Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

If anyone who believe in superstitions, it is you, which would make you the bumpkin with smelly feet.

Well, if I'm right my feet stink to high heaven and my feet smell far better than most any other person.

Why do you think I refer to ourselves as homo omnisciencis and homo circularis ratiocinatio? If knowing anything at all is stinky footed superstition then it follows the stinkiest of all is he who knows everything.

For those playing along at home Egyptologists think they are the crown of creation and pyramid builders were stinky footed bumpkins. I believe Egyptologists are the stinky footed and ancient people were each scientists and metaphysicians with mostly males being the former and females the latter.

I try to keep my feet clean but the use of analog abstract language is distracting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good Grief.

I DEFINED "superstition" as being 100% sure of anything. I am at most 60% certain that ancient people were not stinky footed bumpkins.

I could cite several lines in the Pyramid Texts where they refer to washing their feet and selves with seltzer water and natron but this is not the thread for it.

So YOU define words for us. You seem 100% sure of that too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, if I'm right my feet stink to high heaven and my feet smell far better than most any other person.

Why do you think I refer to ourselves as homo omnisciencis and homo circularis ratiocinatio? If knowing anything at all is stinky footed superstition then it follows the stinkiest of all is he who knows everything.

For those playing along at home Egyptologists think they are the crown of creation and pyramid builders were stinky footed bumpkins. I believe Egyptologists are the stinky footed and ancient people were each scientists and metaphysicians with mostly males being the former and females the latter.

I try to keep my feet clean but the use of analog abstract language is distracting.

I doubt that there are that many people outside of this thread that are paying any attention to what you believe without basis.

 

[cladking]

Now we see some examples of how you contradict yourself in the same post. Just one sentence up, you declare the fossil record chiefly composed of missing links. One sentence later they don't exist.

Are you aware that fossilization is very rare. The odds of any individual being fossilized is very low. So when populations are exceedingly low during a speciation event it is highly improbable any individual would be fossilized. Even if a transitional species were found (and probably none have) it would be misinterpreted by anyone who doesn't know that the fossil record is "composed chiefly of missing links".

There are no "missing links" by definition.

What you see in the fossil record is individuals who were part of large populations, not the few individuals during a speciation.

In between all those fossils you see where there is just stone is where the missing links wouldda been.

Maybe you can come up with a better way to say this.

 

[cladking]

So YOU define words for us. You seem 100% sure of that too.

We each get to define every single word we use. This is how language works since the tower of babel. I'm sorry if that is complex. It's not my fault.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We each get to define every single word we use. This is how language works since the tower of babel. I'm sorry if that is complex. It's not my fault.

No. That is not how language works and also the Tower of Babel is another biblical myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you aware that fossilization is very rare. The odds of any individual being fossilized is very low. So when populations are exceedingly low during a speciation event it is highly improbable any individual would be fossilized. Even if a transitional species were found (and probably none have) it would be misinterpreted by anyone who doesn't know that the fossil record is "composed chiefly of missing links".

There are no "missing links" by definition.

What you see in the fossil record is individuals who were part of large populations, not the few individuals during a speciation.

In between all those fossils you see where there is just stone is where the missing links wouldda been.

Maybe you can come up with a better way to say this.

No, no no, the term "missing link" is dead. Almost every fossil found fills a "missing link".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you aware that fossilization is very rare. The odds of any individual being fossilized is very low. So when populations are exceedingly low during a speciation event it is highly improbable any individual would be fossilized. Even if a transitional species were found (and probably none have) it would be misinterpreted by anyone who doesn't know that the fossil record is "composed chiefly of missing links".

I am aware that fossilization is a rare event. I am also aware that your claims about speciation and genetic bottlenecks have no basis in fact. I am aware also that you have no basis to determine the skills of those that study fossils. I am further aware that this does in no way address your pattern of routinely contradicting your own claims.

There are no "missing links" by definition.

What you see in the fossil record is individuals who were part of large populations, not the few individuals during a speciation.

What we see in the fossil record supports the theory of evolution and not at all your empty claims that you cannot and do not provide any evidence or experiments to demonstrate. I realize that no such experiments exist and that puts you in the difficult position of presenting your speculation as fact to those that know those experiments don't exist and your claims are empty.

In between all those fossils you see where there is just stone is where the missing links wouldda been.

Another claim without evidence to support it. How you imagine that we would believe that you can see that which you claim cannot be seen is a hoot.

Maybe you can come up with a better way to say this.

I'm sure I could come up with more convincing nonsense, but why would I.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We each get to define every single word we use. This is how language works since the tower of babel. I'm sorry if that is complex. It's not my fault.

Nothing, that says nothing that means nothing and on and on and on and on.

There are established definitions in science that you refuse to follow and have decided to redefine (The semantics you accuse others of using, but in reality are what you routinely do). Imagine that.

This is no defense for you claims about genetic bottlenecks and speciation. That claim says nothing and this one follows suit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think I had an insight about that here on RF. I was under the impression that the victim was somebody who mistakenly thought that he had risen above the crowds and that his thinking was as nuanced and sophisticated as that of critical thinkers. But today, I see it as a result of people being unaware that such a stratum exists. They don't what critical thought is or what it does for the critical thinker. They don't know what a sound conclusion is. To them, all opinions are arrived at like theirs - whatever seems or feels right - and thus no opinion is better than any other. The clue is that these people don't acknowledge such a thing as expertise in thought, just action. You can be an expert woodworker or master distiller, but people like Fauci are just somebody with a different opinion arrived at like they arrived at theirs, and therefore no more valuable.

So, a common manifestation is somebody reading a sound, factual conclusion and saying, "That's just your opinion." That's your fist sign you've just entered D-K country.

View attachment 72970

Another is the person who knows next to nothing about a topic who is presenting his opinions as if they are equally meaningful and valuable as those ideas he rejects from qualified sources, as when he says he just doesn't see how such-and-such could have happened, such as abiogenesis. He offers his opinion not from the position that he hasn't learned enough yet, but that he has, and that his opinion is equally valuable, apparently unaware that those who know better and can see what he can't just see his statement as an admission of ignorance rather that a respectable alternative opinion of equal standing.

Great summary of claking's posting to date just before this, and a good place for him to start to make his own version of the list for future cutting-and-pasting.

Dunning/Kruger isn't just a problem on this thread, and it is, but also a real problem in this country right now. Politicians that know all. Experts that are routinely ignored for the opinions of the uninformed. It's a serious issue.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. That is not how language works and also the Tower of Babel is another biblical myth.

Have you noticed how a lot of what is wildly claimed about science reads like fan fiction run amok?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This highlights much of what I'm trying to tell you; that perception is language and beliefs. Human consciousness is wholly different than all other consciousness which is the very means that individuals use to survive. It is NOT fitness that allows success or survival, it IS consciousness. These aren't mere words as they are perceived but rather the very nature of life. Survival doesn't derive from fitness because all healthy individuals are equally fit rather survival depends from behavior which is an expression of an individual's genes and his experience which in turn derives largely from his genes.

Having watched you argue with people with a lot more knowledge than you for a (long) while, I decided to just pick one post as random. Man, I can't tell you how wrong you are, how little you understand about anything you claim to "know."

Human consciousness is no different from any other consciousness, where consciousness exists. The intelligence that can use to inspect and analyze our conscious awareness may be orders of magnitude greater, but that is not even close to the same thing.

And we do not use consciouse "to survive." What nonsense -- you can be very conscious of the fact that your are dying, right up until the moment you've done so. You can consciously do things so stupid that they'll inevitably result in your death (we have Darwin Awards for that).

Also, you confuse survival of the individual with survival of characteristics (generally the result of genetic variance). Any genetic variation that results in more offspring with the same genetic trait (whether through simply surviving long enough to reproduce, or through producing more offspring than those without the trait), will mean that genetic variation will quickly, within very few generations, overtake and replace the unvaried gene.

This has no similarity at all to Darwin's illusion. Significant change in species ONLY occurs when most typical behavior of a species is eradicated. The typical genes driving the typical behavior is lost leaving only individuals with atypical behavior and atypical genes and atypical experience. These already different individuals breed a new "species". This new species is based not on the niche which exists at their birth but on the genes of their parents. But like all life this new species will quickly adapt to fit the new niche.

The first sentence is nonsense of the first order. What on earth does "most typical behavor of a species" even mean? Coloration, as a very simple example, is not a "behavior" at all. It's simply a means (often) to remain hidden while another of your kind without that color change gets to be dinner. Behavior has zero to do with that. (Google "peppered moth" for more information.)

And while you are correct that species characteristics are the result of parental genes (rather than the niche that exists at their birth), you totally miss the fact that those genes are occasionally mis-transcribed during reproduction. Most mis-transcriptions are harmful, but a few make it more likely that the inheritor, in "the niche that exists at their birth," will be more likely than others of its kind to pass on the newly modified gene to many more offspring -- thus magnifying the effect of that change signifcantly, within very few generations.

These are very simple concepts supported by observation and experiment. Darwin's illusion has no support except people want to believe it. People want to imagine they are the fit ones just as Egyptologists want to believe they would be the guy with the whip instead of the guy dragging stones up ramps. People believe what we want because we use analog language and abstraction to exist in a digital very concrete reality.

Those may be "very simple concepts," but you have shown precisely zero observation and experiment to support them. The rest of that segment of your post simply reminds me of those who like to think reincarnation is real -- that is, how many who think they've lived before imagined that they were kings, nobles, saints, Jesus, famous or what-have-you, versus how many claim that they were toilet cleaners, slaves and other vermin-infested low-lifes (who were, in fact, the vast majority of the population)? QED.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This should be watched by all those who really don't get evolution. It is very, very good.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Why do you think I refer to ourselves as homo omnisciencis and homo circularis ratiocinatio?

I thought it was so you could feign being fluent in Latin. Because, in fact, they are mutually exclusive.

 

[gnostic]

Oh, and by the ay the Sumerian version of this goes back to 1800 BC I believe.

No, writing about Ziusudra (before the Babylonian Utnapishtim), go back as far as 2600 BCE, with the Instructions of Shuruppak, to around 2200 BCE with the Eridu Genesis and the Death of Bilgames (alluded only).

There are connections between Ziusudra with Shuruppak, and the flood story were most likely based on real river flooding event in Shuruppak, that happened around 2900 BCE.

Genesis Noah and Flood is much later adaption. There are no stories of Noah in the Bronze Age. Genesis flood and the Tower of Babel are only narrated from 6th century BCE.

As I said, the Jews got their story and conflated the original Sumerian river flood story into Noah’s global flood that never happened.

The problem with Jewish myth is that it have been exaggerated even more than the original Sumerian story...got bigger in the retelling.

We know that the Jews got their story from Babylon, because we see parallels in the bird-releasing event in the Epic of Atrahasis (which what Ziusudra was translated to in Akkadian or Old Babylonian, before Utnapishtim was used) with Noah releasing birds in Genesis 8. Likewise there is another parallels between Noah’s sacrifices with sacrifices by Ziusudra in Eridu Genesis and the sacrifices in the Epic of Atrahasis, where the gods were drawn by the smell of burnt sacrifices.

The history of the Ziusudra, Atrahasis & Utnapishtim myths definitely predated Genesis Noah.

And the Sumerian version is much older than 1800 BCE.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH SCIENCE. I disagree with the silly paradigm created by Darwin.

Darwin was a scientist and his work an important scientific advance.

what are you suggesting isn't a fact?

I wasn't referring to any specific factual claim.

I AM NOT CONTRADICTING THEM. Their expertise is always valid even though their conclusions and methodology are wrong.

So, you're not contradicting them, just calling them wrong.

You basically aren't saying anything except that you don't know.

Now I need to bring Desolation Row back. Jump to 7:04: "And the Phantom's shouting to skinny girls, 'Get out of here if you don't know.' " Actually, that very line has been an ear worm for me for a few days, ever since I called this song up for this thread a few days ago and listened again: "Get out of here if you don't know." It's one of two lines Jerry Garcia sings with Bob Weir in this song, the other being, "You can hear them blow" in the same part of a verse, referring to pennywhistles, which comes earlier, in the verse before the guitar solo preceding this one (5:17 if interested; the fans go wild when Jerry sings those words with Bobby).

Sorry for being such a fan, but it comes with the territory. This band consumes it fans, and these songs are dear old friends. I probably wouldn't listen to the Dylan version all of the way through. I'm not sure I've ever heard it:

Dunning/Kruger isn't just a problem on this thread, and it is, but also a real problem in this country right now.

Yes, it is. America is devolving intellectually and morally. It's not just D-K on the rise, but also sociopathy. America seems to have a growing race of zombies wandering its streets that know nothing, think they are smart, and care about nobody but themselves. I have found no Mexican like that in my nearing 14 years here. It's a striking contrast.

 

[cladking]

No, writing about Ziusudra (before the Babylonian Utnapishtim), go back as far as 2600 BCE, with the Instructions of Shuruppak, to around 2200 BCE with the Eridu Genesis and the Death of Bilgames (alluded only).

There are connections between Ziusudra with Shuruppak, and the flood story were most likely based on real river flooding event in Shuruppak, that happened around 2900 BCE.

Genesis Noah and Flood is much later adaption. There are no stories of Noah in the Bronze Age. Genesis flood and the Tower of Babel are only narrated from 6th century BCE.

No!

First of all there are researchers now who say every single thing we believe about Sumerian is wrong. The translations are wrong. The same thing done with Sumerian writing as the Egyptian counterparts; It was interpreted in terms of later writing instead of its own context. I DON'T KNOW. While you know everything there is to know I know nothing.

But you are conflating a flood with a tower. The story of the "tower of babel" dates to 1800 BC because it was still fresh in everyone's mind at that time. I've mentioned this before but, obviously, no one can see what they don't believe so here's abnother opportunity to be blind to the facts;

I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood

books.google.com

"The whole universe, the people in unison [prayed] to Enlil in one tongue. On the basis of my solution of Ancient Language (Egyptian dialect) I can confidently state that "enlil" is equivalent to the Egyptian "amun" which means "The Hidden" and represented reality itself in language. "Pray" meant "to study" or more accurately the word we laughingly mistranslate as "pray" actually was a representation of "study'. But you can't understand that until you understand the concept of metaphysics and then learn a few basics of ancient scientific metaphysics.

Why doesn't anything get through to people. I can post something 1000 times and each time it's new to people. And each time I get words games ad hominins, and lectures about what's really what.

 

[cladking]

Sorry for being such a fan, but it comes with the territory. This band consumes it fans, and these songs are dear old friends. I probably wouldn't listen to the Dylan version all of the way through. I'm not sure I've ever heard it:

"And the ships wise men will remind you once again
That the whole wide world is watchin'

Oh the foes will rise with the sleep still in their eyes
And they'll jerk from their beds and think they're dreamin'
But they'll pinch themselves and squeal and they'll know that it's for real
The hour that the ship comes in
Then they'll raise their hands sayin', "We'll meet all your demands
But we'll shout from the bow your days are numbered"
And like pharaohs tribe they'll be drownded in the tide
And like Goliath, they'll be conquered"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No!

First of all there are researchers now who say every single thing we believe about Sumerian is wrong. The translations are wrong. The same thing done with Sumerian writing as the Egyptian counterparts; It was interpreted in terms of later writing instead of its own context. I DON'T KNOW. While you know everything there is to know I know nothing.

But you are conflating a flood with a tower. The story of the "tower of babel" dates to 1800 BC because it was still fresh in everyone's mind at that time. I've mentioned this before but, obviously, no one can see what they don't believe so here's abnother opportunity to be blind to the facts;

I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood

books.google.com

"The whole universe, the people in unison [prayed] to Enlil in one tongue. On the basis of my solution of Ancient Language (Egyptian dialect) I can confidently state that "enlil" is equivalent to the Egyptian "amun" which means "The Hidden" and represented reality itself in language. "Pray" meant "to study" or more accurately the word we laughingly mistranslate as "pray" actually was a representation of "study'. But you can't understand that until you understand the concept of metaphysics and then learn a few basics of ancient scientific metaphysics.

Why doesn't anything get through to people. I can post something 1000 times and each time it's new to people. And each time I get words games ad hominins, and lectures about what's really what.

I ask myself that latter bit all the time. I post a 1,000 times explaining how your understanding of science is so wrong that it staggers the rational mind to understand how someone could be so wrong.

I am familiar with the word games and the irrational resistance to explanations bound in experiment and evidence. I cannot imagine how someone could be so wrong and see themselves as so absolutely right.

Is it that you are so mired it this belief system that you have concocted that you cannot see anything that doesn't bow to that belief system?

 

[cladking]

I thought it was so you could feign being fluent in Latin. Because, in fact, they are mutually exclusive.

Lol.

I've always gotten a kick out of "scientific" jargon. Bear in mind I don't even believe in taxonomies so all these fancy Latin names for things that don't even exist are hilarious to me. I believe this all derives from Ancient Language. Even though AL was completely different it had three distinct classes of words where each word was representative, digital, and named instead of defined. By being named (you know, like the animals) every word had one single fixed meaning. The three classes of words I call "scientific", "colloquial", and "vulgar" and these concepts survived the collapse of the species, science, history, and language. The Greek adopted the concepts and passed it to the Romans so now we have fancy words for non-existent things. It's a very appropriate that I, of all people, would name our species "homo omnisciencis" or any of the others I've used. I believe this one will catch on some day. It's the sweetest, shortest, most accurate Latin name consistent with biology and how we came into existence.

It has everything going for it including the need to laugh at ourselves individually and collectively. We're an abstract talking ape that is way too big for our britches. We think we're the crown of creation and the only intelligent or conscious thing on earth. I'm sure if there's a God He's rolling on the floor laughing at the joke He has made.