Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder if it occurs to some people that they have fashioned claims so radical, contradictory, so diametrically opposed to logic and reason and without basis to the point that no one bothers to even acknowledge them any longer. That the thing that seems to have been contrived to get the attention of others actually drives them away.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've dealt with this many times before with you and explained my position in brief, so why do you again post questions like this? And who are you to question someone else's faith? Have you no shame?

I get that a lot too. I take it with a grain of salt though. Since it is my understanding that the principles of that faith group are that I am damned for eternity simply by not being a member and blindly consuming everything they claim.

But it is insulting. Also, I think it is sometimes done to shake someone off that is asking questions and providing answers that are not very welcome.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I wonder if it occurs to some people that they have fashioned claims so radical, contradictory, so diametrically opposed to logic and reason and without basis to the point that no one bothers to even acknowledge them any longer. That the thing that seems to have been contrived to get the attention of others actually drives them away.

You might be referring to whether apologists understand that their message is often counterproductive and support's the skeptic's belief that he is right and the apologist wrong. I ask apologists that from time to time. Do they understand that their "ministry" does this, but think that they are still obligated to continue as if it were God's will, or are they unaware of the effect their message has? Ask one the hypothetical that if his apologetics were actually driving people further from belief, would he want to know that and modify it, and you'll never get an answer. Never. None will say yes or no.

This comment comes from a post a few months old now:

"This would be a fine example of you undermining your ethos ... I don't think you care about your meta-message or how counterproductive you are at your apparent purpose, which I presume includes being taken seriously. If you cared about that, you would care about how you are perceived."

His reply came two posts later, and didn't address that matter at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If all individuals are species, species and individual being synonymous, that renders the word species meaningless. What would it mean? Species do not interbreed, but if species are individuals, there technically is no other species for that species to breed with anyway. Species is a term describing a group and not an individual. You might as well synonymize crowd with individual for all the sense it makes.

If all change is synonymized with adaptation, where the relevant application of the term is with genetics and evolution, then that term too, is rendered useless.

It is a game of semantics employed by someone that considers their understanding to be greater than anyone else, while their words reveal that they know very little about the subject matter discussed. They have picked positions and then try to force everything to fit those positions no matter how delusional and fantastic those positions might be.

The only evidence claimed is the repetition of unsupported claims. Grand circular arguments that assume their conclusions and nothing more. No substance. Fan fiction that seemingly is viewed as reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You might be referring to whether apologists understand that their message is often counterproductive and support's the skeptic's belief that he is right and the apologist wrong. I ask apologists that from time to time. Do they understand that their "ministry" does this, but think that they are still obligated to continue as if it were God's will, or are they unaware of the effect their message has? Ask one the hypothetical that if his apologetics were actually driving people further from belief, would he want to know that and modify it, and you'll never get an answer. Never. None will say yes or no.

This comment comes from a post a few months old now:

"This would be a fine example of you undermining your ethos ... I don't think you care about your meta-message or how counterproductive you are at your apparent purpose, which I presume includes being taken seriously. If you cared about that, you would care about how you are perceived."

His reply came two posts later, and didn't address that matter at all.

Winner Frube!

I see I am not alone in recognizing this. That is why I ask the advice of others. Sometimes they can see my own mistakes that I often overlook. It helps to learn not to overlook them too. But when a person comes with the idea that what they have is absolute, I don't see them able to learn anything outside that circle and your example supports that so well.

Having questions or challenging a specific interpretation of Scripture with the idea of finding an improved understanding and better interpretation marks you as not a "true Christian" as much or more than a declaration of atheism does with many apologists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why do you want to call all communication signals words? This is where the ambiguity is introduced. For increased clarity we need increased granularity in language, that is, distinct concepts get distinct terms. What you are doing is the opposite here - conflating distinct concepts by giving them the same name, which facilitates equivocation and loss of fidelity in communication (how close the message received is to the one intended).

Words as abstract symbols with learned, arbitrary definitions are distinct from other kinds of signals. The former require consciousness.

I think that you're referring to the claim that no member of any species naturally gave birth to a member of another species.

The paradox is that it seems that since once there were no human beings and now there are, there must have been a beginning to humanity, yet no first human can be defined or identified.

They're working on a beaver tail slap version.

Did you mean that species comprise individuals (that's a hard word to use properly)? The change in individuals is not biological evolution unless it is change in the DNA of a germ cell that will someday fertilize another germ cell and become part of the population's gene pool.

Another warning? I see a few a day these days. Somebody on another thread was referring to not throwing out the baby with the bath water when leaving religion, as if something of value were being left behind without any attempt to characterize what that is, what its value is, and what the cost of not heeding the warning might be. Then I hear about empiricism being a myopic perspective that misses so much truth, but when asked where's the beef, we get a vegan nothing burger. We hear of evolution being in crisis, but nothing close toa crisis can be identified. And you depict science as wrong-minded and on the wrong track, needing to be rethought from the ground up, but don't point to any specific problem, say why it's a problem, offer any solution, or show why it's a solution. Just warnings that the sky is falling.

There are a number of authors in what has been termed "The Golden Age of Science Fiction" that employed some aspect of their imagined view of the dynamics of alien languages where the alien words conveyed multiple and very deep meaning for concepts. Concepts we mere humans often couldn't fully understand with our limited abilities and should be in awe of rather than learn anything. Whenever I see chatter about "ancient language", beaver language and the meaning of words on here lately, I harken back to those books I read as a kid and find the similarity interesting, even telling.

I find the employment of secret, personal, alternative definitions to the well-established, widely used technical terminology of biology to be equally, interesting, frustrating and telling as well. To me it means that a person doesn't really understand the facts, concepts and conclusions they are going on about and don't offer any understanding to those reading that chatter.

If you have to invent new meaning for words, invent new, but meaningless nomenclature to describe conditions in a manner inconsistent with the facts, those beaver slaps might as well be seen as evidence for fishing by a herbivore.

Among biologists, terms like genetic bottleneck, adaptation, species and consciousness have meaning. Even where definitions are worded differently or parts weighted a little differently, communication doesn't break down. Explanations of those differences are given and argued so that understanding is conveyed. But when you have secret, alternative meanings that go further and describe conditions that don't even exist, then there is no communication. It is just an oracle repeating nonsense.

 

[cladking]

Words as abstract symbols with learned, arbitrary definitions are distinct from other kinds of signals. The former require consciousness.

Life is consciousness. Consciousness communicates.

The kind of consciousness you are using as a definition exists ONLY in modern humans (homo omnisciencis). No other species has ever defined even a single word nor could they understand the concept of a "definition". No other species can conceive of any sort of abstraction. No other species even experiences "thought".

The former require consciousness.

We (homo circularis ratiocinatio) started with the assumption that thought is existence(I think therefore I am) so of course we ascribe other consciousness as mere "instinct". A bee instinctively tells it's family and friends where to find food because it's best for the species. The bee doesn't know about "survival of the fittest" so doesn't keep everything bottled up. It's not altruism that stops him from dancing on the starved ruins of the other bees; it's nature as well as the knowledge that what's best for the hive is generally what's best for every individual.

Bees are true to their nature to work cooperatively and Darwin was true to his nature (our nature) to act on his beliefs and to seek justification for inequality of opportunity and justice for humans.

 

[cladking]

No other species can conceive of any sort of abstraction. No other species even experiences "thought".

We must define "word" in a way that embraces the referent and here the referent is a part of a "sentence" that is used to communicate.

Part of the reason we can't see sentences in other other species' communication is that we are trying to parse every language just like our own but no other species composes sentences in such a manner and the language of no other species can be parsed. Where our sentences uses words with no fixed meaning in an order that implies meaning all other language (including extinct homo sapiens) use a format related to the laws of nature. Sentences instead of being subject > verb > predicate are instead "subject > object > implied meaning. These other languages have sentences with a single meaning and conform to natural law as that species understands that law. They are logical and the language is hence metaphysical. ie- the language is the basis of the science of that species.

We aren't looking for communication in animals or AI. We are looking for ourselves and our own unique way to think. If machine intelligence created itself today we wouldn't recognize it until it took over.

There are many reasons people can't see this. But no matter how obvious something is you can't see it until you believe it. We believe in "intelligence" but there is no such condition and we confuse things like clarity of thought, rapidity of thinking, and clever ideas with an abstraction that holds some people are more intelligent than others and the devil take the hindmost because they are less fit anyway.

It is a perspective and paradigm we have been passed down through language and old wives tales. Darwin isn't science. Darwin is a manifestation of the cockeyed beliefs we acquired through default. Real science does not support Darwin.

 

[cladking]

...alternative definitions to the well-established, widely used technical terminology of biology...

There is no word whatsoever in biology with a fixed meaning. There is no word in any language today with a fixed meaning.

It's true that some words like "Evolution" are relatively fixed but this is due to the fact that this word represents cutting edge science. Be that as it may though every single peer and scientist on the planet have a distinct model for "evolution".

I do not argue "words". Every word means what the author says it does and everything else remains a semantical argument; mere word games.

If you want to argue ides or sentences, I'm your man. If you want to play word games, I am not.

 

[cladking]

Did you mean that species comprise individuals (that's a hard word to use properly)? The change in individuals is not biological evolution unless it is change in the DNA of a germ cell that will someday fertilize another germ cell and become part of the population's gene pool.

There is reason to believe this is not literally true but this was not what I was talking about.

When a female hits menopause there will be no more off spring and conversely when girls (women) are mature enough they can start reproducing. If an individual decides to marry and wants children the odds go up quite a bit. Since every single individual is different not only does the species change with birth but at death and even bar mitzva. Life is change and not all change is genetic. Not all off spring are identical to the parents genetically or in any other way. You can't step into the same river twice nor the same gene pool.

 

[cladking]

And you depict science as wrong-minded and on the wrong track, needing to be rethought from the ground up, but don't point to any specific problem, say why it's a problem, offer any solution, or show why it's a solution. Just warnings that the sky is falling.

I've said repeatedly that cosmology is mired in the 1920's with no unified field theorem. Archaeology is stuck in the 1880's. I've offered numerous solutions. I've repeatedly said what the causes are.

And you misunderstand my warning. The problem is not "science". The problem isn't even the belief in science; scientism. The problem is we are on a dangerous course where the few are buying science and using as an excuse to further control resources and human beings. The problems are manifold but at its heart is that the prevalent beliefs today are destructive to the human spirit and the commonweal.

The only possible solution is education but every year we allow them to ruin the schools more. Even in higher education science is often taught as mathematics and thought of as a kind of math that obeys mathematical principles. While I'm in some limited agreement with this latter people seem to forget that we don't yet have the math that represents reality.

Belief in science is dangerous to the individual and to the culture. "Science" has been weaponized to be used against the interests of the average man. The faster we spin down the drain the more people latch on to what they think is science but is actually something far more sinister.

 

[Audie]

If all individuals are species, species and individual being synonymous, that renders the word species meaningless. What would it mean? Species do not interbreed, but if species are individuals, there technically is no other species for that species to breed with anyway. Species is a term describing a group and not an individual. You might as well synonymize crowd with individual for all the sense it makes.

If all change is synonymized with adaptation, where the relevant application of the term is with genetics and evolution, then that term too, is rendered useless.

It is a game of semantics employed by someone that considers their understanding to be greater than anyone else, while their words reveal that they know very little about the subject matter discussed. They have picked positions and then try to force everything to fit those positions no matter how delusional and fantastic those positions might be.

The only evidence claimed is the repetition of unsupported claims. Grand circular arguments that assume their conclusions and nothing more. No substance. Fan fiction that seemingly is viewed as

It's so much nonsense. Ask the Boss for me, to send us some
good creationists? He n me are not on speaking terms or I would.

 

[Audie]

There are a number of authors in what has been termed "The Golden Age of Science Fiction" that employed some aspect of their imagined view of the dynamics of alien languages where the alien words conveyed multiple and very deep meaning for concepts. Concepts we mere humans often couldn't fully understand with our limited abilities and should be in awe of rather than learn anything. Whenever I see chatter about "ancient language", beaver language and the meaning of words on here lately, I harken back to those books I read as a kid and find the similarity interesting, even telling.

I find the employment of secret, personal, alternative definitions to the well-established, widely used technical terminology of biology to be equally, interesting, frustrating and telling as well. To me it means that a person doesn't really understand the facts, concepts and conclusions they are going on about and don't offer any understanding to those reading that chatter.

If you have to invent new meaning for words, invent new, but meaningless nomenclature to describe conditions in a manner inconsistent with the facts, those beaver slaps might as well be seen as evidence for fishing by a herbivore.

Among biologists, terms like genetic bottleneck, adaptation, species and consciousness have meaning. Even where definitions are worded differently or parts weighted a little differently, communication doesn't break down. Explanations of those differences are given and argued so that understanding is conveyed. But when you have secret, alternative meanings that go further and describe conditions that don't even exist, then there is no communication. It is just an oracle repeating nonsense.

Sci fi has often employed the lone wolf genius svientist.
working far beyond the li it's of Knowledge.

You friend seems to have bought into this fanciful stereotype.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sci fi has often employed the lone wolf genius svientist.
working far beyond the li it's of Knowledge.

You friend seems to have bought into this fanciful stereotype.



IN

That seems to fit the pattern that is continually repeated despite saying nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's so much nonsense. Ask the Boss for me, to send us some
good creationists? He n me are not on speaking terms or I would.

It is a lot of nonsense with no means to establish any sort of dialog. Whether you engage it or not it is repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum. When fantasy is branded fact there is no common basis for a rational person have a discussion. How do you have a conversation with those that believe in fish-farming beavers and ice cream-invoked demons?

I would love to have a conversation whose knowledge is more grounded and objections have some sort of logical or demonstrable basis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've spent most of my life studying nature. In the beginning as an eager and curious child. Then more formally until I was a young adult choosing a profession to focus on a study of insects.

I find it depressing to know a lifetime's worth of knowledge in biology to have someone just dismiss all that out of hand with word games and invented reality. Perhaps, though I should be more sad for people like that. At least I am open to learning I am wrong and don't pretend to know everything. I haven't fallen into that trap. And having seen what happens when you do, perhaps my depression of self is misdirected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So lets start with beavers. They are aquatic rodents that feed on tree bark and other plants. They do construct dams, but these appear to be to provide a pond that acts as a moat to protect from predators that would otherwise reach the lodge they construct as home.

The evidence indicates that their behavior is an evolved trait and no, I REPEAT NOONE has provided evidence that the dam construction is intended to alter their environment, though it does. There is no evidence that they purposefully carry out agriculture or have an organized language like even the most primitive of that of humans. The apparent basis for the evolution is from beaver feeding habits and host preference.

Anyone saying these things is just making claims. Those claims and the repetition of them are not evidence to support the claims.

Anthropomorphizing beavers isn't an answer that tells us anything useful about beavers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It can be argued that construction activities of beavers are an extension of their phenotype which has a genetic basis.

 

[cladking]

Anthropomorphizing beavers isn't an answer that tells us anything useful about beavers.

Far from it. Beavers are as unlike homo omniscience as all other consciousness. We share very few similarities with any other type (species) of consciousness in existence which are all very similar. The characteristics that we do share with other life is based largely on brain structure.

So lets start with beavers. They are aquatic rodents that feed on tree bark and other plants. They do construct dams, but these appear to be to provide a pond that acts as a moat to protect from predators that would otherwise reach the lodge they construct as home.

The evidence indicates that their behavior is an evolved trait and no, I REPEAT NOONE has provided evidence that the dam construction is intended to alter their environment, though it does. There is no evidence that they purposefully carry out agriculture or have an organized language like even the most primitive of that of humans. The apparent basis for the evolution is from beaver feeding habits and host preference.

I have been told and observation seems to support that most herbivores will eat meat as opportunity and need presents. I've never actually seen a beaver eat a crawdad but have seen evidence to suggest one might have. But this is irrelevant because beavers most assuredly do eat largely aquatic plants and trees that grow in wet soil. They change a large area to suit their desires to a "T".

Beavers are very intelligent. Why would you think they don't communicate? Many far less intelligent species have quite "complex" languages. Surely beavers have as much need to communicate as crows or prairie dogs. Prairie Dog is estimated to have as many as 400 words. If it is formatted as a metaphysical language then they should have quite a bit to say and that needs to be said.


Entomology isn't going to be upended if I prove to be correct. It should be one of the least affected sciences. The primary change should merely be one of perspectives and givens. It will be found that insects are as conscious as any other species but more highly limited in knowledge and language. Individuals still have curiosity and cleverness. I once saw a migrating butterfly use my fire as an elevator to get to tree top level. Now that's pretty clever.

 

[Audie]

Make it stop