That's how I understand Genesis and Exodus: a magical narrative predating science. Instead of Zeus you have Yahweh. Instead of Odysseus, you get Moses. You would likely agree if you didn't simply assume that by faith the Bible is correct by faith. If you accepted the Odyssey by faith, you would be calling the Bible science fiction instead.
Only to somebody making that assumption. I just illustrated to you with the bees that it doesn't. Some are queens, some are workers, and some are drones. Does that mean 1/3 each to you? If so, you'd be well-served to recognize that you've added your own understanding, and that it's not the words that are misleading you but your assumptions.
OK, but you still seem to be hanging on to your private understanding of those words. Nobody said they were equal. You added that yourself. I wonder why you haven't been able to see that yet and modify your understanding. You're at risk of making all kinds of mistakes there. If you were sending out invitations to a party for 30, and somebody told you some will be on time, some will be late, and some won't show at all, would you shop for 20 and the assumption that 1/3 won't show? I hope not. Hopefully, at that point, you would understand that some
I'll leave to you to amend your definition of some from an equal part to an unspecified number, or risk making errors like the one I described.
And I appreciate your good cheer and kind thought as well.
But you're wrong. Of course they're honest. They're as sincere as you are.
Not to me.
No, that alone doesn't mean you don't understand it. I don't much about the theory except what it says in the main and what evidence supports that. Just the first part is enough to say one understands it.
What tells us that you don't understand the theory is the questions you ask and your inability to learn. Look at our last interchange. I explained what point mutation was (I didn't use the word point, however), named the two mechanisms I'm aware of for that
Look at post 2480.
Me: "A bolus of mutagenic radiation impacts a DNA base and modifies the genetic code, or maybe there is a copying error, and the genome is slightly modified."
Your comment: "Just wondering what scientists say makes - causes a mutation."
With all due respect, that is a failure to understand what you read, and though you're far from alone, I see it repeatedly with you. THAT's how I know that you don't understand the theory. I'm pretty sure that you can't give a single sentence summary of the theory without copying something, and even if you did, I wouldn't assume that you understood what you copied-and-pasted. I would also be surprised if you could paraphrase the citation.
Feel free to prove me wrong, but we both know that isn't going to happen, and if I'm correct, isn't it useful for you to recognize that and adapt either your methods or your opinions so that they match? That change your methods so that "I understand" becomes accurate if you can or change your message to "People who understand this theory tell me that I don't, and since I can't explain it, they must be correct."
What demeans you is to be so unknowing of yourself.
Now I'll retract 1% of what I've said seeing that for the first time, you didn't use the words proof or prove. Can you retain that as a habit of thought? Can you possibly never make that error again? If so, you've show positive evidence that you can learn at least one fact.
I'm really not trying to bully you here. The opposite. These words are carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered. I'm being a friend in the slender hope that I can help you. Going from prove to verify wasn't due to my words alone, although I frequently commented on it. But so did a dozen others, and for months if not years before I saw what I just saw: prove became verify.
But a dozen people over a dozen dozen posts finally broke through. Now let's see if can avoid relapsing. I'm on your side.
You spend a lot of effort in that area of mental models, but I don't know why. The scientific models which are much more agreed open than disputed work. My personal model of reality is likely unique or rare like everybody else's, but it works in the main, and when it stops working, as soon as I notice and develop a solution, I modify that mental map accordingly. That map needs to reflect the terrain (reality as experienced) just like a literal map needs to correlate with the roads.
How about your mental maps? Are they getting you to your desired destination? Does this view of how things are and how they work serve you? If so, you should be able to say how, You should be able to identify whatever beneficial outcome follows from them.
The word is an abstraction. Its referent is not. The word refers to the collection of reproducible experiences understood and referred to as hearing and the quality they all have in common: being audible.
