Ancient Reality

[Agnostisch]

if Djoser’s pyramid was used as a tomb, then why did Pharaoh Huni build pyramids in southern Egypt that were not tombs?
Were they just ordinary statues that served to remind the people of the region that the mighty pharaoh was looking over them? Mainstreams scholars argue that the provincial pyramids were dedicated to the worship of the pharaoh.
Then why did previous pharaohs built pyramids as tombs, and why did Sneferu, the son of Pharaoh Huni, decide not to follow his father’s footsteps in building pyramids as temples of worship but rather tombs, as experts suggest?

 

[cladking]

I rarely either copy and paste posts or bring up old threads but will break both my rules in this case because I believe this is important and it is only fully relevant in this specific thread. I believe I've come up with a working definition of "consciousness" and this is principally an outgrowth of learning how ancient reality was perceived by the great pyramid builders.


I believe consciousness is "Knowledge > Understanding > Creation" and this is the tool all life has for survival. It is the only tool any life has for survival and we believe in "survival of the fittest" because we confuse experiment and observation which is caused by assumptions and language. We confuse the nature of population bottlenecks for the fittest individuals surviving. The "Holy Trinity" is a confusion of this reality; "Knowledge > Understanding > Creation", which was discovered by ancient science. In essence religion is a confusion of the knowledge of ancient science.

"Science" is merely the methodology used to gain knowledge which can lead to creation and, of course, survival. Until the advent of our species (homo omnisciencis) at the so called tower of babel all individual life was composed of scientists who used logic and observation to understand reality which is digital and logical. Just as reality is digital so too is our perception and our brains. Just as reality is logical so too are the wiring of the brain and the resultant processes. But (homo omnisciencis) are not programmed with a natural language which was lost 4000 years ago after the pyramids were built. Our brains are programmed by a language that is symbolic and not tied to the logic of nature. Our language forces an analog operation onto a digital brain (think broccas area). This is why when Ancient Language failed those who survived no longer had a means to generate theory and ancient science, ancient theory, were lost.

Man still had consciousness ("Knowledge > Understanding > Creation") after the loss of science but he lost the ability to find new theory and his understanding was only of old technology. So we entered a long dark ages with little progress until modern science was invented which instead of being based on observation and logic was based on observation and experiment. This is simply critical to understand. Without experiment there IS NO MODERN SCIENCE. Without observation and measurement science does not exist at all. Without modern science we are relegated to a dark ages where we have no theory and mysteries accumulate. Without science we can never know how the pyramids were built because modern science REQUIRES the methodical application of theory and technology as well as experiment to understand mundane questions like what absurd means were used to build the pyramids.

This is a working definition of "consciousness" as derived from ancient science which was derived from (of all things) consciousness itself. This is the question I've devoted virtually my entire life to from a very young age. I never suspected that animals and pyramid builders understood it all along but I did not.

All individual life survives through its own personal consciousness and this is the universal truth that only modern man can't see directly. Without understanding this even knowing how the pyramids were built will be inconsequential to our understanding of those things that matter.

 

[cladking]

if Djoser’s pyramid was used as a tomb, then why did Pharaoh Huni build pyramids in southern Egypt that were not tombs?
Were they just ordinary statues that served to remind the people of the region that the mighty pharaoh was looking over them? Mainstreams scholars argue that the provincial pyramids were dedicated to the worship of the pharaoh.
Then why did previous pharaohs built pyramids as tombs, and why did Sneferu, the son of Pharaoh Huni, decide not to follow his father’s footsteps in building pyramids as temples of worship but rather tombs, as experts suggest?

I know these questions weren't directed at me but I believe the "provincial pyramids" were chiefly used as landmarks or in their "thinking"; representations or mnemonics of important locations. They helped to navigate the river. Many of the most naturally recognizable landmarks would be subsumed in floods and younger less experienced captains could easily become lost and run aground.

 

[MNoBody]

the people perish....for lack of knowledge, it was said....
it is said also that power corrupts
yet knowledge is said to bring power, or it isn't knowledge worth knowing...
what isn't said is that knowledge concealed also brings power as well
And this is the most abused form historically.....
just look at the average state of ignorance and the state of secrecy [classified, redacted, above your pay-grade, etc] that is considered normal...... and such secrecy is the product of a lack of trust....suspicious minds which assume the worst of others, as the first thing..... small wonder man is in the predicament we all see around us.

 

[cladking]

the people perish....for lack of knowledge, it was said....
it is said also that power corrupts
yet knowledge is said to bring power, or it isn't knowledge worth knowing...
what isn't said is that knowledge concealed also brings power as well
And this is the most abused form historically.....
just look at the average state of ignorance and the state of secrecy [classified, redacted, above your pay-grade, etc] that is considered normal...... and such secrecy is the product of a lack of trust....suspicious minds which assume the worst of others, as the first thing..... small wonder man is in the predicament we all see around us.

Great post! Thank you.

You've given me a couple ideas to research... ...back later.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Your rambling diatribes are not evidence, regardless of how much it has convinced you.

 

[cladking]

Show me this second motor speech area.

This is basic anatomy or neurology. I would suggest you google "speech centers wiki". If you don't find it I'll look for you.

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

ALL experiment and ALL observation shows ALL change in ALL life is sudden. It is you claiming a gradual change in species but nothing, not even the fossil record, supports your beliefs. ALL changes that are gradual appear to be insignificant. This is what is shown by the existence of "missing links". The links are missing because a bottleneck created a sudden change; the missing links NEVER existed. Because there was a population bottleneck there are few specimens on either side of the sudden change but especially post-event.

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

There IS no difference. We select for desired traits or characteristics based on our specific needs. Nature selects "randomly" but tends to select for behavior exactly as humans do. Selecting unusual behavior causes large changes in species. Tame wolves produce dogs but selecting for vicious wolves would create something else very similar to existing wolves. Selecting for wolves that eat no or little meat would create a strange new animal. But ALL change is sudden because this is the nature of ALL life both individual and by "species". Every individual that dies or survives these bottlenecks was "fit" but conditions change and all life and all reality is random and capricious. Strange survivors create a strange new species. It always depends on what caused the extinctions and the genetics of the survivors. This is a simple enough concept. If you believe you have evidence that refutes it I'd be very interested in seeing it.

This is what ALL experiment shows. We simply misinterpret results.

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

There is no such thing as "fitness" as defined by Darwin. It doesn't exist. ALL individuals are fit or dinner. Some prosper under different conditions than others as DEFINED BY THEIR GENES, not by biologists or inductive reasoning. Individuals acquire different genes through localized population bottlenecks experienced by their ancestors. ALL life is determined GENETICALLY and experienced INDIVIDUALLY. It is individuals who must have the knowledge, experience, and creativity to survive because "species" are just a human abstraction with no referent. These aren't words. "Rabbit" is a word and it's a word with no referent. You see something that doesn't really exist because you can't see rabbits for the hutches. You you'll want to address these arguments with words most of which will be abstractions and none will be backed by experiment.

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Not again.


I do appreciate your knowledge in many of these areas but I don't believe you can apply this knowledge to what I am saying. There simply is no experiment, and may be no experiment possible in real time, to show some gradual change in species. So we are stuck largely with observation and you are looking at all the wrong things. You are looking inductively at species but life doesn't exist on this level. Life is individual and until you look at the specific individuals that survive a bottleneck you can not possibly understand change in species. The actual nuts and bolts of change in species is exceedingly complex and instead of looking at the proper level you are looking in terms from which you can see and then assuming that what you see is representative of reality. IT IS NOT. It's not my fault that reality is always far more complex than our definitions and equations. It is what it is WYSIWYG (unless you use induction). Of course you'll claim this post is all just words and ignore it. You can't show gradual change and you can't show "survival of the fittest" except by murdering large percentages of a population. Murdering large numbers of individuals is not how nature operates. It is random but effects are not.

 

[cladking]

ALL life is determined GENETICALLY and experienced INDIVIDUALLY.

It always depends on what caused the extinctions and the genetics of the survivors.

If you think about these two concepts then the complexity of all change in species will become apparent. In order to know what causes a change in species we need to know the genetics of the survivors and the genetics of each of their ancestors which survived localized population bottlenecks. We need to know what precipitated these bottlenecks and the specific behavior that was shared by the individual survivors. This is countless trillions of times more complex than darwinian evolution. It involves knowing things that science is unlikely to ever know.

Reality is far too complex to always be seen through induction. Indeed, some parts of reality are not visible at all through induction. Computer modeling is always irrelevant to reality because we must first know the relevant equations, processes, and have the ability to quantify EVERY variable.

The human race is in the process of destroying itself because of beliefs founded in faulty premises and superstitions caused by language and appearances as seen by Look and See Science. Even many of our most cherished "theories" are wrong because of oversimplification and the influence of the way we think (language). We truly are Homo Omnisciencis.

 

[cladking]

The human race is in the process of destroying itself because of beliefs founded in faulty premises and superstitions caused by language and appearances as seen by Look and See Science. Even many of our most cherished "theories" are wrong because of oversimplification and the influence of the way we think (language). We truly are Homo Omnisciencis.

We are "Homo Omniscience" because we see what we believe and believe we know everything. We are descended from "Homo Omnes Videntes" (all seeing man) not because he could see all but because he saw what he understood and it made him "wise". We may be considered types of Homo Sapiens but I believe the difference is enough to consider us different species altogether.

I found some more fascinating evidence of the way ancient man thought and saw his world today and will compose a new post soon. Ancient people simply did not think even slightly as we do.

 

[cladking]

The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 14. Miscellaneous Utterances on the Career of the Deceased King in the Hereafter, 317-337

In working on the multiple meanings of utterance #319 I've found another example of a line that is meant literally on multiple levels. I will show one of these meanings in one of the lines here as I have only recently come to understand it;

Utterance 319.

513a. To say: N. is the bull of the two splendours which are in the middle of his eye.

Of course Egyptologists see no literal meanings at all in this line rather than layers of LITERAL meaning as was how Ancient Language worked. These layers existed chiefly because they are an artefact of three dimensional thinking but also because they aid in communication; each speaker tried to bundle meaning in hopes that the listener could solve for words he didn't know. With this specific line I had missed the primary meaning.

Remember ancient people didn't experience "thinking" and had no words of any sort that meant "thinking". There can be no word that has no referent and without something to "name" the ancients had NO WORD. So this line simply says the two splendors are in the center of the king's eye because he is looking directly at the two bulls. It means the two splendors are being attended by the king. The king is paying attention to the two splendors.

320a. The refuge of N. is in his eye; the protection of N. is in his eye;
320b. the power of N. is in his eye; the strength of N. is in his eye.

Here we see the same thing. The attention of the king is his strength and protection.

There is no need to postulate that ancient people were highly superstitious just like we are. Their words can all be taken literally and this discloses a very level headed people with an entirely different way to think who didn't really "think" at all so had NO WORD FOR "THINK".

This is alien to how we communicate and think but their words don't lie if you just ignore Egyptological interpretations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is basic anatomy or neurology. I would suggest you google "speech centers wiki". If you don't find it I'll look for you.

You don't really know for sure do you. If you did, you would have presented the evidence for your claim.

ALL experiment and ALL observation shows ALL change in ALL life is sudden. It is you claiming a gradual change in species but nothing, not even the fossil record, supports your beliefs. ALL changes that are gradual appear to be insignificant. This is what is shown by the existence of "missing links". The links are missing because a bottleneck created a sudden change; the missing links NEVER existed. Because there was a population bottleneck there are few specimens on either side of the sudden change but especially post-event.

Except they do not. The evolution of the mammalian ear is well-documented in the fossil record and occurred over millions of years. A very significant event. And this is just one of many examples. It is not a belief. It is a reasonable, rational conclusion based on the evidence. What you post is belief with your desire as the only basis.

Your writing is amusing. Missing links "exist" and are missing at the same time in your claim. How extraordinary!

There IS no difference. We select for desired traits or characteristics based on our specific needs. Nature selects "randomly" but tends to select for behavior exactly as humans do. Selecting unusual behavior causes large changes in species. Tame wolves produce dogs but selecting for vicious wolves would create something else very similar to existing wolves. Selecting for wolves that eat no or little meat would create a strange new animal. But ALL change is sudden because this is the nature of ALL life both individual and by "species". Every individual that dies or survives these bottlenecks was "fit" but conditions change and all life and all reality is random and capricious. Strange survivors create a strange new species. It always depends on what caused the extinctions and the genetics of the survivors. This is a simple enough concept. If you believe you have evidence that refutes it I'd be very interested in seeing it.

How can selection be both random and non-random? That is what you are claiming for nature. If the individual does not survive what you call a bottleneck, how is it fit?

You really do not understand any of this do you.

This is what ALL experiment shows. We simply misinterpret results.

You do not appear to know the experiments or understand what is interpreted from those that you have only a passing awareness of.

There is no such thing as "fitness" as defined by Darwin. It doesn't exist. ALL individuals are fit or dinner. Some prosper under different conditions than others as DEFINED BY THEIR GENES, not by biologists or inductive reasoning. Individuals acquire different genes through localized population bottlenecks experienced by their ancestors. ALL life is determined GENETICALLY and experienced INDIVIDUALLY. It is individuals who must have the knowledge, experience, and creativity to survive because "species" are just a human abstraction with no referent. These aren't words. "Rabbit" is a word and it's a word with no referent. You see something that doesn't really exist because you can't see rabbits for the hutches. You you'll want to address these arguments with words most of which will be abstractions and none will be backed by experiment.

Wow! If an individual is dinner, then it was not as fit as the individual that was not dinner. You refuted yourself. Again. Populations evolve. Individuals within those populations live, reproduce and die according to their fitness. Lower fitness does not mean that there is no reproduction. Just that overall, there is less and gradually over time those genes drop out of a population, since they are less protected from selection.

Not again.

A simple "I do not know" would be sufficient.

I do appreciate your knowledge in many of these areas but I don't believe you can apply this knowledge to what I am saying. There simply is no experiment, and may be no experiment possible in real time, to show some gradual change in species. So we are stuck largely with observation and you are looking at all the wrong things. You are looking inductively at species but life doesn't exist on this level. Life is individual and until you look at the specific individuals that survive a bottleneck you can not possibly understand change in species. The actual nuts and bolts of change in species is exceedingly complex and instead of looking at the proper level you are looking in terms from which you can see and then assuming that what you see is representative of reality. IT IS NOT. It's not my fault that reality is always far more complex than our definitions and equations. It is what it is WYSIWYG (unless you use induction). Of course you'll claim this post is all just words and ignore it. You can't show gradual change and you can't show "survival of the fittest" except by murdering large percentages of a population. Murdering large numbers of individuals is not how nature operates. It is random but effects are not.

I agree. I do not think knowledge fits what you are saying. You are saying that speciation cannot be understood, but making your baseless claims as if you understand. You offer no evidence for your claims. Gradual change has been demonstrated. Many, many times. I know for a fact that the evidence has been presented to you on here. It will be again, no doubt, and you will ignore it then too, no doubt.

When plant breeders select individuals that have the traits they are looking for that is artificial selection. The fitness of those plants selected is greater than those discarded for those traits and conditions.

 

[cladking]

You don't really know for sure do you. If you did, you would have presented the evidence for your claim.

Are you seriously going to dispute there are two speech centers?!!!

Your writing is amusing. Missing links "exist" and are missing at the same time in your claim. How extraordinary!

Are you seriously going to claim there is an unbroken line of fossil evidence showing a major change over many millions of years?!!!

How can selection be both random and non-random?

This is simple. The physical event that causes a bottleneck is random but the survivors display a similar genetic make-up that allowed them to survive the event.

If the individual does not survive what you call a bottleneck, how is it fit?

If a healthy 25 year old athlete is shot in the heart then he'll die even if he has an IQ of 150 and is largely immune to most poisons.

If an individual is dinner, then it was not as fit as the individual that was not dinner.

A fox might catch a sick or wounded rabbit with little effort but it can eat a dead healthy rabbit too.

You really do not understand any of this do you.

Reality is digital. Not analog.

Populations evolve. Individuals within those populations live, reproduce and die according to their fitness.

Bingo! And they create new individuals of the "exact" same species forever and every single one of them will be unique and fit. You are fixating on irrelevancies and semantics.

Only individuals exist at all and you are trying to define "species" while ignoring reality.

You are saying that speciation cannot be understood, but making your baseless claims as if you understand.

NO!!! I am saying that the causes in analog terms can be defined. IE- change in species occurs at population bottlenecks caused by random physical events that select for behavior. But the specific causes must be observed at the time they occur in most instances because of the extreme complexity implied. Even were it possible to see this change the fact would remain we can not know the specific causes of the genetics driven behavior that allowed some individuals to survive.

People want facile answers to everything but these don't exist for change in species.

Reality is exceedingly complex but our brain and our way of thinking sees patterns. Just because we see patterns doesn't mean they are real OR that they constitute cause and effect.

ALL CHANGE IN ALL LIFE IS SUDDEN and no one yet has shown evidence of ANY gradual change whatsoever. Even if you could find every missing link that individual was born, reproduced, and died suddenly. It is impossible to find any missing links because they never existed. They never existed because major change in species is never gradual.

How ironic ancient people could understand this!

It was their understanding derived from knowledge that allowed the creation of agriculture that future superstitious bumpkins could survive their beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you seriously going to dispute there are two speech centers?!!!

I made no claims. We are talking about your claims and your obvious reluctance to support those claims.

Are you seriously going to claim there is an unbroken line of fossil evidence showing a major change over many millions of years?!!!

Are you seriously going to move the goal posts? Yes you did. Now it is an unbroken line of fossil evidence once you realized that "oh crap my claim fails in the face of the evidence". You do not need an unbroken line of evidence to get from London to Paris. You do not need an unbroken series of photographs to show that a person has aged from a baby.

The fossil record demonstrates what you claim it does not. Hence your reliance on logical fallacies to keep your belief alive.

This is simple. The physical event that causes a bottleneck is random but the survivors display a similar genetic make-up that allowed them to survive the event.

A population bottleneck is a natural event that drastically reduces the size of the population. It reduces genetic variation in a population without regard to selection. It is not a speciation event. The resulting genotypes are random. Chicxulub was a bottleneck of global proportions. It removed selection pressure to our ancestors so that mammals could flourish and radiate into many new species.

If a healthy 25 year old athlete is shot in the heart then he'll die even if he has an IQ of 150 and is largely immune to most poisons.

So what. So superman dies. Big deal. No one is or has claimed that individuals cannot be removed from a population by random, chance events. This is not something that scientists are unaware of.

I notice that all the traits you mention are not the behavioral traits you keep yammering on about.

A fox might catch a sick or wounded rabbit with little effort but it can eat a dead healthy rabbit too.

So what. In both cases, those are rabbits with lower fitness. You keep posting examples against your own claims.

Reality is digital. Not analog.

Gibberish that avoids answering the question. I didn't see that coming.

Bingo! And they create new individuals of the "exact" same species forever and every single one of them will be unique and fit. You are fixating on irrelevancies and semantics.

Except the evidence does not support your unchanging species hypothesis.

Only individuals exist at all and you are trying to define "species" while ignoring reality.
[/QUOTE]I leave the ignoring reality to you. Individuals exist and populations of those individuals exist. The evidence supports changes in those populations over time.

NO!!! I am saying that the causes in analog terms can be defined. IE- change in species occurs at population bottlenecks caused by random physical events that select for behavior. But the specific causes must be observed at the time they occur in most instances because of the extreme complexity implied. Even were it possible to see this change the fact would remain we can not know the specific causes of the genetics driven behavior that allowed some individuals to survive.

People want facile answers to everything but these don't exist for change in species.

Reality is exceedingly complex but our brain and our way of thinking sees patterns. Just because we see patterns doesn't mean they are real OR that they constitute cause and effect.

Yet, you cannot demonstrate any patterns or cause and effect to support your claims.

ALL CHANGE IN ALL LIFE IS SUDDEN and no one yet has shown evidence of ANY gradual change whatsoever. Even if you could find every missing link that individual was born, reproduced, and died suddenly. It is impossible to find any missing links because they never existed. They never existed because major change in species is never gradual.

How ironic ancient people could understand this!

It was their understanding derived from knowledge that allowed the creation of agriculture that future superstitious bumpkins could survive their beliefs.

Speciation doesn't require a bottleneck. It appears you are redefining bottleneck to mean whatever you want it to mean. A new niche opening up can lead to speciation. No bottleneck--at least how it is properly defined. Speciation does not require that the previous species go extinct either.

And you have yet to explain the fossil record or the observations of biology to show that all change in all life is sudden and that the changes are mostly or all behavioral. Now you are talking about finding something you claim doesn't exist (transitional forms really do exist. I have seen some of them). You are all over the board and yet you sink no battleships.

 

[cladking]

Speciation doesn't require a bottleneck.

It doesn't matter how many times you say this it doesn't make it true.

Change in species occurs continually every single time an individual is born or dies. Some changes are larger than others. Massive changes can be the result of mutation but tend to be caused by bottlenecks and you can't show any part of this sentence isn't true.

No one is or has claimed that individuals cannot be removed from a population by random, chance events.

Then why can't almost all individuals be removed by a chance event?

Yet, you cannot demonstrate any patterns or cause and effect to support your claims.

ALL CHANGE IN ALL LIFE IS SUDDEN and you can't show otherwise. This is a fact and your belief in a "fossil record" is just a belief.

This is mostly outside the point of this thread so unless you actually ADDRESS what I'm saying I probably won't respond to anything you post on change in species. The only reason it's relevant at all is because ancient people had this same understanding of "evolution". "Ancient reality" had no "survival of the fittest", no thought, and no beliefs of any sort. I believe the ancients were right and you believe in evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It doesn't matter how many times you say this it doesn't make it true.

That is what the evidence says no matter how many times you deny it.

Change in species occurs continually every single time an individual is born or dies. Some changes are larger than others. Massive changes can be the result of mutation but tend to be caused by bottlenecks and you can't show any part of this sentence isn't true.

You have confused natural genetic and phenotypic variation with speciation, because you do not understand any of it and refuse to admit that.

Then why can't almost all individuals be removed by a chance event?

That has happened. Nothing prevents that. Did you not read my mention of Chicxulub.

ALL CHANGE IN ALL LIFE IS SUDDEN and you can't show otherwise. This is a fact and your belief in a "fossil record" is just a belief.

This is outright denial. You have no evidence for this. Hence you never provide it. The fossil record exists despite your denial.

This is mostly outside the point of this thread so unless you actually ADDRESS what I'm saying I probably won't respond to anything you post on change in species. The only reason it's relevant at all is because ancient people had this same understanding of "evolution". "Ancient reality" had no "survival of the fittest", no thought, and no beliefs of any sort. I believe the ancients were right and you believe in evolution.

I have addressed what you are saying. Others have addressed what you are saying. You deny it all and repeat your claims without evidence. Just has you have here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It doesn't matter how many times you say this it doesn't make it true.

Change in species occurs continually every single time an individual is born or dies. Some changes are larger than others. Massive changes can be the result of mutation but tend to be caused by bottlenecks and you can't show any part of this sentence isn't true.



Then why can't almost all individuals be removed by a chance event?



ALL CHANGE IN ALL LIFE IS SUDDEN and you can't show otherwise. This is a fact and your belief in a "fossil record" is just a belief.

This is mostly outside the point of this thread so unless you actually ADDRESS what I'm saying I probably won't respond to anything you post on change in species. The only reason it's relevant at all is because ancient people had this same understanding of "evolution". "Ancient reality" had no "survival of the fittest", no thought, and no beliefs of any sort. I believe the ancients were right and you believe in evolution.

It is not unusual for people that do not understand a subject to consider themselves to be more expert in that subject than the people that study that subject for a living. That is what I see when I read your posts. You don't understand, but consider your conclusions about what you do not understand to exceed those that do understand. It is, unfortunately, a common condition in this country these days.

 

[cladking]

It is not unusual for people that do not understand a subject to consider themselves to be more expert in that subject than the people that study that subject for a living. That is what I see when I read your posts. You don't understand, but consider your conclusions about what you do not understand to exceed those that do understand. It is, unfortunately, a common condition in this country these days.

What is far more common, what is universal, is that people don't want to give up their beliefs. As a case in point the physical evidence just keeps stacking up that the Great Pyramid is significantly older than Egyptology believes.

Great Pyramid: Lost Egyptian artefact found in Aberdeen cigar box

So they run around speculating about "old wood" and the reasons that all the carbon dating keeps showing the pyramid is much older.

Meanwhile you still can't show any evidence that any change in life is "gradual". You hold up experiments that show sudden changes as evidence for your interpretation of the fossil evidence.

I don't claim to know much of anything at all and every day that goes by I learn something new and find a dozen things that I once thought I knew. People simply deny evidence until it is overwhelming that they are wrong. Most scientists never see they were wrong and die believing they were right. This is why it's said that real change in human happens one funeral at a time and each of these funerals is sudden. Even the aggregate of all the funerals occurs within only a few generations which I would still define as "sudden" in terms of "evolution"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is far more common, what is universal, is that people don't want to give up their beliefs. As a case in point the physical evidence just keeps stacking up that the Great Pyramid is significantly older than Egyptology believes.

Great Pyramid: Lost Egyptian artefact found in Aberdeen cigar box

So they run around speculating about "old wood" and the reasons that all the carbon dating keeps showing the pyramid is much older.

Meanwhile you still can't show any evidence that any change in life is "gradual". You hold up experiments that show sudden changes as evidence for your interpretation of the fossil evidence.

I don't claim to know much of anything at all and every day that goes by I learn something new and find a dozen things that I once thought I knew. People simply deny evidence until it is overwhelming that they are wrong. Most scientists never see they were wrong and die believing they were right. This is why it's said that real change in human happens one funeral at a time and each of these funerals is sudden. Even the aggregate of all the funerals occurs within only a few generations which I would still define as "sudden" in terms of "evolution"

You have not shown any evidence of your claims. Per usual. You have an eclectic set of beliefs, but that is all I can know them as without that evidence.

TTFN

 

[cladking]

You have not shown any evidence of your claims. Per usual. You have an eclectic set of beliefs, but that is all I can know them as without that evidence.

Everything is "evidence". All observation, all experiment, and all deductive logic is all evidence. What isn't "evidence" is interpretation of the fossil record or even the fossil record itself since in no case do we know about the individual or even the species that left the fossil record. In no case do we know what caused the changes in the fossil record. People merely want to see that the fit survive and others die because it is justification for valuing some humans much less than others. We spend millions to save some individuals with genetic defects and won't lift a finger to save healthy individuals who are starving to death or lack the resources to thrive. People who are easy to kill had best stay out of the way of the "fit".

I planted a couple of redbud seeds a few years back. They both took root and one grew vigorously as the other languished. They had nearly identical growing conditions but still one grew very little year after year as the other became a stout young sapling. This past spring was very wet and the healthy one just died as the poorer one nearly doubled in size. It seems obvious that one was suited to very different moisture conditions than the other. One needed an excess of water to survive and the other did not. Of course there are numerous possibilities about what actually happened and the causes but we can safely say that they needed different conditions to survive at least at the distinct phases of their growth.

A "slow" rabbit will rarely have an advantage in an encounter with a fox compared to a fast rabbit but this hardly means the slower rabbit is in any way less "fit". The slower rabbit virtually by definition has a different set of genes and these genes will sometimes be far preferable to the genes of a fast rabbit. Indeed, if you killed every fast rabbit leaving only the slowest .1% of the population you'd probably get an entirely new species which would thrive under very different conditions than the fast rabbits. If these conditions didn't exist then all the rabbits would die and they would be extinct leaving no fossil record.

This concept really isn't that complex. It's the reality that is complex because it is based on specifics and consciousness rather than semantical nonsense like "fitness" and "species" as seen in a fossil record. All the fossil record really shows is that species change. It does not show how or why. We can OBSERVE how it changes because EVERY TIME WE SEE CHANGE it occurs at a population bottleneck. We select tame wolves and get dogs. This is EVIDENCE, what you have is words, opinion, and beliefs. You have NO EVIDENCE showing gradual change because all change in all life at all levels and of all types is sudden. "Species" don't go extinct over millions of years nor do they arise over millions of years. Individuals don't spend several lifetimes dying or being born. Even marriages are punctuated with a kiss.

Reality doesn't care about anyone's beliefs. It proceeds apace unfolding as determined by previous events eternally. It can't be predicted and the past can't be understood through semantics or any number of definitions. It happened as determined by things in the past which are usually unknown and just as unknowable as the future. We get comfort being the fittest at the crown of creation and knowing all things but it is all an illusion and very few people have any idea of what they know and what they believe. We have little idea that it is belief that underlies our perception and actions because we each think we know just about everything. We DON'T. Even in aggregate we know almost nothing at all.

The big difference between our reality and ancient reality is that they knew they were ignorant. They saw what they knew and we see what we believe. It was by THIS means they invented agriculture so their superstitious offspring could live.

Some of this must get through!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everything is "evidence". All observation, all experiment, and all deductive logic is all evidence. What isn't "evidence" is interpretation of the fossil record or even the fossil record itself since in no case do we know about the individual or even the species that left the fossil record. In no case do we know what caused the changes in the fossil record. People merely want to see that the fit survive and others die because it is justification for valuing some humans much less than others. We spend millions to save some individuals with genetic defects and won't lift a finger to save healthy individuals who are starving to death or lack the resources to thrive. People who are easy to kill had best stay out of the way of the "fit".

The fossil record is evidence. All evidence is interpreted. Not knowing why species became extinct has nothing to do with the fact that they evolve. The fit survive to reproduce in a higher proportion to the less fit in the population. You do not understand this. Not being fit does not necessarily mean you are easy to kill. Again, it is clear you do not understand the concept.

I planted a couple of redbud seeds a few years back. They both took root and one grew vigorously as the other languished. They had nearly identical growing conditions but still one grew very little year after year as the other became a stout young sapling. This past spring was very wet and the healthy one just died as the poorer one nearly doubled in size. It seems obvious that one was suited to very different moisture conditions than the other. One needed an excess of water to survive and the other did not. Of course there are numerous possibilities about what actually happened and the causes but we can safely say that they needed different conditions to survive at least at the distinct phases of their growth.

Since this was not a controlled experiment with population large enough to draw reasonable inferences, it is impossible to say why one was less vigorous than the other. It could have been any of many factors or combinations of those factors.

A "slow" rabbit will rarely have an advantage in an encounter with a fox compared to a fast rabbit but this hardly means the slower rabbit is in any way less "fit". The slower rabbit virtually by definition has a different set of genes and these genes will sometimes be far preferable to the genes of a fast rabbit. Indeed, if you killed every fast rabbit leaving only the slowest .1% of the population you'd probably get an entirely new species which would thrive under very different conditions than the fast rabbits. If these conditions didn't exist then all the rabbits would die and they would be extinct leaving no fossil record.

It does matter to the fitness of the rabbit. You simply do not understand. And to the point that you are actually refuting yourself by example.

This concept really isn't that complex. It's the reality that is complex because it is based on specifics and consciousness rather than semantical nonsense like "fitness" and "species" as seen in a fossil record. All the fossil record really shows is that species change. It does not show how or why. We can OBSERVE how it changes because EVERY TIME WE SEE CHANGE it occurs at a population bottleneck. We select tame wolves and get dogs. This is EVIDENCE, what you have is words, opinion, and beliefs. You have NO EVIDENCE showing gradual change because all change in all life at all levels and of all types is sudden. "Species" don't go extinct over millions of years nor do they arise over millions of years. Individuals don't spend several lifetimes dying or being born. Even marriages are punctuated with a kiss.

There is evidence showing gradual change and the fossil record is some of that evidence. Your willful refusal to acknowledge what has been known for hundreds of years does not eliminate that evidence.

Reality doesn't care about anyone's beliefs.

You do not seem to think so. You seem to think your beliefs dictate reality.

It proceeds apace unfolding as determined by previous events eternally. It can't be predicted and the past can't be understood through semantics or any number of definitions. It happened as determined by things in the past which are usually unknown and just as unknowable as the future. We get comfort being the fittest at the crown of creation and knowing all things but it is all an illusion and very few people have any idea of what they know and what they believe. We have little idea that it is belief that underlies our perception and actions because we each think we know just about everything. We DON'T. Even in aggregate we know almost nothing at all.

This very confused denial is about what caused extinction and not about the fact that gradual changes are evident in nature including the fossil record. We have not been discussing why something went extinct. You can argue that straw until you are blue in the face for all I care. It does not support your claims about the evidence or that there is no evidence.

The big difference between our reality and ancient reality is that they knew they were ignorant.

As if you know. What evidence do you have that they knew any better that the were ignorant? In what I have read and seen, they seemed to believe they knew and were ignorant of what was behind many things they thought were true. I guess you are using ancient wisdom regularly on that basis.

They saw what they knew and we see what we believe.

They saw what they believed and we are learning what is really going on. Well some of us are.

It was by THIS means they invented agriculture so their superstitious offspring could live.

Now that you have jumped to agriculture, I see that it is going to be more of your claims with no evidence. Are there going to be an actual dinosaurs on your ride?

Some of this must get through!

It is clear to me that you believe things without evidence and consider those things to be facts by fiat.