Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Valjean]

Still does not show that they evolve to anything but crickets.

In observable time.
Changes accumulate. Why is accumulation over millions of years such a difficult concept to grasp?

The article reports a lethal feature being rapidly eliminated from populations.
Most selective features confer only a small advantage, and increase slowly in populations. Others confer such huge advantages that they spread like wildfire; even more so when such features occur in invasive species with competitive advantages already in place.

The article reports on rapid, separate, convergent change. Exactly what the ToE would predict. Any reproductive variation that confers an advantage tends to be selected for. Faced with
rapid and potentially deadly environmental change, phenotypic changes must either keep up or the species will die out.

 

[cladking]

The opposite is correct. Communication requires that words, symbols, and even meaningful gestures are assigned mutually agreed upon meanings, which is semantics.

This is another semantical argument.

Disagree. You might have included a few and your evidence for them if you think otherwise.

So you want me to invent numerous theories of change in species just to make the point that there are numerous paradigms that can be invented to explain any set of experiment and evidence!!!!!!!!!!!! There are probably an infinite number, do you want to see all of them?

If you really want to see different paradigms to explain evidence then just look at the history of science. Science keeps changing at every funeral you know.

I always invented one and people people won't even read it, follow the links, or respond on topic. God help me they won't even parse a simple word like "metaphysics" as I intend it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now I'm expected to somehow prove there are many paradigms by inventing one after another. Ad infinitum no less.

I get enough grief for having invented one.

But I do know what they mean if they're written in English.

You see what you want to see. You only think you understand author intent when you speak to a doctor. When you read what you yourself describe as superstition translated through many languages why would you think you 8understand author intent? Watching linguists argur the meaning of ancient incantation is hilarious. I would be embarrassed to understand it and mortified to argue the meaning with other people who believed they understood it differently.

It's a strange world. Our very foundational beliefs are set by pseudoscientists and witchdoctors with no oversight from real scientists and no application of modern science and instrumentation.

 

[Valjean]

So where's the scientific method showing how fish evolved eventually to be humans.

Right in front of your nose, if you'd care to look.

 

[cladking]

Disagree again. But you have difficulty getting from relevant evidence to sound conclusions, meaning that you can't tell what science is valid and what is not. You haven't been able to conclude that Darwin was correct, and so his ideas are superstition to you, but not to me and millions of others.

Now you dispute your definition or did you supply the wrong quote?

Every morning begins with feeding the dogs followed by coffee with whipped cream with my wife (I always get up first) and every evening finishes on the terrace (enclosed with windows that open and screens) watching TV and sipping white wine as the sun goes down. In between, I play online bridge three mornings a week (T-Tu-Sa) and club bridge one morning (F) and one afternoon (T) a week. We have lunch or dinner out after club bridge, and Sunday mornings.

Good luck with that.

The universe appears to need no intelligent oversight to run day-to-day, not even anybody to wind the clockwork

I wouldn't know.

I do know and just said it is not a clockwork and this is proven by experiment. This is what every collider in history has shown.

Remember the butterfly in China. No clockwork.

No, he didn't. He explained the origin diversity of life. I'm not aware that he ever referred to consciousness explicitly (I Googled "Darwin on consciousness" and got no answer).

He did not define consciousness or life. Indeed, he never really defined "species" either IMS. He reduced reality to words like species and fitness. Ironically there is no referent for either word.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's a strange world. Our very foundational beliefs are set by pseudoscientists and witchdoctors with no oversight from real scientists and no application of modern science and instrumentation.

Irony.

 

[cladking]

You haven't been able to conclude that Darwin was correct, and so his ideas are superstition to you, but not to me and millions of others.

Yes. Exactly.

His ideas are "superstition" to me because they are founded on assumptions I never accepted. They are old wives tales and I believe all belief is superstition. Even if he were correct that consciousness doesn't matter and progress in linear (etc) they are still beliefs and they are still going to lead him into a circular argument. Homo circularis rationatio. It defines the species.

 

[Whateverist]

By "separating it" I meant he did not include it or consider it in his "theory". Like most homo omnisciencis then and now he mistook thought for consciousness and ascribed the ability to think only to humans.

I see. Of course that isn’t really surprising.

I too am constantly surprised that so many believe thought just is consciousness. That thought so conceived amounts to little more than silently imagining the spoken word leaves little room for anything more to get through. The over riding goal seems to be control no matter how sterile and pointless that may be.

I find Philip Ball’s How Life Works hopeful. When we see that cognition is present even in single cellular critters and is present still among the hordes of cells that underwrite our metazoan existence, it really forces you to reconceptualize everything.

 

[ratiocinator]

His ideas are "superstition" to me because they are founded on assumptions I never accepted.

Evolution is not about assumptions, it's about evidence.

You could make the case for evolution from genetic evidence alone, i.e. entirely from evidence that Darwin knew nothing about.

 

[cladking]

A shplock is somebody who is in the way, perhaps by occluding a doorway or driving too slowly and you can't pass.

Ever notice how many are wearing a hat.

When they get to the store they block the aisles with their carts and bodies.

 

[cladking]

That thought so conceived amounts to little more than silently imagining the spoken word leaves little room for anything more to get through.

There are most probably many ways we think. My "thought" doesn't always involve words but I believe that our thinking is always formatted in words even when we don't experience them. Our language is one dimensional, symbolic, and analog and this certainly appears to format our thinking.

I believe all other consciousness is formatted in the logic of the wiring of the brain which is four dimensional, representational, and digital. We can't fathom such a consciousness and the consciousnesses which do experience it do not experience "thought": They're thinking all the time but don't experience it. They are simply resonating with reality that is also logical.

The over riding goal seems to be control no matter how sterile and pointless that may be.

Just so we're trying to control our lives rather than other people.

 

[cladking]

Evolution is not about assumptions, it's about evidence.

I say homo circularis rationatio and you say potato.

 

[cladking]

You could make the case for evolution from genetic evidence alone, i.e. entirely from evidence that Darwin knew nothing about.

Then why not show how whales came out of the ocean to live on land scientifically and how their genome caused earlier versions of whales to go extinct and only the new version survive? Show how the less fit died and why.

You have nothing. You have belief, not experiment.

 

[ratiocinator]

I say homo circularis rationatio and you say potato.

Gibberish.

I see you ran away from addressing my point. Since Darwin produced the theory in its original form, an entire new line of independent evidence has emerged that not only confirmed it but is so strong and comprehensive, we could make the case without any of the evidence that Darwin used.

That's one reason why it's one of the most certain theories in all of science.

 

[ratiocinator]

Then why not show how whales came out of the ocean to live on land scientifically and how their genome caused earlier versions of whales to go extinct and only the new version survive? Show how the less fit died and why.

What are you talking about? You appear to know nothing of whale evolution or the nature of genetic evidence.

 

[Pogo]

Of course. the equilibrium of evolution is punctuated by occasional rapid changes. The cause in this case seems pretty clear.
So what? I don't see what you're contending.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

Crickets being a typical response to a request such as yours to a request for information to back up the creationist's claims.
Being late at night, I googled evolution crickets and found this rather curious article that addresses many of the silly creationist claims. I was not contending anything to the contrary and this seems to have become a sort of inverse Poe.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Now you dispute your definition or did you supply the wrong quote?

You'll have to be more specific. Would you please quote the definition and explain why you think I "dispute" (I'm assuming this means contradict in this context) it.

I wouldn't know. I do know and just said it is not a clockwork and this is proven by experiment

This is why I have trouble following you at times. What does it mean to write, "I wouldn't know" immediately followed by its contradiction

Remember the butterfly in China. No clockwork.

If you're referring to the butterfly effect, my understanding is that the resulting weather disturbance days later is unpredictable, but not because what happens in between the flutter and the fury isn't deterministic. As I understand it, there are simply too many variables involved to know them and make the computation. No miracles or magic occur, just deterministic physics.

My claim was the universe requires no apparent intelligent supervision to function as it appears to function to us, which you both did and didn't know about. Did you introduce this concept to contradict that claim? If so, I don't think it does.

He reduced reality to words like species and fitness. Ironically there is no referent for either word.

They're both abstractions drawn from physical referents - individual examples of biological species and fitness.

His ideas are "superstition" to me because they are founded on assumptions I never accepted.

OK. You're not alone, but you are anomalous (I know you like that word) in not (to my knowledge) being a literalist Abrahamist creationist.

Ever notice how many are wearing a hat. When they get to the store they block the aisles with their carts and bodies.

LOL. No, I never noticed that.

Maybe you could help me out and begin using the word yourself. Shplock - anybody who is in your way. I've asked others, but have never seen it used by anyone but my wife and me, which makes me wonder how phrases like "my bad" become established in the lexicon. How do they break through the barrier I encounter, I wonder?

 

[Pogo]

I do know and just said it is not a clockwork and this is proven by experiment. This is what every collider in history has shown.

What about particle collider experiments disproves the idea that when particles collide there is a defined set of possibilities for the outcome? Please explain and how does the Chinese butterfly interact?

Maybe start with what is a clockwork and how does a clockwork behave?

 

[Valjean]

I've defined this word for you several times and won't do it again.

For anyone else who might not know "scientific metaphysics" is the axioms, definitions, results (experiments), and methodology of science. Science doesn't exist outside metaphysics and those who believe it does believe in miracles. Anyone who thinks expertise allows one to see reality and that state of the art is reality believes in miracles. No peer has ever or will ever have the final word. Science is not dependent on genius or consensus but only experiment.

Nothing in science is writ in stone and even its metaphysics might be rewritten and the new science thereby generated will only be true within this new metaphysic. We can extrapolate what is know to apply to all of reality and we each do but these extrapolations are not science; they are models, opinions, and beliefs. They are the manifestation of pattern recognition in homo omnisciencis. We each see a different reality because our models and beliefs are different but this is hard to see because the very language we use to construct and communicate these models is ephemeral and indistinct. We can hardly imagine a different way to see reality from the same beliefs or that language we use to look at other models is imprecise and its interpretation is wholly dependent on the beliefs of the listener.

The laws of nature are not metaphysics, they're plain physics. Definitions and words just represent the ideas we're working with. Experimental results are hardly metaphysical, they're actual, observed results.
Science doesn't exist outside of metaphysics? Does anything, then? You continue to jumble two realities: philosophical idealism and perceived reality. Pick one and stick to it. They don't mix.
"No peer...?" What is a peer? You seem to use it to mean some kind of authoritative claimant.
Yes, science experiments. Who's saying otherwise. These claims you seem to contest are derived from experiments.

Science is an ongoing investigative modality. As new information emerges, knowledge is refined and questions clarified. Thus human knowledge increases.
Metaphysics? Where does that come in?
H. omnisciensis? Is there fossil or genetic evidence of this species?

We each reason in circles so shared beliefs will always result in the same conclusions. That these conclusion are not identical in each observer is irrelevant, each will be wrong anyway. With no experiment to underpin "Evolution" it is no more than an hypothesis or a belief system. Believers look at life and see "Evolution" instead of the reality.

So what is the 'reality'? Show your evidence.

Everything we believe fills the center of our eyes whether we are right or wrong and this is what we see rather than what is actually there. I never believed in Evolution so I never saw it and I didn't believe in it because I never believed in the assumptions. I never believed in only humans being conscious and intelligent. I never believed anything could be studied outside metaphysics which in this case would necessarily include a definition for "life", "consciousness" and "species". Even AFTER such things are eventually defined we will still need experiment to show how life changes suddenly especially when populations approach zero.

You're living in a fantasy world, and trying to superimpose it onto observed reality.

 

[leroy]

Why are you bringing up Lamarkinian inheritance & Lamarkinian evolution?

Well try reading the whole post, perhaps you will find an answer to your question

@Valjean Said(or implied) that in the context of evolution, small changes lead to big changes …. My answer was “not necessarily” small changes don’t necesairly produce big changes …. Otherwise Lamarkinian evolution would be true (because we observe small changes produced by Lamarkinian mechanisms)

You could simply reply “ yes Leroy you are correct @Valjean is wrong in that particular statement” and invite him to admit and correct his mistakes…………… but I understand that according to the rules of your cult, it is strictly forbidden to point the mistakes made by an other member of the same cult.

 

[Valjean]

This is another semantical argument.



So you want me to invent numerous theories of change in species just to make the point that there are numerous paradigms that can be invented to explain any set of experiment and evidence!!!!!!!!!!!! There are probably an infinite number, do you want to see all of them?

If you really want to see different paradigms to explain evidence then just look at the history of science. Science keeps changing at every funeral you know.

I always invented one and people people won't even read it, follow the links, or respond on topic. God help me they won't even parse a simple word like "metaphysics" as I intend it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now I'm expected to somehow prove there are many paradigms by inventing one after another. Ad infinitum no less.

I get enough grief for having invented one.



You see what you want to see. You only think you understand author intent when you speak to a doctor. When you read what you yourself describe as superstition translated through many languages why would you think you 8understand author intent? Watching linguists argur the meaning of ancient incantation is hilarious. I would be embarrassed to understand it and mortified to argue the meaning with other people who believed they understood it differently.

It's a strange world. Our very foundational beliefs are set by pseudoscientists and witchdoctors with no oversight from real scientists and no application of modern science and instrumentation.