by cladking.

And judging by his fantasy, the Homo Omnisciencis has nothing to do with biology.

It had to do with his other fantasy about Ancient Science, which were only understood by the metaphysical language of people BEFORE the (mythical and non-existent) Tower of Babel.

The post-Babel people forgot his imaginary Ancient Science, due to the confusion of language.

His fantasy is about as real as the absurdity of Scientology.

 

[cladking]

The Homo Omnisciencis was made up by cladking.

And if it turns out I'm right about the nature of life and consciousness the term "Homo Omnisciencis" is likely to stick.

I can think of a few others which would be highly appropriate but nothing better differentiates us from Homo Sapiens.

"It's not appropriate for our journal" because we already moved very far beyond examining anything we already know.

 

[gnostic]

You resist this as an hypothesis solely because it lends credence to the story of the "Tower of Babel" in ancient Sumerian literature and in the Bible. Like most believers in science you believe NOTHING in the Bible can be right and NOTHING in science can be wrong.

You're wrong.

There are many things people thought were science, and were wrong.

Astronomers for almost 1500 years, believed that Claudius Ptolemy's geocentric planetary model was correct and science. Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton to prove them all wrong.

After Galileo and his telescope, for several centuries, astronomers (like the famous Charles Messier and William Herschel) thought the Milky Way was the complete universe, and there were no galaxies. Messier and others classified Andromeda, Triangulum and Virgo A as nebulas, not galaxies. They were wrong, when Edwin Hubble using the Hooker telescope in 1919, correctly identified these objects as separate galaxies, not nebulas. And as technology improved in the 20th century, more powerful telescopes and the invention of the radio telescopes, led to more discoveries, that astronomers realized there are billions of galaxies in the universe.

Isaac Newton's theory on motion, gravity and force was showed to be very good and still useful, but Albert Einstein's theory on Relativity, show that Isaac's theory was incomplete.

And Einstein was shown to be wrong several times, like his own Static Cosmology, or when he gave up on Quantum Mechanics, because he couldn't make it work with his Relativity. Relativity expanded our knowledge on forces, speed and gravity; if you like, you can think of Relativity as an extension of Newton's mechanics.

Science and scientists are not always right. What people thought were science in the past, ended up being either outdated or debunked.

No, cladking, you are generalizating and you believe in your nonsensical conspiracy theory.

 

[gnostic]

And if it turns out I'm right about the nature of life and consciousness the term "Homo Omnisciencis" is likely to stick.

I can think of a few others which would be highly appropriate but nothing better differentiates us from Homo Sapiens.

"It's not appropriate for our journal" because we already moved very far beyond examining anything we already know.

Homo Omnisciencis being invented and accepted by one person, YOU, is a failed speculative concept.

 

[cladking]

What people thought were science in the past, ended up being either outdated or debunked.

Hold on to your hat; most of what people believe today will be shown to be essentially wrong in the future, too!

Homo Omnisciencis being invented and accepted by one person, YOU, is a failed speculative concept.

Duh. Yeah. Did you notice I said, "if it turns out I'm right about the nature of life and consciousness"? If I'm wrong then maybe we do already know everything. Or maybe we will find out we're already pretty much right about everything. Or maybe all we have to do is fill in the gaps and we'll be right about everything.

If we were arguing more about "the final mystery" and less about semantics and the meaning of metaphysics maybe we'd have the answer right here by now.

Of course Homo Omnisciencis can't talk about anything except what we believe and the "thinking" that got us here. Forget metaphysics when we have WORDS to argue about. Kudos to ya'.

 

[cladking]

...maybe we do already know everything. Or maybe we will find out we're already pretty much right about everything. Or maybe all we have to do is fill in the gaps and we'll be right about everything.

Or maybe we're only right about everything we understand and someday we'll understand everything.

Homo Omnisciencis

 

[gnostic]

Hold on to your hat; most of what people believe today will be shown to be essentially wrong in the future, too!



Duh. Yeah. Did you notice I said, "if it turns out I'm right about the nature of life and consciousness"? If I'm wrong then maybe we do already know everything. Or maybe we will find out we're already pretty much right about everything. Or maybe all we have to do is fill in the gaps and we'll be right about everything.

If we were arguing more about "the final mystery" and less about semantics and the meaning of metaphysics maybe we'd have the answer right here by now.

Of course Homo Omnisciencis can't talk about anything except what we believe and the "thinking" that got us here. Forget metaphysics when we have WORDS to argue about. Kudos to ya'.

I have no problem with science not having every answers. I have no problem with there are still mysteries in nature that we don’t understand about.

What I have problems with your absurd conspiracy that science are anti-knowledge.

You have concept that you want the world to know, then by all mean, share them, but expect scrutiny and criticism if you don’t provide the evidence and data to back up your concept, and the evidence and data that others can check and verify.

Without verifiable evidence, then your concept is just untestable opinion.

All you have shown is that your are Graham Hancock’s protégés and heir-apparent as a conspiracy theorist.

 

[cladking]

I have no problem with science not having every answers. I have no problem with there are still mysteries in nature that we don’t understand about.

What I have problems with your absurd conspiracy that science are anti-knowledge.

You have concept that you want the world to know, then by all mean, share them, but expect scrutiny and criticism if you don’t provide the evidence and data to back up your concept, and the evidence and data that others can check and verify.

Without verifiable evidence, then your concept is just untestable opinion.

All you have shown is that your are Graham Hancock’s protégés and heir-apparent as a conspiracy theorist.

You know I invented the term "Homo Omnisciencis" because I've been met with semantical arguments at every single turn. These semantical arguments are what propelled me to seek the commonalities which is that everyone knows everything. Your using the term "conspiracy" is a case in point. The fact is that Nobody agrees with me and I don't believe that any two people are teaming up against me so there is no conspiracy other than in YOUR own mind. That we each know everything isn't a "conspiracy". Science isn't a conspiracy. Religion isn't a conspiracy. Whatever the hell Egyptology is isn't a conspiracy. Egyptologists are still voting on the nature of reality without access to recent data. Science still has no room in their journals to discuss the reality of how science (AND REALITY) work. Religion still splinter as every individual finds a different meaning.

And you wonder why we have no answers to the mysteries.

It took me years of hard work to reverse engineer the pyramid and find ample evidence to "prove" it and more than ample evidence to show current "theory" is in error but Egyptologists literally won't hear of it. They simply have no interest in how the pyramid was built and even less interest in theory that comes from outside Egyptology. State of the art is NOW that stones were pulled straight up the sides of five step pyramids one step at a time but most Egyptologists have probably never even heard this has been solved!!! This leaves me time to research related subjects like how Egyptologists can miss reality, the nature of peer review, and of course comparisons between ancient and modern science.

I cite the evidence again and again but it is invisible to believers in all things. There are several pieces of evidence in this very post but they are invisible to you because there is no wiki page on the nature of reality or the interpretation of observation and experiment. No doubt they have a page on metaphysics which is virtually incomprehensible even to a metaphysician. I have pointed out literally thousands of facts that show I'm right but at every turn everyone has his own interpretation of those facts. Even though I can point at things that show I'm right it means nothing. There is no place in anyone's "journal" for anything that contradicts or can't be incorporated into their current beliefs. How can people whose minds were changed into analog and reductionistic thinking before they were even two years old suddenly incorporate the simple observation that there are no two identical things? It doesn't fit in their belief system so is held aside as being "irrelevant" or "unproven". It is ignored as they continue to count rabbits. Point out that if you breed tame wolves you immediately get dogs and they still believe in "evolution" and survival of the fittest.

Since people can't really consider my arguments I get semantics. How can someone consider the possibility that consciousness is innate and definitional to all life when they know they exist because they think? Everyone's a specialist so they are in the habit of acccepting expert opinion outside of their specialty. Of course inside their specialty they are kept busy trying to keep up and have no time for irrelevancies from any source but especially crackpots who tell them there's no such thing as intelligence and all human progress is now and always has been founded on language. First it was a digital metaphysical language and now it's a confused language where each person takes his own meaning based on his own beliefs.

You want evidence; I give you every experiment ever performed for evidence. I give you every good observation. I can even give you natural logic as well as what we call "reason". We perceive reality through our beliefs and reject anything that is not congruous with them. We can't even see what lies outside of our beliefs.

I suppose I responded to your semantics in this case because you asked for evidence. Now rather than pointing out what you believe isn't evidence and why or asking for clarification you'll ignore it all again and rejoin your word games already in progress.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't "really" disagree. Obviously a great deal of experimenting, observing, and hypothesizing has taken place since the 1920's. A great deal more is known today and real "progress" is taking place.

I say it's stuck principally because a reconciliation of the fundamental forces were the next step back in the 20's and this still hasn't happened. We are probably getting closer to it but my sense of it is that it will require some revolutionary thinking to get there from here.

Well, we've found a couple more fundamental forces since then and have managed to unite those with E&M. So that's progress.

Also, we now have theories that *do* merge them. The main difficulty is that we don't have the data to distinguish between the possibilities.

 

[ecco]

You know I invented the term "Homo Omnisciencis"

Homo Stupididous.

There. I can make up silly words too.

 

[Thief]

and the mystery goes on

 

[cladking]

The German physicist Max Planck said, "Science advances one funeral at a time".

 

[tas8831]

That's odd that you think we are the exact same species as our ancestors despite having no memory of them

Not as odd as implying that unless we have a memory of ancient people that must have been a different species.

I have no memory of my great grandparents. I guess they were a different species.

No, wait - I am not so idiotic to think such a thing.

and not even being able to understand their language which lacked most of the words of modern language.

I don;t understand Japanese. Do you ever make sensible points?

The lack of understanding is as complete as our lack of understanding of every other species on the planet.

No it isn't.

I made up the term to differentiate us from our predecessors whom biology named Homo Sapiens or "wise people".

Who cares what you made up and why?

As far as I can tell, your entire life is premised on making absurdly egotistical assertions on the internet, never providing supporting evidence (or mangling and misinterpreting what you do), then pretending that you have made these great contributions.


Show us your treatise on who built the pyramids or whatever nonsense you claim about tall that - show us your PUBLISHED papers that provide EVIDENCE for your claims. Show us the scientific society that has endorsed your horse-hockey nonsense about evolution.

You live in a fantasy world.

There are two things that differentiate us; language and the belief we know everything.

Both are false.
The only person I see on these forums that claims to know everything is you and several creationists.

And you and those several creationists are nearly 100% wrong on all of your assertions, yet refuse to acknowledge that YOU do not know everything.

Of course I might be right about the broca's area being a product of modern language too.

Of course you are not. You have the biology backwards.

If I'm correct about our fundamental differences, wouldn't you agree we are a distinct species?

No, because that is not how species is defined in actual biology - in your simple sam's biology, maybe, but not in real life.

And as you never present evidence for anything, only a fool would think you have made any correct claims.

If each individual thinks completely differently and acts differently would or would that not constitute a different species?

No, that is stupid. Your naive biology is laughable.
By your 'logic' we would have to classify those with autism as a different species.

If our differences are so extreme that we don't understand what or why they did things and don't even understand their explanations it seems the differences are more extreme than a brow ridge or a different sized brain.

Only to you, a non-biologist, non-scientist, armchair Dunning-Krugerite.

How far do we have to evolve before we are not the same as pyramid builders?

We can just want to grow a new brain area, according to you.

Still waiting for all the stuff you ignore to save face:

cladking:
Your assumptions are riddled with errors and half facts.

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.

Otherwise this will just be chalked up as Cladking Unsupported Fantasy Assertion (aka lie) #261,

cladking:
The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.

Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people). The anatomical landmarks of Broca's area are even seen in non-human primates.
There is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis" . Nobody will accept your fantasies as having merit until you present EVIDENCE of the sort that sane, educated, experienced people accept as such. This does NOT include your confident reiterations of unsupported assertions, I am happy to say.

cladking:
Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.

Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world. Show evidence that here is a "bifurcated speech center in the middle of the brain." Show evidence that an infant decides to grow a Broca's area.

You wrote, foolishly:

"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."​

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."


What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."

Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."

Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."

Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"

Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...

Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...

Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."



Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

My understanding is the natural speech center (wernicks'e area)

Your understanding, as is the norm, is that of a child.

"Natural speech area"? More fabricated concepts/terminology to substitute for your clear ignorance of the subject - so special. Wernicke's is NOT 'the speech area.' It is referred to as the general interpretive area.

Golly - even your Wernicke's wiki link that you provided to try to rescue your exposed ignorance yet again cuts your legs out from under you:

" It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language (in contrast to Broca's area that is involved in the production of language). "​

Do you EVER get tired of making a fool of yourself?

does have the same "borders" from one individual to the next (and it is at least partially bifurcated).

Amazing - the lengths you will go to to try to rescue your erroneous notions. Again, YOUR OWN link:

Neuroimaging

suggests the functions earlier attributed to Wernicke's area occur more broadly in the temporal lobe and indeed happen also in Broca's area.

“ There are some suggestions that middle and inferior temporal gyri and basal temporal cortex reflect lexical processing ... there is consensus that the STG from rostral to caudal fields and the STS constitute the neural tissue in which many of the critical computations for speech recognition are executed ... aspects of Broca’s area (Brodmann areas 44 and 45) are also regularly implicated in speech processing.

... the range of areas implicated in speech processing go well beyond the classical language areas typically mentioned for speech; the vast majority of textbooks still state that this aspect of perception and language processing occurs in Wernicke’s area (the posterior third of the STG).[12]”​

Curious - do you ever read the entirety of ANYTHING you link to in your own "support"? Given that such is a rarity (you trying to provide external support for your false and dopey claims), I should think that you should have plenty of time to do so.
bi·fur·cate

1. divide into two branches or forks.
   "just below Cairo the river bifurcates"

So, I will not hold my breath waiting for you to provide evidence that Wernicke's is now "is at least partially bifurcated" as opposed to your previous most-certain and frequently asserted (with no support, of course) position that there is a (unnamed) bifurcated speech center in the' middle of the brain'.

Because Wernicke's is also not in the middle of the brain.

Keep in mind that when I say your biology claims are like those of a child I am not being dismissive or insulting - I am drawing conclusions. The level of knowledge you exhibit on these issues - the incorrect spellings, the off-the-wall depictions and descriptions of location and function, the certainty with which you present totally incorrect claims, your refusal to admit error, etc. - reminds of the way a child acts.