The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is a mystery to me is how anyone can make the logical assertion that "humans exist therefore there was no first human".

Perhaps another example of gradual change will make you understand. I don't have high hopes though.

What is the first "blue" word in this text?

 

[gnostic]

That's not even a sentence and I have no idea what you tried to say.

I always give authors the benefit of the doubt and try to parse their sentences so they make perfect sense but this was not a sentence at all.

Sorry, I didn’t check my reply when I posted them, and i see that I am missing some words.

Edited the post, as it should contained “existed”

No, cladking. I understand metaphysics, I just don’t accept your crazy notion that metaphysics existed before this imaginary Tower of Babel of yours or pre-2000 BCE Bronze Age, or older still in the Neolithic period.

 

[cladking]

Do you understand what I am saying here?

You are mistaken.

Publishers are blithering idiots from a failed educational system who can't tell "profound" from scat. When a soft scientist loses his place in the pecking order he is permanently excluded from being an et al. He loses his status as Peer for all time. This is why all fields now have a "direction" because even investigating something too far afield can wreck a career. Getting funding to investigate will probably be impossible anyway and most research now requires substantial investment. The days of the lone scientist working in his basement are long gone.

Without a position in the pecking order it is not possible to get anything published in a journal. You could build a perpetual motion machine and it will be ignored until a Peer says it's real. Indeed, finding a Peer to say it's real will be difficult because this could cost him his livelihood if he's wrong and everyone knows he's wrong.

To give you an example, if. I had translated the Book Of the Dead into English, and submitted before publication, the editor(s) would only check my works, for grammar errors, typos, what to be modified, what to be leave out, etc, only they would only work on my text in English.

That's funny. And quite appropriate since I could write a translation of the Pyramid Texts so it's comprehensible to modern language speakers. It's a simple task at that (writing it not understanding it) but I'm not going to bother because no one would publish it in whole or in part. If I published it myself I'd sell about 27 copies and a few of these wouldn't even be cracked open.

To give you an example, if I was a biologist, who wrote a better explanation/model as to the mechanism of mutations, and submitted for review, the reviewers would have to similar backgrounds and experiences, such as another biologist, molecular biologists, biochemists, biology professors, etc. The people who would have related professions, hence “peers”.

Do you believe that my theory of change in species would fare very well? Of course it wouldn't. Nobody wants to read something that you need to understand each part to understand the whole. If I tried walking the reader through it they'd balk and run away. If I didn't it wouldn't be understood. I grew up in the '50's back when lots of people were intuitive and most things were geared toward intuition. Machines were all analog and directions were written in easy to understand format so anyone could quickly master the basics and then learn the nuances as you went. Now I can't even buy a camera because the directions require you understand the entire thing before you understand anything at all. Trying to use any electronic device is an exercise in frustration.

AND THIS IS A SIMPLE FREAKING CAMERA. I did programming back in the '60's but understanding a modern toaster can be a challenge.

I could not write a very formal paper on "evolution" because I lack the knowledge of every specific experiment and the training to write such a paper in real science. But the problem is the same; to understand you have to understand all of it at once. You also need some comprehension of things (like consciousness) that hardly comes off well in a definition (that which defines life and allows survival and reproduction). Indeed, in a very real way understanding of evolution fl;ows from understanding consciousness but we don't even have a working definition for the term do we?

You wouldn’t ask physicists, astronomers, civil engineers, lawyers, mayors, florists, waiters, car salespeople, electricians, Joe the Plumber, etc, none of these people would be appropriated to review a biology hypothesis.

You might underrate non-specialists. Specialists might be smarter and have far more knowledge but most have a strong tendency to be so focused in their specialty that they are virtually idiots if they take a step outside. 50% of aviation engineers think a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt. The general public almost does better. They aren't stupid but they are focused. Joe the plumber often has time to think as he works.


Most everybody thinks exactly the same way and start with all the same beliefs learned on their parents' knees. It is what they learned when they were two years old that I have to fight; it is at the very core of everyone's models and beliefs. It is the very sand on which these constructs sit.

 

[cladking]

Perhaps another example of gradual change will make you understand. I don't have high hopes though.

View attachment 36722

What is the first "blue" word in this text?

"Distinction"

Your problem here is that you still have the cart before the horse. you are still ignoring consciousness. You are still ignoring observation and experiment in favor of your beliefs. You are simply imagining a long precession of more and more human-like creatures made possible by survival of the fittest.

No matter how you define "blue" or "human" there is still a first and all things are still unique.

All things that exist had causes and all things eventually pass from existence. Time may be the only constant and only thing at the root of existence and logic.

In the case of humans "first" has a lot of significance because he was unique or one of very few. And his name was probably "Adam" (or S3h).

 

[gnostic]

You are mistaken.

Publishers are blithering idiots from a failed educational system who can't tell "profound" from scat. When a soft scientist loses his place in the pecking order he is permanently excluded from being an et al. He loses his status as Peer for all time. This is why all fields now have a "direction" because even investigating something too far afield can wreck a career. Getting funding to investigate will probably be impossible anyway and most research now requires substantial investment. The days of the lone scientist working in his basement are long gone.

Without a position in the pecking order it is not possible to get anything published in a journal. You could build a perpetual motion machine and it will be ignored until a Peer says it's real. Indeed, finding a Peer to say it's real will be difficult because this could cost him his livelihood if he's wrong and everyone knows he's wrong.

Ok, I don't think my last reply and the example I have chosen weren't clear enough. That's my fault.

So I will be as clear and blunt as possible.

TRANSLATIONS OF ANCIENT TEXTS ARE NOT SCIENCE!

The studies of languages, modern and ancient, don't belong in science, not even Social Science. It falls under a very broad umbrella term, called HUMANITIES.

Other disciplines falling under the Humanities categories are literature, history, religion, music, art, and so on.

You can criticize a translation, but there no systems like science, which translators or philologists are required to follow...

...Meaning: Humanities don't require to be empirical, therefore philology doesn't require to follow the Scientific Method, nor it require submission before Peer Review.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

The studies of languages, including translations, are subjected to too many variables, too many changes, that it is not really possible be as systematic as Natural Sciences.

History isn't science, it is another discipline in humanities, but it is related to another disciplines that can involved science, eg archaeology and anthropology.

But archaeology and anthropology fall under the Social Science categories, not Natural Science.

But mind you, history and archaeology can work together, because they are trying to look for answers in the same time, but approach them differently:

• History required looking at written records.
• Archaeology searched for everything else, such as tools, utensils, artworks, buildings, etc, anything that's man-made.

And of course, archaeologists are often historians too, because some people can be qualified to work in both fields.

Look it up, cladking. Look up humanities.

 

[cladking]

You can criticize a translation, but there no systems like science, which translators or philologists are required to follow...

Egyptologists did not follow any sort of logical methodology. They translated and interpreted an entire corpus of abracadabra in terms of a book written 1000 years later. This would be easier to forgive or overlook if they hadn't been insulting and belittling me for the past dozen years while studiously trying to ignore me. They make a series of mistakes and punish me for them. I believe that if I am proven correct "Egyptology" will become the punchline of every joke forever.

...Meaning: Humanities don't require to be empirical, therefore philology doesn't require to follow the Scientific Method, nor it require submission before Peer Review.

It doesn't matter what you think or I think. The fact is THEY think they're a science and they even have added "Peer review" as the 7th step of the scientific method!!! I maintain they aren't even a philosophy or any soft science because they used illogical and non sequitur methodology. No modern philosopher would make such a blunder. No one searching for truth would ignore all outside input because they aren't Peers. The word "science" in no way can be applied to a field that suppresses data because it disproves their hypotheses.

I hope I can be far more charitable if and when I win this argument but you have no idea how I've been treated all these years. People here are kind compared to what I'm used to.


I really have far more in common with the animal scientist who built the pyramid than I do with any Egyptologist. While I would have great difficulty learning the language too, at least I'd know where to start. My opinions tend to be similar to the pyramid builders as well since I believe the most important things in life are the past, future, and the search for truth or understanding. Of course we also agree on many points like "evolution" and the importance of quality and efficiency. We also see the world in similar terms but I have (get?) to think and it all came naturally to them. They were a force of nature and I can't even convince people the world is infinitely complex and no two identical things exist in it! These were (mostly) axiomatic to them but this is what modern science has learned and people can't see it.

 

[gnostic]

Egyptologists did not follow any sort of logical methodology. They translated and interpreted an entire corpus of abracadabra in terms of a book written 1000 years later. This would be easier to forgive or overlook if they hadn't been insulting and belittling me for the past dozen years while studiously trying to ignore me.

You are still mistaking philology for science.

All forms of studies of languages, whether it be spoken or written, all fall under humanities, not science.

The study of ancient writings is philology, is also not science.

Philology is a discipline in humanities, not science, so translating and interpreting texts don’t have to be empirical and don’t have to be subjected to peer review.

The methodology of interpreting the meaning of texts can fall under the categories of -

1. textual criticism
2. or literary criticism

Neither methods are “Scientific Method”, so no science is involved.

I don’t know how many times I must explain to you translating ancient texts isn’t science; so you demanding for translation of hieroglyphs to be ”peer reviewed” is pointless demands.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Distinction"

Looks purple to me.

Your problem here is that you still have the cart before the horse.

The only problem is you not being able to grasp gradualism.

you are still ignoring consciousness.

In the case of humans "first" has a lot of significance because he was unique or one of very few. And his name was probably "Adam" (or S3h).

I give up.

You're either too stubborn, to stupid or to dishonest to understand the concept of gradualism and how it works in practice in the real world.
You may choose wich it is.

 

[tas8831]

You are simply imagining a long precession of more and more human-like creatures made possible by survival of the fittest.

Define "survival of the fittest."

In the case of humans "first" has a lot of significance because he was unique or one of very few. And his name was probably "Adam" (or S3h).

Evidence for this.

Remember - here is my irrefutable evidence for gradual change in living things:

Elephants. Oak trees. Naked mole rats.

 

[tas8831]

You're either too stubborn, to stupid or to dishonest to understand the concept of gradualism and how it works in practice in the real world.
You may choose wich it is.

Ooo ooo - I know I know!!!

 

[cladking]

Define "survival of the fittest."

Remember - here is my irrefutable evidence for gradual change in living things:

Trick questions?

Why define a term for which no referent exists?

Why present evidence when it can't be seen or considered?

Unicorns slowly went extinct Feb 31, 2028 AD at midnight and the angels wept since it was the first time since unicorns gradually evolved with no beginning and no end 1,000,000 years from now.

Peers will have cheered because they didn't believe in anything anyway and will know it's time to sweep away the cobwebs of the past. A brave new world will slowly emerge without religion and superstition and with the certainty and cool fuzzies only our gradually acquired omniscience can provide.


I fear I have to abandon this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unicorns slowly went extinct Feb 31, 2028 AD at midnight and the angels wept since it was the first time since unicorns gradually evolved with no beginning and no end 1,000,000 years from now.

eum.... wut??

I fear I have to abandon this thread.

You may want to abandon discussing this topic all together, until you properly learn a few basic concepts first...

 

[tas8831]

Ple bob sequisited ba mer wassle. Ple fisteration meezle bob fantagoozle!

Thinking that perhaps I missed something, I googled that phrase and darned if this showed up:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pubmed
Risk factors for measles in a previously vaccinated population ...
by EE Mast - ‎1990 - ‎Cited by 50 - ‎Related articles
Nov 21, 1990 - Mast EE(1), Berg JL, Hanrahan LP, Wassell JT, Davis JP. ... Using data from a large measles outbreak that occurred in Dane County ...
Missing: Ple ‎bob ‎sequisited ‎bamer ‎fisteration ‎fantagoozle​

Weird...

 

[tas8831]

Trick questions?

Not at all - just seeing if you can actually define the phrase that you have been misapplying and misrepresenting for years - even after its actual usage has been explained to you repeatedly.

Remember when you biffed and claimed it was a pejorative? And I proved that was a lie? Even on the rare occasions that you make feeble attempts to justify your baseless assertions, you flail and fail.

Why define a term for which no referent exists?

Why use a term that you cannot understand?

Why present evidence when it can't be seen or considered?

If it can't be seen then you have nothing to present.

Unicorns slowly went extinct Feb 31, 2028 AD at midnight and the angels wept since it was the first time since unicorns gradually evolved with no beginning and no end 1,000,000 years from now.

Funny - if only you had taken the time to google "survival of the fittest" instead of writing that (which you actually probably believe), you might not come across as so disingenuous.

I fear I have to abandon this thread.

What a shame.. We're all.. broken up...

 

[tas8831]

And the "I've gone over this before" when that never happened. In many cases someone explaining the theory, evidence or details has had to repeat themselves, but rarely if ever had a creationist provided anything the first time.

Oh, that old gambit.

Like the 'evidence' given 'repeatedly' that all change in biology is sudden, like speciation? And the 'evidence' was a list of 3 critters?

 

[tas8831]

These things are especially true in fields that the popular opinion is incapable of creating technology, experiment, or prediction.

Speaking of which - you never did cite your publication on your experiments regarding how the pyramids were REALLY built.

Weird, huh?

 

[tas8831]

I specifically said ALL OLD HOLY BOOKS CAME FROM OLDER SOURCES.

Ah, so they are basically plagiarized, non-original.

Yet you think Adam was real.
Amazing.

 

[tas8831]

Comparative genomics

Lol.

Yes. This is a very interesting field showing specific cases where biologists were completely wrong.

Weird - you never did provide any evidence that your empty assertion has merit.

I suspect that your go-to antic is to just dismiss things that you have admitted ignorance in, yet know you must defeat such that your Walter Mitty-like egotist fantasies can remain intact.

I'm betting that you do not even know what comparative genomics is.

Let me guess - it is a pejorative of some sort?

 

[tas8831]

I don't follow this stuff when they're right, why would I follow their errors.

Then how could you honestly write:

"This is a very interesting field showing specific cases where biologists were completely wrong."?

There was some orchid they had completely misidentified.

Such detail! All hail the great Cladking! Naked Emperor of his own Puniverse?

Golly, misidentified an orchid (so you claim), you say? That was due to comparative genomics? And citations or documentation - where are they?

When you said that "survival of the fittest" was a pejorative made up to dis Darwin, I found that you had totally made it up or maybe confabulated it.
When you claimed mink speciated in a single generation, I exposed that lie, too.

What will the outcome be if I waste the time to look into this dubious assertion of yours?

Another lie? Another act of ignorance? Another sad attempt to save face when called out for making unsupported assertions?

Yes! "Thought" is the comparison of sensory input to beliefs.

No it isn't. No other human recognizes and applies your idiosyncratic re-definitions of words.

thought1
/THôt/
noun
1. an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.

​

I have presented that to you before. You ignored it. And now you just keep making yourself look like.... you.
You're like the Jordan Peterson of creationists, just making crap up as you go and chastising your detractors for not understanding your made up nonsense.

No other animal nor ancient man had beliefs so none of them think.

Stupidest thing I think I have ever read.
And given the things you've written, that is saying something.

 

[tas8831]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Please elaborate.

Not until you provide evidence of sudden speciation in 1 generation.