We each interpret evidence differently. How do you think a scientist and a rabbi or two scientists come to different conclusions. Spoiler alert; the one you disagree with is neither stupid nor crazy. We each interpret reality according to different premises and "evidence". When two scientists disagree they are probably both wrong but odds are good one is less wrong than the other and you don't have the expertise to pick him out.
But you claim your interpretation as the only valid interpretation. You make statements of fact with no support, evidence or valid reasoning to carry over.
Merely claiming and believing an interpretation is wrong doesn't make it wrong. You have to demonstrate it is wrong and you are not known for doing that.
Scientists who believe in punctuated equilibrium I believe are less wrong than Darwin and other scientists and I've stated the evidence, logic, experiment, and the Darwin's false assumptions ad infinitum. Like all homo omnisciencis circularis rationatio you just can't exist outside your own beliefs in order to see the evidence that shows you wrong. You've bought into the status quo.
Punctuated equilibrium is about the mode of evolution and not a replacement of the theory.
I have no idea what homo
omnisciencis circularis rationatio is or is supposed to represent
. What I have observed is that this is something you made up. It has meaning only to you. Noting this is not a matter of confusion over interpretation, since the usage is never explained or supported to demonstrate relevance or validity. Considering that, it has no value in these conversations and is not referring to, related to or considered as science and meaningful to the conversation.
It has been routinely pointed out that you create these new terms with secret, personal definitions that confuse attempts at discussion.
I can see the evidence you present and I've always listed my reasons for believing it is irrelevant to change in species.
You've made claims. It always ends there.
Nobody ever wants to talk about this though because it is metaphysics and strikes at the very heart of knowledge and what is real.
We are all here to talk about these things. You just never explain and support your claims. You haven't explained your position on metaphysics and what you mean by it. The best you have been able to do is send others to outside sources to seek explanation. That's not really helping you are presenting anything that shows you even understand.
Why doesn't anyone ever explain to me how it's possible that all observed change of all types seen in the lives of all individuals , groups of individuals, and consciousness itself is sudden
It has been explained numerous times. You ignore the explanations and repeat this refuted claim about change and that no one has ever explained it.
As well, you have never supported the claim except through repetition. This is well-established in all the threads you have participated in.
Your non-response is driving others away from what I have observed.
but that this simple truism doesn't apply to the abstraction that Darwin called "species"?
It is established that it is not a truism. Not only established on your failure to present an argument, but on the facts that change in living things is not universally sudden as demonstrated by all the evidence of change that has been presented.
Species do not reproduce offspring that are different species. The theory does not claim nor imply that. You claim and imply it. The idea doesn't even makes sense and is certainly represented in the evidence.
You will again for the one thousandth time ignore this or simply claim it isn't true.
Responses have only been seen to be ignored by you.
And then you won't give me a single example or argument that shows how or why reality doesn't even apply to Darwin and the status quo.
Lots of examples and explanations have been presented to you. You have ignored the explanations and examples and simply repeat your claim.
This is and always has been the only universal characteristic of our species.
This claim doesn't speak well of your understanding of the characteristics of our species.
Unfortunately for each of us the evidence comes into existence like a perfectly tailored suit of clothes. We are all naked and wearing nothing but what we believe.
Nebulous and non-responsive.
Science is no different but our clothes are woven on the loom of reality. We don't get a better fit but many of the threads fit together more precisely and more in agreement with opacity desired in clothes. Any sort of logic and reason can create this effect so long as it's founded in experiment. You can't interpolate opacity into abstractions. So long as we deal in abstractions there is no hiding. So long as any reality arises from or is expressed in abstractions we are more nude than not.
Repeating a nebulous metaphor seems only to serve a non-responsive paradigm.
Science's suits are its beliefs.
Useless, nebulous opinion in more than just my view I would say.
I've done so many times, in many ways, and in many threads.
You have repeated nebulous claims regarding consciousness and evolution.
No! Your claims are openly recognized and responded to. I don't think those responses are invisible to you. It seems as if you can't respond to them in any meaningful way, so you turn fault onto others.
I've done this so many times that I can get it all in a sentence!
Here's a sentence that covers it all. You have not responded with anything meaningful regarding your claims about consciousness. This fact is invisible to no one according to the evidence.
It used to take many paragraphs you wouldn't read or even see. "Life is consciousness that changes suddenly at bottlenecks because nature selects for unusual behavior which is a product of genes and experience."
What "life is consciousness" has meaning only to you. Bottlenecks have been explained and defined for you ad nauseum. In turn, you have not supported the claim at all except through repetition.
There is no evidence that speciation results from the nebulous mechanism of selecting a behavior that is the product of experience. That would be the defunct mechanism of acquired characteristics.
Your claim of sudden change has been falsified. Regularly.
There it is again to be wholly ignored or gainsaid with no experimental basis for that gainsaying.
NO! You have never explained anything you mean about consciousness and consciousness and evolution beyond the repetition of claims.
All beliefs are founded in something and 19th century science was largely founded in age old superstition as well as religion. Even Darwin was religious. He wasn't wrong because he was religious, he was wrong because he applied all of his beliefs and they were wrong. He saw evidence only in terms of what he believed just like everyone else. I've listed many dozens of Darwin's false assumptions many many times across many many posts but these are invisible as well. Remember he believed in steady populations and consciousness doesn't matter? All of his assumptions were false yet we've still adopted his conclusions.
This is your opinion based on what you believe and nothing you have demonstrated. Like most of what you post, this claim is on heavy rotation.
You have never even listed the assumptions that underlay Darwin's formulation of the theory nor have you shown any to be false. Not many posts or even one. What I have concluded is that you think claiming something is demonstrating it and that your claims stand as fact without need of any support and should be accepted as some sort of revealed truth. That is a religion and not science.