Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[It Aint Necessarily So]

atheists can and do have morals. Often I find they are much the same as the morals that theists claim for themselves.

I've been saying the same about Christian humanists, but I don't find the morals of zealous Christians adequate. Too many are theocratic, bigoted (misogynistic, homophobic, and atheophobic), and anti-science/anti-intellectual.

I've said it many times: the more one lets Christianity affect their beliefs and values, the worse it is for them and their neighbors. I see Christian like you as people that are comfortable with a god belief and perhaps enjoy the community and rituals who reject all of the above, but aren't intellectually or morally deformed. I don't see any important differences between you and me.

I haven't seen any evidence that science causes someone to become amoral

Yet that's what two posters here are intimating, although I think both will deny that.

It is used like a hammer to beat on others and not as some challenge to the ideas of others. It's a bully tool in my opinion.

In my opinion, only with one of those two. I'll let you decide which.

I am saying that telomeres are interesting.

What would you say about telomeres occurring within chromosomes rather than just at their ends? This is what our chromosome numbered 2 (out of 23; other apes have 24) looks like. The red regions are telomeres, the blue centromeres. This chromosome has two on the ends and two in the middle, and two centromeres.

Most chromosomes look like this:

That's pretty interesting to me. How did those inner telomeres and extra centromere get there? Any hypotheses? God's will?

But knowledge of functionality is not knowledge of truth, or of purpose, or of righteousness. And so cannot determine ethical imperatives.

Agreed, except possible with your reference to truth. I'm not sure how you decide what is true or what to call true.

Why do you think you needed to post that to me?

That's extremely vague.

That was a response to, "My moral set is derived from reason applied to an intuition." That seems like a clear statement to me. You should already be familiar with what reason is. Are you asking just what those moral intuitions are? I described those to you here:

"In humanism, the societal vision is given by utilitarian ethics, which strive to create the most freedom, economic opportunity, and social opportunity for as many as possible. In personals matters, it's the Golden Rule. Both embody love and empathy."

What I mean is the philosophy that asserts that reality is determined by and limited to physicality.

OK. The term is used more than one way. I call that philosophical naturalism to avoid ambiguity with the discussion of the relationship of mind and matter, which uses the same term to mean something different.

I hold no antipathy toward anyone

That's not my experience.

I am not having any emotional reactions.

That's also not my experience. But if you actually are unaware that you attack others and become angry when they are dismissive of your unsupported claims, then you have no incentive to do better.

I have accused no one of being immoral or amoral.

Same answer - not my experience. I am getting a strong vibe of that from you.

Spoken like a true cult member.

That was a response to, "There is no need for skepticism when a fact is obvious."

Perhaps you don't understand what skepticism is and its role in empiricism and critical thought. It refers to the critically thinking empiricist's requirement that an idea be sufficiently justified by evidence before being believed.

If you tell me something that I can confirm by looking at something obvious (visible), skepticism no longer applies. That doesn't preclude tentativeness in that belief, or the willingness to change one's position if new evidence suggests that it needs revising

 

[cladking]

Skepticism is for claims that still need confirming, and the method is empirical using critical thought.

NO!!!! It is impossible to understand or refute a theory about consciousness when you lack even a definition for it. And it is impossible for me to disprove ramps no matter how much evidence I've stacked up against them when everyone knows they mustta used ramps. This is due to the nature of LANGUAGE to rule thought and science. Evidence be damned because beliefs rule. You can't possibly show I'm wrong about almost anything at all because you haven't even the definitions. I can show physical evidence and the obvious and you can say nuh uh.

I'm not saying my theories have been proven; I'm merely saying only my theories are consistent with both the physical evidence and every experiment.

You also said, "Science is based on old wives tales handed down from the confusion that arose with the dust from the tower of babel."

Yes. We call these old wives tales "the obvious". Linear progress, et al, do not exist. All science based on such premises is false.

No, it doesn't. Why keep repeating that while disregarding its refutation? Observation without active experimentation defines much of science.

You call it "science" because you believe it. I call it unsubstantiated claims based on faulty interpretation of evidence in terms of old wives tales.

"Evidence" by definition is what supports our beliefs. If you want to understand anything I'm saying read that last sentence a few times. Experiment shows again and again that we are blind to evidence that doesn't support our beliefs.

Only experiment can show proper interpretation of evidence so all theory is by definition founded in experiment. Computer modeling is no more accurate than a weather forecast in terms of predictive abilities. The NWS can't even predict tomorrow's weather with a better than 50% accuracy. !0% of the time even their thermometer in Lansing Illinois doesn't work. Under most conditions it appears to be influenced by the existence of runways and parking lots.

Even when science is practiced properly (which is unusual) it is still being performed by humans who are hardly perfect.

That's a good thing if the thinker is a good one, and a good reason to keep false and unfalsifiable beliefs out of one's belief set.

EXACTLY. This is why "survival of the fittest" belongs in no models or sets of beliefs. It can not be falsified nor predicted. It can not even be observed without murder.

It's a definition. Definitions aren't statements of fact.

Then I can define "Evolution" as change in species that is caused by population decreases resulting in aberrant behavior. Case closed.

Of course this is what is observed in every instance so "survival of the fittest" is a nonsensical definition.

Bad definitions lead to confusion. False premises and/or fallacious reasoning will get you to an unsound conclusion

Indeed!

OK. That was a reply to "Only animals are conscious, and not necessarily all of them." I don't know how conscious butterflies are, but they are animals.

OK. There are single celled organisms that fluoresce when a critical mass is reached and other single celled organisms with memory, behavior, and apparent "intelligence".

Not from grass or mushrooms. They have no apparent conscious or will.

A young friend is fascinated by mushrooms. It is slime molds with apparent intelligence.

 

[cladking]

So sudden for you can mean occurring in an instant or over the duration of multiple generations. You once called the collision of galaxies sudden (source)

Everything exists within a context. In the life of a tsetse fly anything longer than a few seconds is an eternity. In the life of a universe that could be countless trillions of years old the length of time that galaxies collide is like an instant.

No "species" evolve over millions of years. This is nonsense because all change in species (et al) is sudden. Most change is instantaneous because it starts with a single mutation at birth and most of the rest is sudden because it begins and mostly ends after one, two, or three generations. In the history of elephants three generations is virtually instantaneous.

Things come into existence and then pass out of existence. As a general rule the changes are sudden and in between is longer. This especially applies to living things and species.

It's the very nature of reality. Darwin was hallucinating because he believed old wives tales.

 

[cladking]

Yet that's what two posters here are intimating, although I think both will deny that.

Give that man a cigar.

I never said and never intimated that science ever made anyone immoral or amoral and specifically said so.

What I intimated is that among a population that doesn't understand science and therefore believe in it there will be higher proportion of individuals who are immoral or amoral.

Among real scientists, religious people, and those who do understand science there will be a higher proportion that at least claim to have morals, scruples, or a conscience.

Everyone is different. It's what defines our species. Every beaver knows the same things and act on that knowledge. Every human has a different set of beliefs and models and act on those beliefs.

I have said some individuals need a belief in a deity to act right. Some of these individuals now have elevated science to a religion and do not act right.

 

[cladking]

I've seen flying insects cross into the convection currents from an open fire. I've not seen anything that would indicate that they do this on purpose to gain altitude. Even if that is sometimes the outcome. Sometimes, they die, because the heat is too much for them.

It seems to be another case of applying bias to get the answer a person wants and make the data fit the explanation.

As a boy I traveled cross country in a car and then had to hose off the radiator and windshield to see and for proper cooling. They could completely plug a radiator in a few hundred miles. Now a few hundred generations later I see various species that once plugged the radiator playing in the vortices created by cars and semis. I almost never splat one.

This is "change in species" and change in behavior associated with consciousness. It is sudden change in species.

Small animals and birds aren't being hit as frequently either. Dogs in Shanghai are said to cross the streets with the lights and some have been observed operating them. Young monkeys taught their elders to wash sweet potatoes in salt water. It's a complex world that bears no resemblance to Darwin's oversimplifications.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everything exists within a context. In the life of a tsetse fly anything longer than a few seconds is an eternity. In the life of a universe that could be countless trillions of years old the length of time that galaxies collide is like an instant.

So the use of the word sudden is meaningless when you use it.

I've pointed this out a number of times.

No "species" evolve over millions of years.

The rate is variable, but it is not sudden or instantaneous.

This is nonsense because all change in species (et al) is sudden.

Not at all and you have declared for us that your use of the term is meaningless anyway.

Most change is instantaneous because it starts with a single mutation at birth and most of the rest is sudden because it begins and mostly ends after one, two, or three generations. In the history of elephants three generations is virtually instantaneous.

Single mutation speciation is very, very, very rare. I know of only one instance.

Again, using sudden to indicate variable duration reinvents the definition rendering use of the word to be worthless and without any meaning. Since it can mean any duration.

Things come into existence and then pass out of existence.

Sure. Not a revalation.

As a general rule the changes are sudden and in between is longer.

As a general rule, all change in all living things is variable from microseconds to millennia.

You have no evidence or experiment to support your claim and you admit to ruining the definition of sudden to uselessness.

This especially applies to living things and species.

Your claim is not shown to apply to any living thing or species.

It's the very nature of reality.

It is something you believe for some inexplicable reason. Given the observed state of your knowledge of biology, I can't imagine why you think the stuff you come up with has any bearing on biology.

Darwin was hallucinating because he believed old wives tales.

Darwin had evidence and reasoned well from it for the times.

The hallucinations and reliance on synthetic old wives tales is coming from somewhere else. I'll leave it to others to consider where that is.

 

[cladking]

You have no evidence or experiment to support your claim and you admit to ruining the definition of sudden to uselessness.

Right.

Just like when I say it's a hot day out "hot" means the exact same thing as when I send the molten iron back because it's too hot or I sue a fast food restaurant because their coffee is too hot.

All words have meaning only in context but if you choose to see all things from a human perspective you might take your pet tsetse fly on a two week vacation. You might try to drink iron because it's just the right temperature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As a boy I traveled cross country in a car

Me too. Many times.

and then had to hose off the radiator and windshield to see and for proper cooling.

Never had to do that. If we had car problems, my parents took care of it. I don't recall many.

They could completely plug a radiator in a few hundred miles.

They? What are we talking about here?

Now a few hundred generations later I see various species that once plugged the radiator playing in the vortices created by cars and semis.

There may be many explanations for this that are not the one that you want it to be. For one, we are seeing declines in the numbers of insects globally. Another is that maybe your powers of observation increased or moved to previously unobserved areas. Also, it could be that you jump to conclusions and fall in love with those spurious conclusions to the death of all other possibilities. This latter choice fits what I have seen.

I almost never splat one.

I'm guessing we are still talking about bugs and not cars.

This is "change in species" and change in behavior associated with consciousness.

What you describe does not constitute evidence for a change in species and does not constitute evidence for consciousness. You have not applied any rigor to even show it is a change in the behavior of a population. You don't even differentiate what insects that you might be observing and is likely a host of different species from many different families and even different orders.

To claim that you have observed speciation from your narrative is ridiculous. Every observed change in a species would be a speciation event by the useless rules established in this and, again, doesn't take into account changes in yourself that effect what you observe. You aren't taking into account memories of childhood developed prior to some later (hopefully) better understanding of insects in relation to human vehicular transportation, land use in the areas where the drives occurred, changes in the local ecology, etc., etc., etc.

You just jump to your favorite conclusion, fall in love with it and that becomes the facts for you from all I have observed in your writing here.

It is sudden change in species.

Not for any reason I have seen or been told of or from what I know about insects and speciation. Given that I'm an entomologist and you are not, which of us do you think would have the greater knowledge of the subject matter. Some guy that hates Egyptologists and thinks he is rewriting science or one that has actually studied, raised examined, observed and learned about insects professionally and as an avocation.

Small animals and birds aren't being hit as frequently either.

What is your evidence for this. A single observer from a limited perspective? It is anecdotal and isn't evidence for speciation. You do know that populations of the same species have variation right?

Dogs in Shanghai are said to cross the streets with the lights and some have been observed operating them. Young monkeys taught their elders to wash sweet potatoes in salt water.

Anecdotal and questionable, since you don't provide any references. Also not any indication of a change in species, but potentially evidence for learning in intelligent animals.

It's a complex world that bears no resemblance to Darwin's oversimplifications.

I have no idea what you want this to mean other than another hit against Darwin for living when he did and not having GC's, satellites and the 150 years of knowledge discovered subsequent to the publication of the theory. As if that makes all that he observed meaningless and somehow elevates your limited observations and confused conclusion to supplant theory.

 

[cladking]

Darwin had evidence and reasoned well from it for the times.

I would grant that only Darwin has a reasonable explanation for change in species for his time.

But he was still wrong apparently.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Right.

Exactly right.

Just like when I say it's a hot day out "hot" means the exact same thing as when I send the molten iron back because it's too hot or I sue a fast food restaurant because their coffee is too hot.

Meaningless and reaching. It seems desperate and off point.

It does not change that you admit rendering the word sudden to meaninglessness.

All words have meaning only in context but if you choose to see all things from a human perspective you might take your pet tsetse fly on a two week vacation. You might try to drink iron because it's just the right temperature.

Using semantic acrobatics to slip science fan fiction in under the wire as fact isn't how it is done no matter how many times you try it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would grant that only Darwin has a reasonable explanation for change in species for his time.

And it still works today.

But he was still wrong apparently.

No. Not about change in populations over time driven by the selection of the environment. That remains the explanation that fits the evidence.

Baseless claims, wishful thinking and denial will not change that. You can close your eyes, click your heels together all you want, but it won't change anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

Give that man a cigar.

I never said and never intimated that science ever made anyone immoral or amoral and specifically said so.

What I intimated is that among a population that doesn't understand science and therefore believe in it there will be higher proportion of individuals who are immoral or amoral.

Among real scientists, religious people, and those who do understand science there will be a higher proportion that at least claim to have morals, scruples, or a conscience.

Everyone is different. It's what defines our species. Every beaver knows the same things and act on that knowledge. Every human has a different set of beliefs and models and act on those beliefs.

I have said some individuals need a belief in a deity to act right. Some of these individuals now have elevated science to a religion and do not act right.

Some here bring up about what is amoral. What do you consider as amoral? I find that almost as interests finding what telomeres do. So what is amoral?

 

[YoursTrue]

And it still works today.

No. Not about change in populations over time driven by the selection of the environment. That remains the explanation that fits the evidence.

Baseless claims, wishful thinking and denial will not change that. You can close your eyes, click your heels together all you want, but it won't change anything.

There is nothing real to verify that fish evolved in the long run to humans. People may say so but that's about it.

 

[cladking]

They? What are we talking about here?

Thousands of bugs would plug the radiator.

There may be many explanations for this that are not the one that you want it to be.

Indeed. Vehicles now are designed to slice through the air where they once plowed through it. There are far more vehicles so far fewer insects per vehicle. There are numerous reasons.

To claim that you have observed speciation from your narrative is ridiculous.

I seriously doubt if many, if any, of these species underwent speciation as a result of collisions with cars. Perhaps dragon flies have much improved vision and this could lead to other changes sufficient to call it "speciation". This isn't really my point which is the ability of insects to avoid collisions came on rather suddenly in what I would call "adaptation". It's not merely the ability to see the danger but to recognize it and respond to it. It always involves consciousness as young insects must learn to avoid cars or roadways or to cross them at more than 18'.

It's not the fit that survive. It's the consciousness.

 

[cladking]

Some here bring up about what is amoral. What do you consider as amoral? I find that almost as interests finding what telomeres do. So what is amoral?

"Amorality" is the belief that proper behavior is determined by the vector sum total of the gain relative the odds of being caught. Today much crime is committed in public view because nothing is done. The insurance industry bragged publicly that they "lobbied" Congress for 5.5 billion dollars to get Obamacare passed. This was the same bill that Congress bragged they didn't even read it first for fear they'd be confused.

Amoral means "no morals". But amoral people still make sense in terms of their premises. Their premises don't include what's right or wrong. Cheating on the spouse isn't wrong, getting caught is.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Amorality" is the belief that proper behavior is determined by the vector sum total of the gain relative the odds of being caught. Today much crime is committed in public view because nothing is done. The insurance industry bragged publicly that they "lobbied" Congress for 5.5 billion dollars to get Obamacare passed. This was the same bill that Congress bragged they didn't even read it first for fear they'd be confused.

Amoral means "no morals". But amoral people still make sense in terms of their premises. Their premises don't include what's right or wrong. Cheating on the spouse isn't wrong, getting caught is.

Ok. I chuckled. I guess people don't like to get caught. Good point. Or be accountable for their actions. And...same happened with Adam and Eve to an extent. They tried to evade responsibility when confronted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thousands of bugs would plug the radiator.

I finally got that. It doesn't seem to be the case as much these days. Possibly due to reductions in populations from chemical and light pollution as well as climate change. There is nothing to indicate a change in species as you imply.

I will note that you don't seem to have a very well-founded species concept and clearly a very limited understanding of speciation. I see you trying to fill those gaps with feelings turned to facts, but those don't hold up.

Indeed. Vehicles now are designed to slice through the air where they once plowed through it. There are far more vehicles so far fewer insects per vehicle. There are numerous reasons.

There are and aerodynamics may indeed be a factor. Still not evidence of speciation or suddenness of change.

I seriously doubt if many, if any, of these species underwent speciation as a result of collisions with cars.

The ones that collided with the cars certainly did not.

Perhaps dragon flies have much improved vision and this could lead to other changes sufficient to call it "speciation".

Dragonfly vision is a fitness factor that has lead to their evolution as predators. Improved vision or any particular trait is not an indicator of speciation.

Again, your understanding of species and speciation is clearly incomplete to the point that it makes any discussion of the matter very one-sided, frustrating and more or less pointless. Really, it is the fact that you don't understand how incomplete your knowledge is that leads to the frustration. You seem to think it is full and complete and beyond what scientists studying these things understand all because as a boy your radiator got clogged.

This isn't really my point which is the ability of insects to avoid collisions came on rather suddenly in what I would call "adaptation".

What you refer to as an adaptation isn't likely to be the genetic adaptations that are described by the theory of evolution. It is more likely that you are confusing and not seeing the actual cause or causes and calling it adaptation. You may have an interest in insects, but your knowledge of them, I find very limited and your conclusion about them spurious, incomplete or entirely off point.

It's not merely the ability to see the danger but to recognize it and respond to it.

There is no indication that is going on. You haven't demonstrated your belief to be fact. Nothing for me to conclude this rather unusual hypothesis should be accepted.

It always involves consciousness as young insects must learn to avoid cars or roadways or to cross them at more than 18'.

They are insects, not school children. There is no evidence for what you claim. There is no experiment that supports your claim that insects learn about cars as juveniles and then avoid them as adults. Juveniles don't fly for one thing, so how would they learn about cars? How do May beetle larvae that spend their lives in soil eating roots learn about cars or develop the sensory mechanisms to detect them as juveniles? You don't see many things that you don't even know you don't even know you need to consider in coming to your conclusions.

I suspect that even now, this is water on ducks back.

It's not the fit that survive. It's the consciousness.

If consciousness provides a selective advantage, those with it will be the fit that survive the most.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is nothing real to verify that fish evolved in the long run to humans.

Actually, there is, but not for those uneducated in the science.

You continue to make the same error of trusting your uninformed opinions and expressing them as if you should be considered a competent judge of such things. I've pointed this out a few times, but you've never indicated that you saw it.

And I explained to you why you do that and gave you the name of the cognitive bias responsible, but you seemed uninterested in that as well. You ignored two references to it.

You are unaware that more can be known than you know, knowledge that allows other to know that their conclusions are correct. You can only guess what's correct and what isn't, and it seems that you think that others are guessing, too.

You're far from alone in this. RF has many others with the same cognitive bias. What is interesting is how none ever want to discuss that when it is suggested. They don't disagree and they don't refute. There's no indication at all that they saw the words, and they have no interest in why others think these things about them.

I find that all too foreign to conceive. I can't think of any circumstances in which I would not at least ask why another thought such things about me, which would indicate to them that I saw and understood their words but didn't agree with them yet.

We've got the guy who misses much of what is written to him and then insults them when they finally refuse to repeat their explanations, who has zero interest that multiple people have agreed that he does that. He doesn't even disagree. We've got a guy who keeps insisting that the people who reject his reveries are acting in bad faith but when that subject is broached, seems to never see the words. He doesn't agree or disagree. He doesn't attempt to rebut the claim. He is as silent as somebody who never saw the words.

I have no idea why people do it. I sometimes ask them, is this trolling or a cognitive blindness of sorts. Crickets. Not the least amount of interest in one's public perception or how he might be able improve himself. No curiosity at all about why people think and write such things about them.

It is impossible to understand or refute a theory about consciousness when you lack even a definition for it.

I like, 'a wakeful state that confers awareness of one's surroundings and possibly of oneself.'

Now what's your theory?

I can show physical evidence and the obvious and you can say nuh uh.

If I reject your evidenced argument, it's because it wasn't convincing.

You call it "science" because you believe it. I call it unsubstantiated claims based on faulty interpretation of evidence in terms of old wives tales.

Science has made life longer, more functional, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting.

Here's a little something I like:

"You stare into your high-definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits. This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a supercomputer on a mass server. This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of manmade hogwash."- anon.

"survival of the fittest" belongs in no models or sets of beliefs. It can not be falsified nor predicted. It can not even be observed without murder.

It describes the fact that circumstances favor some over others, which is easily observed. I gave you examples from biology, business, and applying for a position.

Small animals and birds aren't being hit as frequently either. Dogs in Shanghai are said to cross the streets with the lights and some have been observed operating them.

That's an example of survival of the fittest. The dogs that can do that survive better than those that can't

I can define "Evolution" as change in species that is caused by population decreases resulting in aberrant behavior.

OK. Did you think that that was a statement of fact? You said it in response to, "Definitions aren't statements of fact." You aren't claiming anything about reality. You aren't claiming that that ever happens, occasionally happen, or frequently happens - just that you want to call that idea evolution.

There are single celled organisms that fluoresce when a critical mass is reached and other single celled organisms with memory, behavior, and apparent "intelligence".

Intelligence requires consciousness, and consciousness requires brains. Unconscious creatures respond to their environment, but that is not intelligence. Some insects chirp at a rate determined by temperature. That isn't intelligence. Some plants grow in the direction of light. That's also not intelligence. If I hit your patellar tendon with a reflex hammer, you'll kick. That's also not intelligence.

A young friend is fascinated by mushrooms. It is slime molds with apparent intelligence.

Same answer. Are molds intelligent when they grow over old bread?

Which reminds me of a saying: Don't eat food that won't spoil. If mold rejects it, shouldn't you?

Everything exists within a context. In the life of a tsetse fly anything longer than a few seconds is an eternity. In the life of a universe that could be countless trillions of years old the length of time that galaxies collide is like an instant.

And it's all described as sudden by you. Is there anything that happens that is gradual in your opinion?

No "species" evolve over millions of years.

Man has.

Darwin was hallucinating because he believed old wives tales.

The theory of evolution has been confirmed to be correct beyond reasonable doubt. Everybody rejecting it is appealing to faith, not reason, and their doubts are therefore not reasonable.

I never said and never intimated that science ever made anyone immoral or amoral

You wrote, "Scientism is a curse and a religion that usually rejects even the concept of morality." You also said that that term applied to me, which is why I asked you if you considered me immoral or amoral.

 

[YoursTrue]

I finally got that. It doesn't seem to be the case as much these days. Possibly due to reductions in populations from chemical and light pollution as well as climate change. There is nothing to indicate a change in species as you imply.

I will note that you don't seem to have a very well-founded species concept and clearly a very limited understanding of speciation. I see you trying to fill those gaps with feelings turned to facts, but those don't hold up.

There are and aerodynamics may indeed be a factor. Still not evidence of speciation or suddenness of change.

The ones that collided with the cars certainly did not.

Dragonfly vision is a fitness factor that has lead to their evolution as predators. Improved vision or any particular trait is not an indicator of speciation.

Again, your understanding of species and speciation is clearly incomplete to the point that it makes any discussion of the matter very one-sided, frustrating and more or less pointless. Really, it is the fact that you don't understand how incomplete your knowledge is that leads to the frustration. You seem to think it is full and complete and beyond what scientists studying these things understand all because as a boy your radiator got clogged.

What you refer to as an adaptation isn't likely to be the genetic adaptations that are described by the theory of evolution. It is more likely that you are confusing and not seeing the actual cause or causes and calling it adaptation. You may have an interest in insects, but your knowledge of them, I find very limited and your conclusion about them spurious, incomplete or entirely off point.

There is no indication that is going on. You haven't demonstrated your belief to be fact. Nothing for me to conclude this rather unusual hypothesis should be accepted.

They are insects, not school children. There is no evidence for what you claim. There is no experiment that supports your claim that insects learn about cars as juveniles and then avoid them as adults. Juveniles don't fly for one thing, so how would they learn about cars. How do May beetle larvae that spend their lives in soil eating roots learn about cars or develop the sensory mechanisms to detect them as juveniles. You see the many thing that you don't even know to consider in coming to your conclusions. I suspect that even now, this is water on ducks back.

If consciousness provides a selective advantage, those with it will be the fit that survive the most.

I agree bugs are interesting. But again, gorillas and cockroaches have not invented printing presses and the internet. There's a difference of capabilities.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, there is, but not for those uneducated in the science.

You continue to make the same error of trusting your uninformed opinions and expressing them as if you should be considered a competent judge of such things.

And I explained to you why you do that and gave you the name of the cognitive bias responsible, but you seemed uninterested. You ignored two references to it.

You are unaware that more can be known than you know, knowledge that allows other to know that their conclusions are correct. You can only guess what's correct and what isn't, and it seems that you think that others are guessing, too.

You're far from alone in this. RF has many others with the same cognitive bias. What is interesting is how none ever want to discuss that when it is suggested. They don't disagree and they don't refute. There's no indication at all that they saw the words, and they have no interest in why others think these things about them.

I find that all too foreign to conceive. I can't think of any circumstances in which I would not at least ask why another thought such things about me, which would indicate to them that I saw and understood their words but didn't agree with them yet.

We've got the guy who misses much of what is written to him and then insults them when they finally refuse to repeat their explanations, who has zero interest that multiple people have agreed that he does that. He doesn't even disagree. We've got a guy who keeps insisting that the people who reject his reveries are acting in bad faith but when that subject is broached, seems to never see the words. He doesn't agree or disagree. He doesn't attempt to rebut the claim. He is as silent as somebody who never saw the words.

I have no idea why people do it. I sometimes ask them, is this trolling or a cognitive blindness of sorts. Crickets. Not the least amount of interest in one's public perception or how he might be able improve himself. No curiosity at all about why people think and write such things about them.

I like, 'a wakeful state that confers awareness of one's surroundings and possibly of oneself.'

Now what's your theory?

If I reject your evidenced argument, it's because it wasn't convincing.

Science has made life longer, more functional, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting.

Here's a little something I like:

"You stare into your high-definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits. This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a supercomputer on a mass server. This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of manmade hogwash."- anon.

It describes the fact that circumstances favor some over others, which is easily observed. I gave you examples from biology, business, and applying for a position.

That's an example of survival of the fittest. The dogs that can do that survive better than those that can't

OK. Did you think that that was a statement of fact? You said it in response to, "Definitions aren't statements of fact." You aren't claiming anything about reality. You aren't claiming that that ever happens, occasionally happen, or frequently happens - just that you want to call that idea evolution.

Intelligence requires consciousness, and consciousness requires brains. Unconscious creatures respond to their environment, but that is not intelligence. Some insects chirp at a rate determined by temperature. That isn't intelligence. Some plants grow in the direction of light. That's also not intelligence. If I hit your patellar tendon with a reflex hammer, you'll kick. That's also not intelligence.

Same answer. Are molds intelligent when they grow over old bread?

Which reminds me of a saying: Don't eat food that won't spoil. If mold rejects it, shouldn't you?

And it's all described as sudden by you. Is there anything that happens that is gradual in your opinion?

Man has.

The theory of evolution has been confirmed to be correct beyond reasonable doubt. Everybody rejecting it is appealing to faith, not reason, and their doubts are therefore not reasonable.

You wrote, "Scientism is a curse and a religion that usually rejects even the concept of morality." You also said that that term applied to me, which is why I asked you if you considered me immoral or amoral.

Let me do it again. Tiktaalik does not verify in real life that fish evolved to become humans.