A Note of Thanks to Creationists and Science Deniers

[exchemist]

I will add sort on topic of the thread the evolution deniers amd bogus 'Intelligent Design' advocates inspire me to do my homework and research of the science literature to keep up to date. Also follow changes as to how Creationists deal with science. I have been retired from geology for some years, and it is good to keep the mind tuned on the subject.

Good idea.

I have a particular contempt for ID because it claims to be science and not religious, as a (now failed) subterfuge to enable it to be taught in US schools. Regular creationism is silly enough, but the level of deceit involved in ID is egregious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Define the parameters of natural selection? These parameters is always left undefined and open ended in a nebulous way.

Natural selection is the process by which populations adapt and change to improve their success in survival and reproduction.
This adaption / change is all-encompassing and thus does NOT limit itself to mere biological anatomy. It also includes behavior.

The organization of populations into tribes, settlements and civilizations very much is subject to it in the same way that ants, bees, wasps,... organizing into colonies or hives is.

There is no escaping natural selection just like there is no escaping gravity.

As a distinction to the more nebulous natural selection, man made selections are selections, made by only humans, apart from nature; choose transgender.

Humans are natural.
Consider lions going after the slower looking gazelle. That doesn't make gazelles subject to "lion-made selection". It's all still natural selection.

In agriculture / breeding programs, we do speak of "artificial selection". This is done to make the distinction of it being us humans who choose which individuals procreate and which don't. But that doesn't make it unnatural. It's still all natural selection. It's just that we humans define (part of) the selection pressures in such case.

In general terms, selection pressures are defined by the environment. But we humans are part of the environment, just like lions are.
We call it artificial selection only to make clear that we humans play an active role in defining (part) of the selection pressures. But we humans are natural and part of the environment. So it's still all natural selection.

You cannot choose and have transgender without manmade medicines and surgeries. Nature does not allow for human metamorphosis, induce by natural selection, as a function of the alignment of the sun and moon. Although some humans will use astrology to define the best time to surgically transgender.

Farming, for example, is done in all climates in all parts of the world. Which parameters of natural selection, which can found everywhere on earth, induced this selective need in humans? Why not just wander and gather where there is more food? Why did the first farmers struggle for months without food, guarding and waiting for the plants to mature? That would require long term vision apart from the immediate gratification of the human animal.

Wandering, gathering and hunting would be defined by natural selection.

All this is addressed above. You fail to recognize that humans are natural beings that are part of the environment. From the perspective of the plants being farmed, we humans are just another selection pressure.

Also, we humans aren't the only ones that "farm". Ants do it too. They farm using aphids. They use them like herds, much like we herd sheep, goats, cows, etc.

But what in the natural environment make you stop, settle and farm, somewhere in particular, especially if farming requires waiting to eat, and can be done in almost any environment with human ingenuity?

It improves survivability and reproductive success. It makes human life easier.

What are the natural environmental distinctions that could help funnel this very human behavior?

You mean, aside from less hunger, more food security, ability to stay in one place and thus build a fortified home where you don't need to sleep with one eye open and where it is easier to keep the tribe and off spring safe, etc?

The current theory of natural selection does not fully apply, once the human ego appears.

You keep claiming this, but you completely ignore the fact that humans are natural beings who are just as much part of the natural environment as anything else.

Humans farming cows isn't any more "unnatural" then ants farming aphids.

The choice of settlement location would be more of a subjective human choice; beauty, reinforced by education; cultural traditions.

lol, no.
Location is chosen primarily by availability of farming / fertile grounds, food sources, water, secure building grounds, etc.
Why is it do you think that ancient peoples mostly settled by coasts (seas, rivers, lakes,...)?

Science can show the pre-humans migrating throughout the world and then stop in various locations of the widest variety.

Not really the "widest" variety. No tribes would be settling in places like Death Valley, where nothing grows, where there are no sources of drinkable water, where there are no hunting grounds, etc.


There are parameters that make locations suitable for settlements, as listed above: fertile grounds, water, hunting options, secure building grounds, etc.
Those who settled in places where such weren't available either had a REALLY tough time, or went extinct.

Go back in history and you will see that every civilization that prospered and lasted, will have checked all those boxes.

In terms of civilization, there is evidence of earlier civilizations before the first sustainable, about 6000 years ago. Why didn't the earlier ones sustain?

Every civilizations falls after a while, for all kinds of reasons. Just like ant colonies don't last indefinitely either.
There are all kinds of reasons for it: war, natural disasters, depletion of natural resources, climate change, epidemics, etc.

Look at the Minoans for example. Once a thriving and very prosperous civilisation on the island of Crete. It got whiped out almost overnight by a single volcanic eruption on an island a few hundred kilometers away.

The easiest explanation is the ego or secondary center was starting to appear about 10,000 years ago. However, it was not yet stable on a large scale; constant loss of soul. This allowed for some manmade selection and innovation, but once the founders and doers passed, the next generation could not maintain. They reverted back to natural selection and went back to hunter gathering, abandoning the settlements. The ego does not solidify on a large scale until 6000AD then civilization becomes sustainable.

Nonsense.

The analogy would be like having a father, who is very skilled at building. He builds a nice house and property for his young family. After the father passes, the children have no clue how to maintain the house and property to the same level, so it goes into disrepair. They lack the innate capacity to copy the father, since their lack of a steady ego makes it harder to watch and learn; impulsive.

It is much easier to correlate the change to civilization with an update in the brain than a new instinct by natural selection.

That "update in the brain" would be the result of natural selection.

An upgrade make sit easier to explain the wide variety of changes that occurred instead of one at a time. The science of evolution is weak when it comes to the evolution of consciousness, since DNA alone is not enough. Human DNA could be found in humans with or without the ego center.

You make no sense and clearly you are super-imposing your a priori religious beliefs here.

 

[wellwisher]

Natural selection is specifically defined in the sciences of evolution. It is your intentional ignorance of science that is a problem.

Natural Selection

Natural selection is the process through which species adapt to their environments. It is the engine that drives evolution.

education.nationalgeographic.org

the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.

One note: Natural selection takes place in populations of life forms based on the genetic diversity of the population in response to changes in the environment. Yes humans use these "natural" processes in the past 10.000 years to improve farming and animal husbandry.

I was looking for more specific selective pressures from nature; natural selection, and not something so nebulous. In other words, by getting very specific, one should be able to make predictions of the future, since like the forces of nature, we will see specific vectors that should default to very specific genetic selections; action and reaction. The fact that the future cannot be predicted easily with the theory tells me the specifics are being left out or are assumed nebulous; subject to chance or dice and cards.

For example, going from water based life; fish to land animals, added the objective natural criteria of more gravity effect to all possible future land animals. The water animals were still able to take advantage of buoyancy in water and can ignore counter the downward tug of gravity. This extra force on all future land animals would lead to other forms of locomotion such as legs as well as more bone and muscle mass and more critters at lowest potential; fewer fliers and climbers but maybe more diggers.

If we were to go to a planet, where life is just starting to come out of the water onto the land, we could predict the future of life on that planet. in terms of what to expect from the added gravity force vector on future land animals. But natural selection lacks the same objective quantifications, in each case, to make specific and obvious predictions. If natural selection is nebulous, one will not be able to make a distinction with manmade selection, thereby perpetuating a bias, that blurs the line.

It is easier to start at manmade selection, since human selection, via will and choice, has more definitive goals, even before it starts to select, such as with dog breeding. The dog breeder is looking to enhanced the breed's fur texture and coloration, the disposition, body structure, etc. They will select the next generation of puppies, for pampering, accordingly. This is the criteria I use for man made selection. The goal comes first before selection, even if the desired result takes time to achieve; GMO corn.

Human apply mental vectors for hopeful change, that are anticipated. before they make the selections. Natural selection does not appear to anticipate the longer term future, if the nebulous theory is correct. That is also a useful line in the sand. When does human anticipated selection start? Dogs ran with humans for over 50,000 years, but the first dog burial is dated 14,000 years. Domestication of dogs appears later and would be more when humans start to choose; lifetime and afterlife bond.

Sustainable civilization is not a random thing based on the whims of change. It takes longer term planning more than luck. It also takes education, so the future humans can anticipate and plan for changes. This is too complicated to be left for chance, like the earlier civilizations that appeared and then aborted.

I use the bible symbolism, not to push ID, but to take advantage of the time scale of the first sustainable civilization with the Bible dating. Was that a coincidence? Or is the early Bible and other early religious accounts witness to the change? How would one explain such a difference in approach, suddenly taken root on a large scale?

I am not saying God. I am staying more scientific and assuming the human brain updated its software, since modern people make use of education to create a sustainable platform, from which anticipation for future change, makes more sense, than just reacting to immediate selective pressures. Although that also happens.

My thesis is more connected to the archetypes of the collective unconscious of Carl Jung. The archetypes in modern lingo are more like the apps of the human personality. These are part of the brain's natural operating system. Symbolism shows that the firmware were often projected into the divine, since they are connected to higher human potential; they can time project. Farming was considered from the goddess; Demeter. She was the internal firmware time projecting; drive behind this creative anticipation for needed change. This is not to discount religion, either. But rather to build a bridge for evolution and science to the firmware mapping within religious symbolism. This is more integral than differential thinking.

 

[Audie]

I was looking for more specific selective pressures from nature; natural selection, and not something so nebulous. In other words, by getting very specific, one should be able to make predictions of the future, since like the forces of nature, we will see specific vectors that should default to very specific genetic selections; action and reaction. The fact that the future cannot be predicted easily with the theory tells me the specifics are being left out or are assumed nebulous; subject to chance or dice and cards.

For example, going from water based life; fish to land animals, added the objective natural criteria of more gravity effect to all possible future land animals. The water animals were still able to take advantage of buoyancy in water and can ignore counter the downward tug of gravity. This extra force on all future land animals would lead to other forms of locomotion such as legs as well as more bone and muscle mass and more critters at lowest potential; fewer fliers and climbers but maybe more diggers.

If we were to go to a planet, where life is just starting to come out of the water onto the land, we could predict the future of life on that planet. in terms of what to expect from the added gravity force vector on future land animals. But natural selection lacks the same objective quantifications, in each case, to make specific and obvious predictions. If natural selection is nebulous, one will not be able to make a distinction with manmade selection, thereby perpetuating a bias, that blurs the line.

It is easier to start at manmade selection, since human selection, via will and choice, has more definitive goals, even before it starts to select, such as with dog breeding. The dog breeder is looking to enhanced the breed's fur texture and coloration, the disposition, body structure, etc. They will select the next generation of puppies, for pampering, accordingly. This is the criteria I use for man made selection. The goal comes first before selection, even if the desired result takes time to achieve; GMO corn.

Human apply mental vectors for hopeful change, that are anticipated. before they make the selections. Natural selection does not appear to anticipate the longer term future, if the nebulous theory is correct. That is also a useful line in the sand. When does human anticipated selection start? Dogs ran with humans for over 50,000 years, but the first dog burial is dated 14,000 years. Domestication of dogs appears later and would be more when humans start to choose; lifetime and afterlife bond.

Sustainable civilization is not a random thing based on the whims of change. It takes longer term planning more than luck. It also takes education, so the future humans can anticipate and plan for changes. This is too complicated to be left for chance, like the earlier civilizations that appeared and then aborted.

I use the bible symbolism, not to push ID, but to take advantage of the time scale of the first sustainable civilization with the Bible dating. Was that a coincidence? Or is the early Bible and other early religious accounts witness to the change? How would one explain such a difference in approach, suddenly taken root on a large scale?

I am not saying God. I am staying more scientific and assuming the human brain updated its software, since modern people make use of education to create a sustainable platform, from which anticipation for future change, makes more sense, than just reacting to immediate selective pressures. Although that also happens.

My thesis is more connected to the archetypes of the collective unconscious of Carl Jung. The archetypes in modern lingo are more like the apps of the human personality. These are part of the brain's natural operating system. Symbolism shows that the firmware were often projected into the divine, since they are connected to higher human potential; they can time project. Farming was considered from the goddess; Demeter. She was the internal firmware time projecting; drive behind this creative anticipation for needed change. This is not to discount religion, either. But rather to build a bridge for evolution and science to the firmware mapping within religious symbolism. This is more integral than differential thinking.

Its your " thesis" that is nebulous.

 

[metis]

I was looking for more specific selective pressures from nature; natural selection, and not something so nebulous. In other words, by getting very specific, one should be able to make predictions of the future, since like the forces of nature, we will see specific vectors that should default to very specific genetic selections; action and reaction. The fact that the future cannot be predicted easily with the theory tells me the specifics are being left out or are assumed nebulous; subject to chance or dice and cards.

For example, going from water based life; fish to land animals, added the objective natural criteria of more gravity effect to all possible future land animals. The water animals were still able to take advantage of buoyancy in water and can ignore counter the downward tug of gravity. This extra force on all future land animals would lead to other forms of locomotion such as legs as well as more bone and muscle mass and more critters at lowest potential; fewer fliers and climbers but maybe more diggers.

If we were to go to a planet, where life is just starting to come out of the water onto the land, we could predict the future of life on that planet. in terms of what to expect from the added gravity force vector on future land animals. But natural selection lacks the same objective quantifications, in each case, to make specific and obvious predictions. If natural selection is nebulous, one will not be able to make a distinction with manmade selection, thereby perpetuating a bias, that blurs the line.

It is easier to start at manmade selection, since human selection, via will and choice, has more definitive goals, even before it starts to select, such as with dog breeding. The dog breeder is looking to enhanced the breed's fur texture and coloration, the disposition, body structure, etc. They will select the next generation of puppies, for pampering, accordingly. This is the criteria I use for man made selection. The goal comes first before selection, even if the desired result takes time to achieve; GMO corn.

Human apply mental vectors for hopeful change, that are anticipated. before they make the selections. Natural selection does not appear to anticipate the longer term future, if the nebulous theory is correct. That is also a useful line in the sand. When does human anticipated selection start? Dogs ran with humans for over 50,000 years, but the first dog burial is dated 14,000 years. Domestication of dogs appears later and would be more when humans start to choose; lifetime and afterlife bond.

Sustainable civilization is not a random thing based on the whims of change. It takes longer term planning more than luck. It also takes education, so the future humans can anticipate and plan for changes. This is too complicated to be left for chance, like the earlier civilizations that appeared and then aborted.

I use the bible symbolism, not to push ID, but to take advantage of the time scale of the first sustainable civilization with the Bible dating. Was that a coincidence? Or is the early Bible and other early religious accounts witness to the change? How would one explain such a difference in approach, suddenly taken root on a large scale?

I am not saying God. I am staying more scientific and assuming the human brain updated its software, since modern people make use of education to create a sustainable platform, from which anticipation for future change, makes more sense, than just reacting to immediate selective pressures. Although that also happens.

My thesis is more connected to the archetypes of the collective unconscious of Carl Jung. The archetypes in modern lingo are more like the apps of the human personality. These are part of the brain's natural operating system. Symbolism shows that the firmware were often projected into the divine, since they are connected to higher human potential; they can time project. Farming was considered from the goddess; Demeter. She was the internal firmware time projecting; drive behind this creative anticipation for needed change. This is not to discount religion, either. But rather to build a bridge for evolution and science to the firmware mapping within religious symbolism. This is more integral than differential thinking.

The above is wrong on numerous counts, but your persistent m.o. has it that you only accept what you want to believe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was looking for more specific selective pressures from nature; natural selection

"nature" includes the living things. Lions, mice, plants, humans,...

For some reason you have decided that humans are not part of nature.
This is your mistake.

 

[Audie]

"nature" includes the living things. Lions, mice, plants, humans,...

For some reason you have decided that humans are not part of nature.
This is your mistake.

Its looking at kind of from the wrong end
anyway.
The plant or animal with the genetics
that best match the requirements of
whatever environment are the ones with
the most offspring. DNA isnt aware of
human involvement.

The way creationists think theyve got
a clear understanding of science, so much
so that they see further and clearer than
any resesrcher is just so delusional.

But probably represents well the quality
of thought / understanding in their
"spiritual" be.lefs.

 

[wellwisher]

"nature" includes the living things. Lions, mice, plants, humans,...

For some reason you have decided that humans are not part of nature.
This is your mistake.

I am assuming you believe in evolution and natural selection. Humans have will and choice, and we can make unnatural selections that are not running parallel to evolution. The wolf is based on natural selection and it still very persistent, while the dog is manmade and fast changing; 360 official recognized dog breeds plus mutts.

Are you saying evolution via natural selection is wrong? Another good example of unnatural selection were the Ascetics who practices severe self disciple and abstinence. Can you name me any other animal on earth that deprives their base instincts, when surrounded by all the things that can satisfy these instincts; extreme will? This is not natural but had a selective value in many ancient religions. When you think of it, many religion believe in an alternate spiritual reality, that we cannot prove with the five senses. Can you name any animal that does this, and still has natural selection value? In religion, this can be a source of prestige; selected.

We have human DNA, like the humans from 50,000 years ago, but our behavior is far from the same. The brain can do extra things that you cannot infer with just our human DNA. Everything you learned in school was not part of your DNA, in advance. The brain can be more than the DNA it is based on, due to natural learning potential and education. Living in civilization requires we learn more things outside our natural instincts. This change in humans, with the rise of sustainable civilization can be explained, not with DNA, but a more advanced mind; more like an operating system update than a DNA hardware update.

I have an iMac that came with the Ventura operating system; year before an update. I still use the same exact hardware, but now have more capability, after I updated it to the latest operating system; Sonoma. This appears to been what happened to humans, with the update connected to a stable secondary center, with will and choice. This extra POV, beyond human instinct, started to leave behind natural instinct, to make it easier to live in the unnatural cultural environments; fixed instead of wander. You would not be worried about climate change, if what we did was naturally selected.

Explain to yourself how evolution, based on natural selection, can accommodate the unnatural selections of humans? Does this disprove evolution or does it better correspond to another branch of evolution, uniquely connected to humans? I tend to believe the latter. Humans are connected to both with some more one or the other.

Alcohol and drug addiction is not natural since it leads to health issues, so this behavior would not be naturally selected, but it is widely selected by individual humans. We can conditions monkey to become addicted, through reinforcement education, so they part from their natural instincts on their DNA. With humans, you do not need to individually train these behavior, that can harm your instinct. The secondary center, in each of us, can make such choices based on its own internal ego centric criteria.

Collective human symbolism is a useful tool to study this transition; new human branch. Sustainable Civilization is only 6000 years old and many of the best sources of symbolism for the change, come from the world's religions, due to their age and their long term preservation; well maintained holy books that are taboo to change; perfect data archives. This is not about theism, but collective human symbolism that also includes mythology, fairy tales and art. These give us hints into the transitional brain IT.

For the sake of argument, say you had two centers of the brain; inner self and ego. The inner self is old and connected to our DNA. The ego is newer and more connected to learned knowledge. Based on basic psychology, if the ego was to make choices that were not natural to humans, this would create a potential with the natural flow of the inner self and DNA; repression. The inner self would make content conscious to help lower potential; dreams, visions, compulsions, phobias, etc. There is a cause and effect, with the collective human symbolism the effect. We can reverse engineer and infer the ego centric causes of those transitional times.

In Greek mythology, the Titan mythology appears before the Olympians. The Titan symbolism was very scary; Release the Kraken, implicit of a very large early psychological repression potential. The choice led to a deep repression of natural. This moderates as implied by the less severe Olympians; humans finding a better balance with the gods; inner self.

 

[gnostic]

I like the Bible because it tells about the changes from eyewitnesses who were around for the change, but who did not understand how the brain works, so this could be correlated with science. I built a bridge to connect them that way

You really have odd idea as to what believe "eyewitnesses" to be, wellwisher.

Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, none of them contributed to writing the Genesis, as they were mythological characters, not authors to the Genesis. The Genesis is a set of stories about them, they weren’t eyewitnesses to events, and the events were mythological , not historical events.

From Genesis to 2 Samuel, they are just stories, myths. There are nothing independent that can verify the events and the people in these events happening in these books. Not independent sources, not archaeological evidence.

They are stories written or composed from 6th century BCE, during the Babylonian Exile, and post-Exile. None of the OT books were composed during the Late Bronze Age (c 1590 - c 1050 BCE). There are no stone or clay tablets, no papyri scrolls, no parchments, that exist in the Bronze Age concerning the biblical texts…not single thing that can verify any of stories with regarding to Genesis.

I have a different approach from the two main sides of the creation versus evolution debate. I can accept the science carbon dating data, as well as the symbolism of the Bible. I have come to the conclusion that the story of Creation is connected to a change in the human mind; brain. The upgrade in human consciousness; brain, is symbolized by Adam and Eve and happened about 6000-10,000 year ago. This time scale does not preclude the older biological humans; over 50,000 year ago. These older biological humans lacked the neural upgrade. Both had human DNA, but symbolic Adam was the first human to have the new brain upgrade.

Evolution is based on natural selection, which makes sense. Civilization, which began about 6-10k years ago, is outside natural selection. It was more connected to human will and choice. Adam; symbolized by the brain update, allows for human will and chose apart from human instinct. Human instinct had connected humans to evolution, via natural selection; from 2 million years ago to about 6k to10k years ago.

The line in the sand by science is based on DNA evidence which can be seen before and after the rise of civilization. Evolution by natural selection cannot explain the rise of civilization. Civilization would create an unnatural human environment; squat instead of wander, where law and rules forced people to become less natural; more civilized for the crowded social life. This is part of human evolution, but not by natural selection. No where else in nature do we this without humans. There was an upgrade divergence to manmade selection, plus natural selection.

And here are just bunch of speculative claims, they are not based on any fact. Not biological facts, and certainly not historical facts.

And I get the feeling that you are saying that Adam was cause of civilisation.

Adam isn even a real historical human. He is a myth developed in the 6th century BCE, based on the Babylonian creation myths. He certainly wasn’t responsible for civilisation, as he never existed as a real person.

You can talk about Adam being the first human with “brain upgrade”, but that’s pure speculation and fiction. It is BS, which you cannot substantiate.

I am not surprise that when history and science don’t support Genesis creation, creationists will invent scenarios that never happen, and think their own fictitious stories are facts.

During the glacial periods, ice sheets covered large regions, particularly northern parts of North America, northern Eurasia and high mountain ranges, where the ice don’t melt, so there could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of years, where there are annual warmer seasons. But while even larger regions saw no ice sheets, the earth’s global climate were cooler and drier, so there are long periods of droughts. So both humans and other animals are often migrating, seeking drinkable water. So despite there being no ice sheets, humans living hunter-and-gatherer lifestyles, annd are nomadic.

The end of Pleistocene and start of Holocene was when the ice sheet retreated, and the Earth underwent annual cycle of warm and cold seasons, which broke the droughts. The Holocene epoch allowed for humans to settle in one place, and that allowed for growing their own food - through agricultural farming and animal husbandry/domestication. This allow for permanent settlements to grow from Neolithic villages to towns, eg Tell es-Sultan, a site of ancient Jericho was one of the earliest town where they built fortified walls plus a tower, to prevent flooding from Jordan river. Some towns grew into cities.

Adam and his descendants weren’t responsible for civilisation. They didn’t built any Neolithic or Bronze Age cities.

Even with towns and cities being built, this didn't stop other groups continuing to hunt and gather, as their Pleistocene ancestors did.

it is just wishful thinking that Adam had major brain upgrade.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am assuming you believe in evolution and natural selection. Humans have will and choice, and we can make unnatural selections that are not running parallel to evolution. The wolf is based on natural selection and it still very persistent, while the dog is manmade and fast changing; 360 official recognized dog breeds plus mutts.

Are you saying evolution via natural selection is wrong? Another good example of unnatural selection were the Ascetics who practices severe self disciple and abstinence. Can you name me any other animal on earth that deprives their base instincts, when surrounded by all the things that can satisfy these instincts; extreme will? This is not natural but had a selective value in many ancient religions. When you think of it, many religion believe in an alternate spiritual reality, that we cannot prove with the five senses. Can you name any animal that does this, and still has natural selection value? In religion, this can be a source of prestige; selected.

We have human DNA, like the humans from 50,000 years ago, but our behavior is far from the same. The brain can do extra things that you cannot infer with just our human DNA. Everything you learned in school was not part of your DNA, in advance. The brain can be more than the DNA it is based on, due to natural learning potential and education. Living in civilization requires we learn more things outside our natural instincts. This change in humans, with the rise of sustainable civilization can be explained, not with DNA, but a more advanced mind; more like an operating system update than a DNA hardware update.

I have an iMac that came with the Ventura operating system; year before an update. I still use the same exact hardware, but now have more capability, after I updated it to the latest operating system; Sonoma. This appears to been what happened to humans, with the update connected to a stable secondary center, with will and choice. This extra POV, beyond human instinct, started to leave behind natural instinct, to make it easier to live in the unnatural cultural environments; fixed instead of wander. You would not be worried about climate change, if what we did was naturally selected.

Explain to yourself how evolution, based on natural selection, can accommodate the unnatural selections of humans? Does this disprove evolution or does it better correspond to another branch of evolution, uniquely connected to humans? I tend to believe the latter. Humans are connected to both with some more one or the other.

Alcohol and drug addiction is not natural since it leads to health issues, so this behavior would not be naturally selected, but it is widely selected by individual humans. We can conditions monkey to become addicted, through reinforcement education, so they part from their natural instincts on their DNA. With humans, you do not need to individually train these behavior, that can harm your instinct. The secondary center, in each of us, can make such choices based on its own internal ego centric criteria.

Actually no, humans cannot make unnatural decisions outside the Natural Laws any more than the wolf can.

Individual decisions and acts of behavior are not naturally selected. You must definitely do not under stand the concept of natural selection that I defined in a previous post.

Humans can be conditioned to be addicted and individually trained just as well as monkeys. All higher animals have instincts including humans.

There is no known secondary center, in each of us, can make such choices based on its own internal ego centric criteria.

Collective human symbolism is a useful tool to study this transition; new human branch. Sustainable Civilization is only 6000 years old and many of the best sources of symbolism for the change, come from the world's religions, due to their age and their long term preservation; well maintained holy books that are taboo to change; perfect data archives. This is not about theism, but collective human symbolism that also includes mythology, fairy tales and art. These give us hints into the transitional brain IT.

The only thing we can conclude is that over time human civilization evolved over the past 10,000 years in response to the changing climate after the last Ice Age., Your assumptions are based on theological speculation of a religious agenda. Natural evolution does not happen that suddenly.

For the sake of argument, say you had two centers of the brain; inner self and ego. The inner self is old and connected to our DNA. The ego is newer and more connected to learned knowledge. Based on basic psychology, if the ego was to make choices that were not natural to humans, this would create a potential with the natural flow of the inner self and DNA; repression. The inner self would make content conscious to help lower potential; dreams, visions, compulsions, phobias, etc. There is a cause and effect, with the collective human symbolism the effect. We can reverse engineer and infer the ego centric causes of those transitional times.

Your 'sake of argument is based on speculation and your agenda.

In Greek mythology, the Titan mythology appears before the Olympians. The Titan symbolism was very scary; Release the Kraken, implicit of a very large early psychological repression potential. The choice led to a deep repression of natural. This moderates as implied by the less severe Olympians; humans finding a better balance with the gods; inner self.

Ancient mythology has no meaning reference to the subject.

 

[wellwisher]

You really have odd idea as to what believe "eyewitnesses" to be, wellwisher.

Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, none of them contributed to writing the Genesis, as they were mythological characters, not authors to the Genesis. The Genesis is a set of stories about them, they weren’t eyewitnesses to events, and the events were mythological , not historical events.

From Genesis to 2 Samuel, they are just stories, myths. There are nothing independent that can verify the events and the people in these events happening in these books. Not independent sources, not archaeological evidence.

They are stories written or composed from 6th century BCE, during the Babylonian Exile, and post-Exile. None of the OT books were composed during the Late Bronze Age (c 1590 - c 1050 BCE). There are no stone or clay tablets, no papyri scrolls, no parchments, that exist in the Bronze Age concerning the biblical texts…not single thing that can verify any of stories with regarding to Genesis.



And here are just bunch of speculative claims, they are not based on any fact. Not biological facts, and certainly not historical facts.

And I get the feeling that you are saying that Adam was cause of civilisation.

Adam isn even a real historical human. He is a myth developed in the 6th century BCE, based on the Babylonian creation myths. He certainly wasn’t responsible for civilisation, as he never existed as a real person.

You can talk about Adam being the first human with “brain upgrade”, but that’s pure speculation and fiction. It is BS, which you cannot substantiate.

I am not surprise that when history and science don’t support Genesis creation, creationists will invent scenarios that never happen, and think their own fictitious stories are facts.

During the glacial periods, ice sheets covered large regions, particularly northern parts of North America, northern Eurasia and high mountain ranges, where the ice don’t melt, so there could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of years, where there are annual warmer seasons. But while even larger regions saw no ice sheets, the earth’s global climate were cooler and drier, so there are long periods of droughts. So both humans and other animals are often migrating, seeking drinkable water. So despite there being no ice sheets, humans living hunter-and-gatherer lifestyles, annd are nomadic.

The end of Pleistocene and start of Holocene was when the ice sheet retreated, and the Earth underwent annual cycle of warm and cold seasons, which broke the droughts. The Holocene epoch allowed for humans to settle in one place, and that allowed for growing their own food - through agricultural farming and animal husbandry/domestication. This allow for permanent settlements to grow from Neolithic villages to towns, eg Tell es-Sultan, a site of ancient Jericho was one of the earliest town where they built fortified walls plus a tower, to prevent flooding from Jordan river. Some towns grew into cities.

Adam and his descendants weren’t responsible for civilisation. They didn’t built any Neolithic or Bronze Age cities.

Even with towns and cities being built, this didn't stop other groups continuing to hunt and gather, as their Pleistocene ancestors did.

it is just wishful thinking that Adam had major brain upgrade.

Adam is a "symbol" of the formation of the human secondary center, that we call the ego; center of the conscious mind. This would offer a secondary POV for consciousness apart from instinct and natural selection.

My approach is from the POV of the late Psychologist Carl Jung, and his theory of the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. We have a conscious and unconscious mind. Freud lumped the Unconscious mind into his concept of the Id. While Jung, his star pupil, dug deeper and was able to differentiated the Id into the many archetype of the collective Unconscious, with its center called the inner self.

Jung proved his thesis by showing similar patterns of symbols, even in cultures, where there is no proof of interaction. These symbols and organization was created fresh in each culture, from brain's natural operating system, that give all human our collective human propensities; human nature. World flood mythology Is common the Aborigine of Australia way before Westerners ever came there. This is not to say there was a world flood, but rather the same symbol of the mind, appeared in time but separated in space. This is because the brain has firmware that is common in all humans.

Animals, including the earliest humans, have an inner self. This center is genetic based and define common behavioral propensities for each species. The ego is much newer and connected to human will and choice apart from natural human propensity and instinct. All I have done is extrapolate the work of an eminent psychologist and applied it to the change we call civilization. The background was done decades ago.

Those in this site may lack the background, I assume is common sense, based on my own research to verify the archetypes. I sense defensiveness trying to hold a line, and unwilling to see anything, less they betray their clan. I am in the middle between science and religion. I use collective human symbolism much of which is from religion; natural inner self output.

Define natural selection for the layman? I hear the words, but nobody has given a good definition. Is it based on dice and cards or cause and effect? Once you give that definition, I will show you exceptions. How do we catalog exceptions, if they do not follow the rules of natural selection? I called these manmade selection to show their exception distinction

Technology allows things that would not happen on the earth, naturally, if left only to the laws of nature. For example, metallic aluminum never naturally existed in the oxidizing environment of the earth. Aluminum and oxygen is too reactive. So where does all the aluminum, we now have on earth, come from? It came from a manmade process using electricity. Nature did not naturally choose this path, since it is artificial. It needed humans to select apart from nature and not just accept it as is.

The line in the sand is at one time natural selection was the only show in town for humans and nature. About 5-10k years ago a secondary branch forms that could do new things that were not part of natural selection; man made selection. The symbol of Adam is about this new branch. This is easier to see with technology but also is connected to the knowledge and behavior changes needed for civilization.

I would like to you to explain how the fast pace of civilization can be explained with only natural selection? The conceptual problem is the inertia of 1 million years of natural selection fo humans to reach that point, will not allow a sudden turn. It would be like a large ship making a turn. It would not be fast, since the inertia of instinct and selection would act as a drag. The work around is a secondary center or ego, that loses full consciousness of the instinct of the inner self, so it can force change with less drag. You need to experience it for yourself.

 

[Audie]

Adam is a "symbol" of the formation of the human secondary center, that we call the ego; center of the conscious mind. This would offer a secondary POV for consciousness apart from instinct and natural selection.

My approach is from the POV of the late Psychologist Carl Jung, and his theory of the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious. We have a conscious and unconscious mind. Freud lumped the Unconscious mind into his concept of the Id. While Jung, his star pupil, dug deeper and was able to differentiated the Id into the many archetype of the collective Unconscious, with its center called the inner self.

Jung proved his thesis by showing similar patterns of symbols, even in cultures, where there is no proof of interaction. These symbols and organization was created fresh in each culture, from brain's natural operating system, that give all human our collective human propensities; human nature. World flood mythology Is common the Aborigine of Australia way before Westerners ever came there. This is not to say there was a world flood, but rather the same symbol of the mind, appeared in time but separated in space. This is because the brain has firmware that is common in all humans.

Animals, including the earliest humans, have an inner self. This center is genetic based and define common behavioral propensities for each species. The ego is much newer and connected to human will and choice apart from natural human propensity and instinct. All I have done is extrapolate the work of an eminent psychologist and applied it to the change we call civilization. The background was done decades ago.

Those in this site may lack the background, I assume is common sense, based on my own research to verify the archetypes. I sense defensiveness trying to hold a line, and unwilling to see anything, less they betray their clan. I am in the middle between science and religion. I use collective human symbolism much of which is from religion; natural inner self output.

Define natural selection for the layman? I hear the words, but nobody has given a good definition. Is it based on dice and cards or cause and effect? Once you give that definition, I will show you exceptions. How do we catalog exceptions, if they do not follow the rules of natural selection? I called these manmade selection to show their exception distinction

Technology allows things that would not happen on the earth, naturally, if left only to the laws of nature. For example, metallic aluminum never naturally existed in the oxidizing environment of the earth. Aluminum and oxygen is too reactive. So where does all the aluminum, we now have on earth, come from? It came from a manmade process using electricity. Nature did not naturally choose this path, since it is artificial. It needed humans to select apart from nature and not just accept it as is.

The line in the sand is at one time natural selection was the only show in town for humans and nature. About 5-10k years ago a secondary branch forms that could do new things that were not part of natural selection; man made selection. The symbol of Adam is about this new branch. This is easier to see with technology but also is connected to the knowledge and behavior changes needed for civilization.

I would like to you to explain how the fast pace of civilization can be explained with only natural selection? The conceptual problem is the inertia of 1 million years of natural selection fo humans to reach that point, will not allow a sudden turn. It would be like a large ship making a turn. It would not be fast, since the inertia of instinct and selection would act as a drag. The work around is a secondary center or ego, that loses full consciousness of the instinct of the inner self, so it can force change with less drag. You need to experience it for yourself.

None of us want to experience making up
such nonsense for ourselves.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was looking for more specific selective pressures from nature; natural selection, and not something so nebulous. In other words, by getting very specific, one should be able to make predictions of the future, since like the forces of nature, we will see specific vectors that should default to very specific genetic selections; action and reaction. The fact that the future cannot be predicted easily with the theory tells me the specifics are being left out or are assumed nebulous; subject to chance or dice and cards.

For example, going from water based life; fish to land animals, added the objective natural criteria of more gravity effect to all possible future land animals. The water animals were still able to take advantage of buoyancy in water and can ignore counter the downward tug of gravity. This extra force on all future land animals would lead to other forms of locomotion such as legs as well as more bone and muscle mass and more critters at lowest potential; fewer fliers and climbers but maybe more diggers.

If we were to go to a planet, where life is just starting to come out of the water onto the land, we could predict the future of life on that planet. in terms of what to expect from the added gravity force vector on future land animals. But natural selection lacks the same objective quantifications, in each case, to make specific and obvious predictions. If natural selection is nebulous, one will not be able to make a distinction with manmade selection, thereby perpetuating a bias, that blurs the line.

It is easier to start at manmade selection, since human selection, via will and choice, has more definitive goals, even before it starts to select, such as with dog breeding. The dog breeder is looking to enhanced the breed's fur texture and coloration, the disposition, body structure, etc. They will select the next generation of puppies, for pampering, accordingly. This is the criteria I use for man made selection. The goal comes first before selection, even if the desired result takes time to achieve; GMO corn.

Human apply mental vectors for hopeful change, that are anticipated. before they make the selections. Natural selection does not appear to anticipate the longer term future, if the nebulous theory is correct. That is also a useful line in the sand. When does human anticipated selection start? Dogs ran with humans for over 50,000 years, but the first dog burial is dated 14,000 years. Domestication of dogs appears later and would be more when humans start to choose; lifetime and afterlife bond.

I can get specific concerning the changing environment over time is the major driving force for both abiogenesis and evolution. Life did not begin on earth until the ideal environment occured at the hydrothermal vents developed in the spreading zones of Continental drift. Evolution from that point on was environment driven for natural selection. Geologist like myself documented the changing environment of the earth and

Sustainable civilization is not a random thing based on the whims of change. It takes longer term planning more than luck. It also takes education, so the future humans can anticipate and plan for changes. This is too complicated to be left for chance, like the earlier civilizations that appeared and then aborted.

Yes, the beginning and development of sustainable civilization is not a random thing. Extensive research of the changing climate overtime is the driving force for civilization. Example: before about 10,000-12,000 years ago the human tribes of Northern Africa and the Middle East were hunter gatherer tribes in an abundant savannah with lakes and abundant wildlife. As North Africa Middle East dried out and became the Sahara Desert humans were driven into the river valleys and civilization began to develop with the development of farming and herding of animals, and selective breeding also.

enough for now

 

[YoursTrue]

You really have odd idea as to what believe "eyewitnesses" to be, wellwisher.

Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, none of them contributed to writing the Genesis, as they were mythological characters, not authors to the Genesis. The Genesis is a set of stories about them, they weren’t eyewitnesses to events, and the events were mythological , not historical events.

Adam (and Eve) logically would have related their story to their children, and eventually it was written down.

 

[wellwisher]

None of us want to experience making up
such nonsense for ourselves.

Is this adaption based on natural selection or manmade selection?

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Organisms that are more adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success. This process causes species to change and diverge over time.

In terms of human behavior, natural selection to any environment; natural or manmade, is also function of the brain, since the brain controls our awareness, consciousness, learning potential and even the muscular prowess and agility needed for adaption. The question becomes, how fast does the brain add; write, new adaption, to the DNA, so it can be passed on to the next generation via the DNA and be technically called natural selection?

This time scale is critical in terms of my thesis. If an innovative adaption does not have sufficient time to become engrained in the DNA, it does not qualify as natural selection, since no DNA change for future adaption will not be included in the next generation.

In other words, if there is an otherwise selective adaptation, that does not have sufficient time to be engrained in the DNA, then it does not exactly fit the definition of natural selection. That theory is very genetic centric and DNA has to play a full role. If we had fast paced knowledge, that allows one to adapt to a fast paced environment; civilization, the best adaptions may not have time to be recorded on the DNA.

Instead that person may need to use nepotism; politics, from the outside; peer pressure, to simulate the internal effect of it being recorded on genes for natural selection. I call this faster time scale manmade selection. It is in the zone where there is not enough time for the DNA to lead and pass forward to offspring, the adaption. However, the adaptive brain can still watch, learn and teach the next generation, from the outside and maintain that selective advantage; nepotism.

When Darwin went to the Galápagos Islands, what he saw were very old and conservative species that were still driven from within via natural selection; DNA to brain hierarchy. They had plenty of time, due to isolation, for their optimized adaption to become ingrained in their DNA. That was natural selection.

However, the faster pace of human evolution after civilization did not always have sufficient time to engrain on the DNA. The DNA centric inertia of species found on the Galapagos, did not exactly apply in England. Humans in England were not technically under natural selection; not DNA first. The convention of Blood Line; over many generation, tries to natural selection DNA effect, but as history shows not all the descendants would be Richard the Lion Hearted. It was more connected to brain and temporal opportunity; nepotism.

How long does it take for behavior to be transferable to the DNA, via the brain? The brain and consciousness can provide a short term buffer, even of the DNA is not in full control of behavior. Civilization increased the pace needed for adaption; war and rebuliding, to where the DNA was no longer able to keep up, and the inner self became more unconscious. The ego was much better adapted to short term change, learning and thinking. While the inner self; firmware evolved from the ego's data and the manmade environments beyond just DNA instinct; added more layers of firmware or archetypes.

Ironically, religions by being so old; thousands of years, may have had sufficient time to engrain adaption onto the DNA, thereby becoming part of natural selection; DNA based religious instincts for adaptation in civilization This explain the conserved persistence, in light of fast pace change.

The million dollar question is how does it take for human DNA to change with new behavior so we get that behavior part of natural selection and be transferable by DNA?

Before civilization things did not change very fast and stayed simple; pre-humans, implying that natural selection was dominant. But as the pace of change increased, this was left behind the DNA based natural humans.

In symbolism, Adam is not formed through biological means; DNA. He is formed from the dust. This symbolizes he; change, was not connected to natural or DNA based selection. This was a hint of him being fabricated; will and choice, and not due to the transfer of alleles. Eve is more like a clone of Adam; from his rib; science altering nature. However, their children are biological and still had a connection to DNA,,until they were taught snd learned how to adapt. The baby is still natural but learned to be manmade through education needed for adaption in a fast paced manmade world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am assuming you believe in evolution and natural selection.

I don't "believe" in evolution any more or less then I "believe" in gravity.
Instead, I accept it as the demonstrable fact that it is.

Humans have will and choice, and we can make unnatural selections that are not running parallel to evolution. The wolf is based on natural selection and it still very persistent, while the dog is manmade and fast changing; 360 official recognized dog breeds plus mutts.

You are simply doubling down on your mistake. Your objection makes no sense.
There is nothing "unnatural" about any of this.

Are you saying evolution via natural selection is wrong?

What on earth makes you think I said anything remotely like that?

Another good example of unnatural selection were the Ascetics who practices severe self disciple and abstinence. Can you name me any other animal on earth that deprives their base instincts, when surrounded by all the things that can satisfy these instincts; extreme will? This is not natural but had a selective value in many ancient religions. When you think of it, many religion believe in an alternate spiritual reality, that we cannot prove with the five senses. Can you name any animal that does this, and still has natural selection value? In religion, this can be a source of prestige; selected.

All this tells me is that you have no clue what natural selection is actually all about.
It has nothing to do with individuals. It works on populations.

If any particular population adopts a lifestyle, any lifestyle, that helps the population to endure, survive and produce new generations, then there is nothing there to be selected against. If on the other hand such a lifestyle leads to demise of the tribe, then it will disappear (selected against).

We have human DNA, like the humans from 50,000 years ago, but our behavior is far from the same. The brain can do extra things that you cannot infer with just our human DNA.

This is false.
If you could go back in time and kidnap a baby from 50k years ago and raise it in modern society, it would have no problem fitting in.
You confuse the accumulation of knowledge over thousands of years with genetic capability of intelligence.

Everything you learned in school was not part of your DNA, in advance.

Indeed it was not. What I learned in school is the accumulated knowledge of thousands of years of human history, past on over the generations. DNA has nothing to do with it. Only the capacity of learning, which was pretty much always present.

The brain can be more than the DNA it is based on, due to natural learning potential and education. Living in civilization requires we learn more things outside our natural instincts. This change in humans, with the rise of sustainable civilization can be explained, not with DNA, but a more advanced mind; more like an operating system update than a DNA hardware update.

Nonsense. It is explained by the accumulation of knowledge over thousands of years. Our "minds" aren't "more advanced" then humans of 10k years ago. We simply have a larger toolbox / knowledge-set available to us. That's all.

Even a mere 150 years ago, there were no cars, no computers, no central heating, no power stations.
Today we have robots driving around on Mars.

There was no "change in mind" compared to 150 years ago. There is just more accumulated knowledge.

I have an iMac that came with the Ventura operating system; year before an update. I still use the same exact hardware, but now have more capability, after I updated it to the latest operating system; Sonoma. This appears to been what happened to humans, with the update connected to a stable secondary center, with will and choice. This extra POV, beyond human instinct, started to leave behind natural instinct, to make it easier to live in the unnatural cultural environments; fixed instead of wander. You would not be worried about climate change, if what we did was naturally selected.

Nonsense.
Our OS is the same. Our software is the same. We simply have a larger database / more data to access.
A more apt comparison would be wikipedia. The website remains the exact same. The technology remains the exact same. It just has more data in it. Knowledge articles are added over the years as people learn and discover more things.

Explain to yourself how evolution, based on natural selection, can accommodate the unnatural selections of humans?

I don't need to explain things that don't happen.
There is no "unnatural selection" of humans.

Does this disprove evolution or does it better correspond to another branch of evolution, uniquely connected to humans? I tend to believe the latter.

The only reason you believe this, seems to be because you want it to be true.
But all of it is based on nothing but bare assertion and a misunderstanding of what natural selection actually is. Not to mention a super-imposing of your a priori religious beliefs on reality.

Alcohol and drug addiction is not natural since it leads to health issues, so this behavior would not be naturally selected, but it is widely selected by individual humans.

And again you show that you do not understand natural selection.
It acts on populations, not on individuals.



I'm going to skip the rest of the word salad, because it's nothing more or less then a doubling / trippling / quadruppling down on the very same mistakes over and over and over and over again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is this adaption based on natural selection or manmade selection?

"man made selection" is also natural selection.

 

[gnostic]

Adam (and Eve) logically would have related their story to their children, and eventually it was written down.

The problem is that you are still under the impression that Adam and Eve are real people, and they were indeed, respectively created from dust & Adam‘s rib, hence not born from natural means…

humans have never been made from dust or soil, that’s a myth adapted from even older myths, YoursTrue.

You pride yourself as being more expert than all modern biologists, but you ignored the fact that this belief in being created, is not just unnatural, Genesis 2:7 is a fairytale, it isn’t possible.

A large part of soil, whether it be of clay, silt or sand type, are made of 50% silicon-based minerals, such as silicate, eg feldspar, quartz, etc, only less than 5% are made of organic matters, and the rest are pores in the soil that are filled with gases or water.

The point if Adam was indeed made of soil, like clay, then shouldn’t human cells that make up tissues and organs have large quantities of silicate in our bodies?

There are not single silicate in any cells, which means myths of humans being made of dust of the ground or soil, is just pure myths, whether you read them from Egyptian myths, Sumerian-Akkadian myths, or myths from Genesis or the Qur’an.

Dust or soil can no more turn into living organic tissues any more than water can into wine. They are unnatural and scientifically improbable.

Humans are not descendants of Adam and Eve, as they were never real people. The story of their creation, are just story.

it is also religious propaganda.

Throughout human history, people have been claiming to be sons or descendants of gods or of mighty heroes. It is just that, propaganda.

For instance, just about every Egyptian pharaohs have claimed divine origins, like that of Horus or Amun-Ra. Alexander the Great had claimed to be descendants of Neoptolemus via the great Achilles…Achilles’ mother was the sea goddess, Thetis, while Achilles was great grandson of Zeus, on his father’s side. The Romans, particularly Julius Caesar, claimed to descendants of Romulus, of the Trojan hero, Aeneas, who was son of Anchises and Venus (Aphrodite). Many people have claimed to be descendants of King Arthur.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that you are still under the impression that Adam and Eve are real people, and they were indeed, respectively created from dust & Adam‘s rib, hence not born from natural means…

humans have never been made from dust or soil, that’s a myth adapted from even older myths, YoursTrue.

You pride yourself as being more expert than all modern biologists, but you ignored the fact that this belief in being created, is not just unnatural, Genesis 2:7 is a fairytale, it isn’t possible.

A large part of soil, whether it be of clay, silt or sand type, are made of 50% silicon-based minerals, such as silicate, eg feldspar, quartz, etc, only less than 5% are made of organic matters, and the rest are pores in the soil that are filled with gases or water.

The point if Adam was indeed made of soil, like clay, then shouldn’t human cells that make up tissues and organs have large quantities of silicate in our bodies?

There are not single silicate in any cells, which means myths of humans being made of dust of the ground or soil, is just pure myths, whether you read them from Egyptian myths, Sumerian-Akkadian myths, or myths from Genesis or the Qur’an.

Dust or soil can no more turn into living organic tissues any more than water can into wine. They are unnatural and scientifically improbable.

Here's your problem: you forget about magic.

An all powerful God that can do anything, by definition could do anything - including the impossible. So that god could create an action figure from plastic, say "abracadabra" and have it turn into a real living organic boy with no traces of any plastics.

Once you decide you are going to allow for magic, then literally nothing is going to be able to contradict / falsify your views. Because whenever the evidence demonstrates that you are wrong, all you have to do is say "...but magic had occurred".

There is no point in trying to reason someone out of a position using rational evidence, when that person didn't arrive at that position by using rational evidence in the first place. Rational evidence doesn't matter to them. Magic had occurred. Magic doesn't care about evidence. Or natural laws. Or reason. Or rationality.

It's.... magic.


Abracadabra... poof.... A BUNNY!

It's like trying to explain to a 5-year old that reindeer can't fly.
"Santa's reindeer are magical... they can fly by magic"

At that point, the discussion is over. There is no point.

You don't convince the kid by explain how reindeer can't fly.
Instead, you're going to need to convince the kid that there's no such thing as magic.

Good luck with that.

 

[metis]

Let me just mention that "myth", as used in anthropology, does not mean nor imply falsehood but means a story created to teach. Whether any of it was actual isn't important as it's the moral teachings that matter.