• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Darwin's Illusion

cladking

Well-Known Member
nd here you wrote, "EVERY SINGLE SPECIATION EVENT EVER SEEN was sudden"

Yes!!! All changes in life are sudden. "Adaptation" can change a species in dozens of generations causing usually superficial changes and speciation occurs over very few generations creating very different species.

Everything changes because this is the nature of reality which is events and processes. It is unpredictable because they are so complex with everything affecting everything else. All changes are very very sudden because processes change, cycles change, and reality is largely the result of chaos and events. Reality unfolds from things things that couldn't have been predicted so we can't predict reality.

Our glib and facile explanations for things are generally wrong and as new generations arise these old explanations give way for better ones.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Life is consciousness and consciousness is free will.
Previously, you said, "Life is consciousness and consciousness is life"

These are all just words. "Life", "consciousness", "free will" are abstractions with no referent in the real world. Every word we use is an abstraction.

In the real world every living thing is conscious.

Every living thing is individual.

Every living thing has free will.

In the real world the referents for what we call "life" all have "consciousness" and "free will".

Humans are simply different and are the odd man out because we think differently than all other creation. No other individual even experiences 'thought'.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The very existence of cow, the very fact they exist shows there was ancient science just as beaver farming shows there is such a thing as "beaver science". The waggle dance is "bee science" because in nature all science is natural science based on metaphysical language. We are confused so it's impossible for us to use natural science. We always reason in circles unless science (experiment) blocks it. Bees, beavers, and homo omnisciencis were not confused. They are (were) able to use metaphysical language which reflects the wiring of the brain with scientific observation to discern the nature of reality and to use this knowledge to their own ends. This gets to the very root of consciousness/ life/ free will.

But we (homo omnisciencis) have no choice but to use words that are symbolic, analog, and have no concrete relationship to the real world where abstractions do not exist. We parse words and we don't ever parse them exactly as intended and sometimes don't even try. Even our thinking is affected because we use induction which is often little more than relationships between words and definitions. We have no choice but we don't see these realities because we think we know everything including what the other guy is saying and our own thought processes which often are astray from reality due to words or reasoning in circles. We must use experiment to understand reality but instead it is often merely opinion and appearances presented as "science", "truth", or "reality". If a model or belief isn't firmly rooted in experiment it can only be true through coincidence.

Ancient man invented cows and dogs by some means. The question is what was their metaphysics. it OBVIOUSLY was not experiment and it apparently was language itself. Human language; one single language all humans shared just like a set of genes. Obviously this language no longer exists and all we have are stories about the language becoming confused. We have assumptions about human intelligence, instinct, and trial > error. We have assumptions imparted by language and old wives tales rather than experiment. We have vast confusion that causes the economy to barely run at all.
Like I predicted, just more nonsense. No support at all.

Is anyone surprised?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have seen pictures of such and it is true that genetics plays a part
That's the point. Man and gorilla have more similar genomes than man lemurs, who have more similar genomes than man and sharks, and man looks more like a gorilla than a lemur, and more like a lemur than a shark.
one might say he looked like a gorilla from behind but I doubt it. The bodily form and shape is different plus feet & hands plus the amount of hair.
Interesting topic. You might agree: In the transition from prehuman apes to human apes, we see the foramen magnum, the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord passes, go from the occipital (posterior) position to the underside of the skull with the advent of bipedalism, the brow ridges flatten, the jutting forward of the lower face flattens as the muzzle disappears, the chin appears, and the teeth evolve - smaller canines, less enamel, and more vertical / less angled forward - to reflect the addition of meat to the diet and eventually the advent of fire. The cranial capacity more than triples as the low forehead became more human-like, the sagittal crests disappear, the temporal fossae - the depressions on the side of the upper skull - become shallower as jaw musculature diminishes, the shape of the cheeks (zygomatic arch) changes as the jaw musculature passing through diminishes, and the size of the lower jaw (mandible) diminishes as does the nuchal ridge in the lower back of the skull to which neck musculature attaches. There are also changes in the size of the ear holes, and the nose goes from flat to pointy during the transition from ancestral ape to modern man.
there is no "common ancestor" known among gorillas and humans.
It might be difficult to decide which forms are ancestral rather than cousins, but man and gorilla definitely have common ancestors going back from where non-orangutan great apes (hominines - this week, anyway; the taxonomy is evolving) bifurcated into what would become gorillas from what would become man and chimps/bonobos (hominins) all the way back to the beginning of evolution. You and I have a last common ancestor, but it might be difficult to determine who that was. If you pick somebody, and we don't have an accurate genealogy, we can't know if either or both of us descended from that person or maybe form its sibling instead. But we know that such a person or couple must have existed. Likewise with the last common ancestor for any two clades.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Maybe you can reconcile some of these, but can you see how difficult it is to track what you believe when you do this?

2 + 2 = 2 x 2 = 4 ^ 1/2 all are different ways of saying the exact same thing. this is the beauty and strength of modern language. You an say anything in an infinite number of ways but people still have to try to parse your meaning.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Oh yes, lest I forget, humans are not gorillas. And, of course, I still go back to the fact that apparently (I use the word fact delicately) there is no "common ancestor" known amoing gorillas and humans. Do I think that God made man different than gorillas? Yes I do. Insofar as I am concerned, the differences are significant and inexplicable by testable science.
Then you are stating that you think that God is a liar. Why do you believe that?
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Maybe you can reconcile some of these, but can you see how difficult it is to track what you believe when you do this? My recommendation is to avoid poetry, by which I mean vague or symbolic language like song lyrics, which are intended to function as verbal Rorschach tests wherein one knowingly and willingly inserts some of himself into the meaning he takes - what it says to him - and stick with concrete prose like one would find in cooking or driving directions, or a will - words meant to be clearly understood and without ambiguity.

I'm a poet at heart.

Once my eyes were opened to metaphysical language many new types of rhyming have become apparent. Indeed, things written in Ancient Language are parsed by linguists to be chock full of puns because of the many ways that 5 lbs of meaning had to be crammed into a 3 lb sentence. When there are a highly limited number of ways to say anything because everything had to agree with reality it just naturally brings out the poet even in an engineer or an accountant.

I believe that the key to parsing what I say is to assume that if a literal meaning exists then it is probably the intended meaning. I've always had a somewhat unique way of expressing myself. Some of it is designed to force the reader to parse my sentences correctly or the whole thing just looks like gobbledty gook. I'd rather not be understood than to be misunderstood. This is in part because I am extremely poor at unlearning things and forget others don't necessarily have the same problem.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
So we are all agreed that specia
Cows do not appear to be the products of "ancient science" At least there is not evidence that I know of for such and since you never support your claims I sincerely doubt that you will support this one either. Cows appear to be the product of artificial selection. And why would the reason for dogs survival be because wolves were harder to catch and less tasty? You took too red herrings and tried to make a logical argument out of it. Are wolves harder to catch? Yes, I will grant that. Though the young of either one are much either to catch so perhaps I should not grant that one. Are they less tasty? I don't know, but probably. They are certainly safer to eat. The problem is that cows survived because they are tasty. Milk from cows was probably a secondary use for them.

So do you have any evidence for any of your claims or just bad arguments?
So we are all agreed that cows evolved through artificial selection. Glad that is settled.

Catching wolves? What? Tasty? Somebody said that they are tasty? Wow!

More than likely, domestication leading to dogs had nothing to do with catching wolves and forcing them through a breeding program. Dogs evolved gradually from wolves that hung around camps for free food from the scrap heap.

Yeah, cows are tasty.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
That's the point. Man and gorilla have more similar genomes than man lemurs, who have more similar genomes than man and sharks, and man looks more like a gorilla than a lemur, and more like a lemur than a shark.

Interesting topic. You might agree: In the transition from prehuman apes to human apes, we see the foramen magnum, the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord passes, go from the occipital (posterior) position to the underside of the skull with the advent of bipedalism, the brow ridges flatten, the jutting forward of the lower face flattens as the muzzle disappears, the chin appears, and the teeth evolve - smaller canines, less enamel, and more vertical / less angled forward - to reflect the addition of meat to the diet and eventually the advent of fire. The cranial capacity more than triples as the low forehead became more human-like, the sagittal crests disappear, the temporal fossae - the depressions on the side of the upper skull - become shallower as jaw musculature diminishes, the shape of the cheeks (zygomatic arch) changes as the jaw musculature passing through diminishes, and the size of the lower jaw (mandible) diminishes as does the nuchal ridge in the lower back of the skull to which neck musculature attaches. There are also changes in the size of the ear holes, and the nose goes from flat to pointy during the transition from ancestral ape to modern man.

It might be difficult to decide which forms are ancestral rather than cousins, but man and gorilla definitely have common ancestors going back from where non-orangutan great apes (hominines - this week, anyway; the taxonomy is evolving) bifurcated into what would become gorillas from what would become man and chimps/bonobos (hominins) all the way back to the beginning of evolution. You and I have a last common ancestor, but it might be difficult to determine who that was. If you pick somebody, and we don't have an accurate genealogy, we can't know if either or both of us descended from that person or maybe form its sibling instead. But we know that such a person or couple must have existed. Likewise with the last common ancestor for any two clades.
Maybe Genghis Khan. I hear he had more success with the ladies than Gene Simmons.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
So we are all agreed that specia

So we are all agreed that cows evolved through artificial selection. Glad that is settled.

Catching wolves? What? Tasty? Somebody said that they are tasty? Wow!

More than likely, domestication leading to dogs had nothing to do with catching wolves and forcing them through a breeding program. Dogs evolved gradually from wolves that hung around camps for free food from the scrap heap.

Yeah, cows are tasty.

And don't forget cows are still a cow not an octopus.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
And don't forget cows are still a cow not an octopus.
Indeed.

Octopus is a gardener. Under the sea. Suddenly, slowly over several generations instantly they be. Come and see with me.

Those species staying the same species when no one expects them to change into another species or for cows to give birth to donkeys or whatever. Good thing we have a theory that people can't twist in their confusion and unfounded disdain.

How is the insect photography going? Looks like you keep finding cool stuff. Cool to me anyway, but I'm bug geek.
 

Dan From Smithville

For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky
Staff member
Premium Member
Like I predicted, just more nonsense. No support at all.

Is anyone surprised?
Did you ever look at a beaver pond? Are they growing plants in the pond? No. The main function of the dam is to cause the formation of a pond that allows the beavers to build a lodge to live in safely surrounded by water. Is there any evidence that beavers have a language and science? No. Sure, they can communicate, but it isn't through an organized language with words and syntax. They don't farm fish, since they are not carnivores (piscivores). I think a beaver is a pretty fascinating mammal, but giving them fanciful abilities on a whim for no good reason doesn't explain anything and isn't useful information.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Did you ever look at a beaver pond? Are they growing plants in the pond? No. The main function of the dam is to cause the formation of a pond that allows the beavers to build a lodge to live in safely surrounded by water. Is there any evidence that beavers have a language and science? No. Sure, they can communicate, but it isn't through an organized language with words and syntax. They don't farm fish, since they are not carnivores (piscivores). I think a beaver is a pretty fascinating mammal, but giving them fanciful abilities on a whim for no good reason doesn't explain anything and isn't useful information.
I thought that they learned how to build dams from the ancient scientists.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And don't forget cows are still a cow not an octopus.
Wanna bet?

1679535132566.png
 
Top