Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

No argument in our language can be logical because our language is illogical.



Indeed!!! Which is why consciousness is so important. When large numbers of perfectly fit individuals can not survive a change in the niche then the species quickly adapts to the new conditions. This is "Adaptation" not "Evolution". The murder of large numbers of individuals based on genetic traits in an experiment shows adaptation.



Yes! They are fit. So why in the world would they change? As I've said numerous times all things change in reality. Nothing is static. But that doesn't mean that species gradually Evolve because f survival of the fittest.

All of our assumptions are false and are part and parcel of a confused language. There was once a world wide advanced civilization that spoke a different kind of language and used a different kind of science. The language became too complex over 12 centuries until it had to be abandoned in an event we know only as the "tower of babel". Much of the writing from after this era was an attempt to preserve knowledge that failed. Most of this writing evolved into what we call "religion" which is why the Bible is "accurate" and science so often is not. False assumptions and bad interpretation of experiment are the primary problems.

Holy books (including the Koran) derive from 40,000 years of science.

Ok I think I'm basically finished. Bye for now

 

[cladking]

Ok I think I'm basically finished. Bye for now

I must be on the right track if I'm off-putting to both religious and scientific types.

The world is a mess and it didn't get this way naturally or organically: it required the mismanagement and misunderstanding of men. Science is stuck in the 1920's and Evolution in the 1850's. Now we'll open pandora's box and find machine intelligence. We'll find our systems become so complex they can't be operated by specialists as communication fails across the many specialties. Everyone wants Evolution; you're about to get it. As always it will be very sudden and unpleasant to virtually every single individual.

 

[cladking]

...why marine fossils appear on the highest mountaintops (a private hypothesis),

388a. It is N. who inundated the land after it had come out of the ocean; it is N. who pulled up the papyrus;

"N" is a place holder for the dead king and in this case after his transmogrification into the water source. They could see by the marine fossils that the land had been in the ocean. The land was inundated again after it came out of the ocean.

This suggests a very detailed understanding of evolution. It was ancient theory derived from observation and logic. It was the exact same theory they had used to invent agriculture. Obviously the theory rested on sudden change in species since an individual could observe it and see it over a lifetime. They imposed an artificial bottleneck on wolves by selecting those with abnormal behavior and in this case the behavior was timidness. From this they got dogs. Most of these bottlenecks imposed on animals involved the selection (artificial imposition of bottlenecks) of timidness. Somehow, they understood this BEFORE they invented agriculture. Perhaps some individual accidently created upside down flies or some other such creature. By means of deduction and logic along with further observation it became theory and humans created the means by which homo omnisciencis survived the tower of babel. Farming saved our species until science could come along. Farming could be passed down as a craft or apprenticeship but science could not because it was the metaphysical Ancient Language.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I want to offer a different perspective. I agree that the story exists to account for the diversity of mutually unintelligible languages in the world, and unlike the naturalistic explanation for the evolution of the tree of families of languages, it does so from a moral perspective, which is to be expected in the shadow of a belief in a tri-omni god and a world that is much less than what that god could have made. i would add to your comment that they are all understood as punishments for disobedience. It's why we can't understand one another, why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed (likely from an impact from space), why marine fossils appear on the highest mountaintops (a private hypothesis), and why life is hard and short rather than paradisical.

The area I wanted to quibble over is the use of the word allegory. I contend that it is inappropriate to call these myths allegorical when what they are were best but incorrect guesses to explain observed phenomena life linguistic diversity. How is that different? An allegory is a specific literary form. It is fiction with a substitution of invented characters and events for known historical characters and events. Gulliver's Travels is a political allegory in which fantastical fictional characters substitute for prominent historical figures like Walpole in the British politics of Swift's era, symbolized by the rope dancer Flimnap. We know what these things stand for as did their author, and they are specific, not place-holders for what is not known.

That's not what these myths are. They are erroneous attempts to explain the reality the mythicists found around them. I think that the reason that such language is eschewed by believers (and even many unbelievers who esteem myths) is because the word allegory implies that the authors had knowledge of the actual historical event as Swift did when he wrote Gulliver's Travels, and really don't want to use language like wrong guesses.

What do you think? Is the Tower of Babel story an allegory where it's authors chose the Tower to symbolize mutatis mutandis the naturalistic evolution of language, or a speculation?

I will point out that I said "used as an allegory" and not "is an allegory". A minor, but I think, important distinction. One that marks interpretation of the reader and not meaning or intent of the writer as the defining criteria functionally. However, by the time these were written down, I think the intent of the writers was as moral tale to explain real world conditions even if the core stories originated as mere speculation out of ignorance. My view is based on a definition of allegory that matches the following I found on the internet as "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one". I suppose it comes down to which you consider the priority. Author intent or reader interpretation.

These were oral tales that very likely originated in the light of and as the speculation of cause you refer to. But they are also examples of the co-mingling of cultures and the appropriation of cultural content by one culture from another. We see that today as cultures, like living things are in a constant state of intermingling and evolution as a process and not a destination. Prior to being captured in writing, most of these tales likely grew in the telling while maintaining a reasonably consistent core. Very likely, the final written form we see today was the result of a summary of more than one oral tale whose origins are not recorded for us to know of other than as hints in other written works. There is evidence of this in several biblical stories that are widely recognized for that fact.

Is it the allegory of literature made famous by the development of novelization? I'm not so sure either, but can it be read and interpreted as allegory? I think so. At least in the final form.

Ultimately, these are tales of events with little or no historical evidence outside of the claims of the source they appear in. That to me seems the bottom line and makes using them as if they were some actual event dubious at the very least. Interpreting them as literal events isn't warranted on that basis in my opinion. Making claims of "the city and tower" as a speciation event seems entirely irrational and offers no valid explanation for biology, linguistics or modern culture and politics. It's just picking events for unknown reasons and weaving them into an incoherent tapestry of untested ideas, unfalsifiable claims, myth, fact, fantasy and erroneous and logically inconsistent claims with no basis and declaring it all as if it is an uncontested reality.

I think we can both agree with the latter.

Anyway, I'm more interested in an expansion of what you allude to about Sodom and Gomorrah. That is interesting to me. More than fictional ancient arts and sciences that have no rational basis outside of someone with a fanciful imagination and questionable association with the evidence supporting reality.

I'm curious too, if, during your work as a physician, you had much experience with those suffering from delusional disorder. We don't have to get into a deep discussion, but I would imagine you are at least trained to draw conclusions on the presentation of symptoms that might apply.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm more interested in an expansion of what you allude to about Sodom and Gomorrah.

This explains the hypothesis: Fire and brimstone: Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps destroyed by 'cosmic fireball,' evidence shows

I will point out that I said "used as an allegory" and not "is an allegory".

OK.

Incidentally, I see no reason not to think that the stories were not meant to be understood as historical truth. Had they been written in the light of today's scientific understanding, they would have been widely rejected like the claims of a flat earth are today and indeed like claims that it is an accurate telling of history are even by most believers.

I found on the internet as "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one"

What do you think the hidden meaning of the myth of the days of creation was? All I see there is the overt meaning - a best guess at a timetable for the creation of the world.

Have I shared my thoughts with you on why I think that timetable exists in that creation myth? From an earlier post, arguing that the days of creation were meant to be understood as 24-hour days:

​

Moreover, we know that the ancients believed that the days of creation were 24-hour periods. It's clear that the timeline was added to justify the commandment to honor the Sabbath every seventh day for 24 hours - from one sunset to the next one. And it's pretty easy to figure out why this one creation myth out of thousands has a calendar in it, suggesting that it was added later. This day of rest added to the creation story says to me that there was a transformation in human culture from a time when able-bodied people worked every day, as in the Hebrew's nomadic days, when social groups were smaller and religion was administered by one of them where they were, to a time when man had settled, populations became larger, and a centralized temple and an established priesthood needing to be supported by the community arose.​

​

A new work ethic was necessary to accommodate the need for people to travel to and from a central temple to bring tithes to the now full-time, professional priesthood and stay for services. Whereas once it was unacceptable to take a day off for anything less than illness, it now was necessary to make the opposite true: It became a sin to not do that. Put down that plowshare and shepherd's crook one day a week and take the family to synagogue, since it can't come to you.​

​

Odin and Tiamat didn't need to rest. Just this creator god. So why else embarrass this deity by implying it took six days to act and then had to rest? Why is that in this story?​

​

And why a week? What an unnatural unit of time. The three natural cycles are the 24-hour day, the 29.5-day month, and the 365.25-day year. Daily trips to the temple are too frequent and thus don't make sense, while monthly and yearly visits were too far apart, so a new unit of time was coined for this purpose of tithing every seven days. Thus was born the week and the weekend.​

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This explains the hypothesis: Fire and brimstone: Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps destroyed by 'cosmic fireball,' evidence shows

OK.

Incidentally, I see no reason not to think that the stories were not meant to be understood as historical truth.

Thanks for the link.

Originally, I think that is probably correct. Like any oral tale, they were meant to provide an answer for something experienced, but not understood or to buoy up belief in what the teller believed was an historical fact.

Had they been written in the light of today's scientific understanding, they would have been widely rejected like the claims of a flat earth are today and indeed like claims that it is an accurate telling of history are even by most believers.

I agree. They would not hold up at all as history with the knowledge we have and the methods we have to acquire knowledge. Much like a 40,000 year old advanced civilization that left no evidence of its existence.

What do you think the hidden meaning of the myth of the days of creation was? All I see there is the overt meaning - a best guess at a timetable for the creation of the world.

I'm not fond of the use of the adjective hidden in this. I see it more as an underlying story woven within the story on the surface. In this case, I think it is just designed to emphasize the cultural enthusiasm to place man as equal to God and the punishment for that disobedience. Of course, the priesthood benefits from a population that sees achievement as something to be feared.

Have I shared my thoughts with you on why I think that timetable exists in that creation myth? From an earlier post, arguing that the days of creation were meant to be understood as 24-hour days:

​

Moreover, we know that the ancients believed that the days of creation were 24-hour periods. It's clear that the timeline was added to justify the commandment to honor the Sabbath every seventh day for 24 hours - from one sunset to the next one. And it's pretty easy to figure out why this one creation myth out of thousands has a calendar in it, suggesting that it was added later. This day of rest added to the creation story says to me that there was a transformation in human culture from a time when able-bodied people worked every day, as in the Hebrew's nomadic days, when social groups were smaller and religion was administered by one of them where they were, to a time when man had settled, populations became larger, and a centralized temple and an established priesthood needing to be supported by the community arose.​

​

A new work ethic was necessary to accommodate the need for people to travel to and from a central temple to bring tithes to the now full-time, professional priesthood and stay for services. Whereas once it was unacceptable to take a day off for anything less than illness, it now was necessary to make the opposite true: It became a sin to not do that. Put down that plowshare and shepherd's crook one day a week and take the family to synagogue, since it can't come to you.​

​

Odin and Tiamat didn't need to rest. Just this creator god. So why else embarrass this deity by implying it took six days to act and then had to rest? Why is that in this story?​

​

And why a week? What an unnatural unit of time. The three natural cycles are the 24-hour day, the 29.5-day month, and the 365.25-day year. Daily trips to the temple are too frequent and thus don't make sense, while monthly and yearly visits were too far apart, so a new unit of time was coined for this purpose of tithing every seven days. Thus was born the week and the weekend.​

That's a pretty interesting idea for the origin of the week. Apparently, I'm not the only one that lives for them.

I find the human weakness often attributed to God to be a rather interesting and confounding aspect of the Bible. God regretted or recognized His own error in creating man and gave us the flood myth. It has always been puzzling to me that a omniscient being could be conceived of as having human frailty.

It is one reason I think literal interpretation is a poor means to interpret the Bible. In light of what we have learned in the last 2,000 years, I can't imagine how a person could rationally hold a literal interpretation today in light of all that intervening discovery. As some have pointed out, either believers accept what we have learned as part of the world God created and that literal interpretation is the wrong way to go or they must concede the very real possibility of a God that created and seeded false evidence to trick us. If the latter is the case, then I cannot imagine how a person can hold many of the contradictory views of the literalist or condemn those that accept the evidence.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This explains the hypothesis: Fire and brimstone: Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps destroyed by 'cosmic fireball,' evidence shows

OK.

Incidentally, I see no reason not to think that the stories were not meant to be understood as historical truth. Had they been written in the light of today's scientific understanding, they would have been widely rejected like the claims of a flat earth are today and indeed like claims that it is an accurate telling of history are even by most believers.

What do you think the hidden meaning of the myth of the days of creation was? All I see there is the overt meaning - a best guess at a timetable for the creation of the world.

Have I shared my thoughts with you on why I think that timetable exists in that creation myth? From an earlier post, arguing that the days of creation were meant to be understood as 24-hour days:

​

Moreover, we know that the ancients believed that the days of creation were 24-hour periods. It's clear that the timeline was added to justify the commandment to honor the Sabbath every seventh day for 24 hours - from one sunset to the next one. And it's pretty easy to figure out why this one creation myth out of thousands has a calendar in it, suggesting that it was added later. This day of rest added to the creation story says to me that there was a transformation in human culture from a time when able-bodied people worked every day, as in the Hebrew's nomadic days, when social groups were smaller and religion was administered by one of them where they were, to a time when man had settled, populations became larger, and a centralized temple and an established priesthood needing to be supported by the community arose.​

​

A new work ethic was necessary to accommodate the need for people to travel to and from a central temple to bring tithes to the now full-time, professional priesthood and stay for services. Whereas once it was unacceptable to take a day off for anything less than illness, it now was necessary to make the opposite true: It became a sin to not do that. Put down that plowshare and shepherd's crook one day a week and take the family to synagogue, since it can't come to you.​

​

Odin and Tiamat didn't need to rest. Just this creator god. So why else embarrass this deity by implying it took six days to act and then had to rest? Why is that in this story?​

​

And why a week? What an unnatural unit of time. The three natural cycles are the 24-hour day, the 29.5-day month, and the 365.25-day year. Daily trips to the temple are too frequent and thus don't make sense, while monthly and yearly visits were too far apart, so a new unit of time was coined for this purpose of tithing every seven days. Thus was born the week and the weekend.​

.

Given what we have achieved technologically in just the last 250 years, it seems rather silly that a tall building would be so damning to mankind. If the pyramids of Egypt are any example, we surpassed the ancient world with far more spectacular achievements having diverse languages than what is claimed for us with only a single language. We have sent a spaceship outside the boundaries of our solar system. If a, relatively, tall building fomented Divine retribution, what will that get us?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It looks, once again, like it is time to remind people that the terminology used to discuss evolution has definitions that are relevant to the context of the discussion. Personal and secret definitions of technical terminology confuse and obfuscate discussion. Most of us try and maintain openness and consistency in how we use these terms so that we can communicate effectively and get our points across to others.

Using accepted and widely used terminology properly is a rational thing to do in order to maintain the quality of the discussion and the debate.

I'll start with these often misused terms to set the pace. I'm sourcing Wikipedia for some since the information on there is valid, up to date, easily accessible, well-referenced and reasonably clear to layman as well as experts.

Genetic bottleneck.
A population bottleneck or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as specicide, widespread violence or intentional culling, and human population planning.
Population bottleneck - Wikipedia

Since this describes a reduction in population number and genetic variation, it in no way resembles selection used in artificial breeding. A breeder selects traits that are useful to people and tries to propagate those traits into the population. A breeder of border collies does not try to decimate the border collie population in order propagate some new trait they have discovered. The genetic variation and population size of border collies is not reduced. In fact, variation is increased due to the introgression of the new trait and underlying genetics.

A genetic bottleneck is not a speciation event. The species remains the same prior to and just after the bottleneck event.

Adaptation.
Adaptation is an term used to describe several conditions of which only one condition is the adaptation of evolution.

Here I will reference the work of John Maynard Smith in his book describing the theory of evolution.

Physiological versatility is adaptation where rapid physiological adjustment allows an organism to avoid predation by altering its appearance or maintain it's internal environment under stress. Flat fish changing color or me shivering in the cold or sweating in the hot sun are examples. There is no change in my genetics causing or resulting from the adjusted physiology.

The second condition also often referred to as adaptation is developmentally flexible. Gradual changes in structure that better allow an organism to survive in a new environment. Growing calluses on the hands from continuous manual labor that protects the hands from wearing injury is an example. The individual undergoing this change does not have a concomitant alteration of their genes resulting in the altered structure.

The final definition of adaptation is a change in the genes that can proliferate or fix in a population over time under the protection of some relevant selection.

Straight from Maynard Smith. "An animal or plant is genetically adapted to particular conditions if it possesses characters suiting it for life in those conditions, and if it develops those characters in all or most environments in which it is able to develop at all."

An animal that evolves a trait for increased heat tolerance will maintain that trait even if it is placed in a colder environment for instance.

Evolution is not wished away into a cornfield by semantic word games replacing evolution with adaptation. Genetic adaptation is evolution.

Due to the common use of adaptation and that it can describe different conditions it is often a source of confusion for those untrained in biological science. That ambiguity has, as well, been exploited by those intent on using it as a means of misinformation regarding what evolution is.

Maynard Smith, John. 1993. The Theory of Evolution (Canto) 3rd Edition. Pages 32-34.

Biological fitness.
Fitness (often denoted w or ω in population genetics models) is the quantitative representation of individual reproductive success. It is also equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation, made by the same individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype.
Fitness (biology) - Wikipedia

It is not how athletic or weak an individual is. Nor does it denote cultural issues of wealth or poverty. Nor moral position or judgement.

It is a determination of how traits under given selection enable a net increase in reproductive success of members of a population. If, in a warm environment, those members of the population have genes that provide them with greater heat tolerance, they will reproduce with greater success than those members of the population without those genes. It is not to say that those members without the heat tolerance genes won't reproduce, just that on average under the selection of that aspect of climate, they will reproduce less. Under continued selection, the population will gradually evolve to those members with the genes for greater heat tolerance.

Move that population to a colder climate and the selection shifts it in favor of those with genetics to tolerate the cold.

All individuals are not equally fit. This is a claim without the support of evidence or experiment.

Natural selection.
The modern, and more fitting an proper, term describing the environment as it acts on the various genotypes and phenotypes found in a population.

Natural selection does not mean that the beautiful and strong will survive and the weak and ugly will not. It means that those with traits suiting them for survival in a given environment will have greater fitness for that environment and reproduce more successfully on average.

"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in the heritable traits characteristic of a population over generations."
Natural selection - Wikipedia

Here is one experiment among many that demonstrate natural selection in a wild population.
Barrett, R.D.H., S. Laurent, R. Mallarino, S.P. Pfeifer, C.C.Y. Xu, M. Foll, K. Wakamatsu, J.S. Duke-Cohan, J.D. Jensen & HE. Hoekstra. 2019. Linking a mutation to survival in wild mice. Science. 363(6426): 499-504.
https://hoekstra.oeb.harvard.edu/files/hoekstra/files/barrett2019sci.pdf

The environment under discussion is the total environment experienced by members of a population and includes the internal and external as well as the biotic an abiotic aspects. It is not simply the weather.

There is no evidence supporting change in a population is under the direction of the population. This has not been supported by the small body of work to that end and has been refuted by more recent work showing that directed change is actually mis-identified natural selection.

Maisnier-Patin, S. & J.R. Roth. 2015. The origin of mutants under selection: how natural selection mimics mutagenesis (adaptive mutation). Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 7(7), a018176.
https://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/7/7/a018176.full.pdf

At some point I would like to further discuss how making up taxonomy and randomly renaming a species just cause is not science and is only self-serving nonsense that doesn't enhance discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This explains the hypothesis: Fire and brimstone: Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps destroyed by 'cosmic fireball,' evidence shows

OK.

Incidentally, I see no reason not to think that the stories were not meant to be understood as historical truth. Had they been written in the light of today's scientific understanding, they would have been widely rejected like the claims of a flat earth are today and indeed like claims that it is an accurate telling of history are even by most believers.

What do you think the hidden meaning of the myth of the days of creation was? All I see there is the overt meaning - a best guess at a timetable for the creation of the world.

Have I shared my thoughts with you on why I think that timetable exists in that creation myth? From an earlier post, arguing that the days of creation were meant to be understood as 24-hour days:

​

Moreover, we know that the ancients believed that the days of creation were 24-hour periods. It's clear that the timeline was added to justify the commandment to honor the Sabbath every seventh day for 24 hours - from one sunset to the next one. And it's pretty easy to figure out why this one creation myth out of thousands has a calendar in it, suggesting that it was added later. This day of rest added to the creation story says to me that there was a transformation in human culture from a time when able-bodied people worked every day, as in the Hebrew's nomadic days, when social groups were smaller and religion was administered by one of them where they were, to a time when man had settled, populations became larger, and a centralized temple and an established priesthood needing to be supported by the community arose.​

​

A new work ethic was necessary to accommodate the need for people to travel to and from a central temple to bring tithes to the now full-time, professional priesthood and stay for services. Whereas once it was unacceptable to take a day off for anything less than illness, it now was necessary to make the opposite true: It became a sin to not do that. Put down that plowshare and shepherd's crook one day a week and take the family to synagogue, since it can't come to you.​

​

Odin and Tiamat didn't need to rest. Just this creator god. So why else embarrass this deity by implying it took six days to act and then had to rest? Why is that in this story?​

​

And why a week? What an unnatural unit of time. The three natural cycles are the 24-hour day, the 29.5-day month, and the 365.25-day year. Daily trips to the temple are too frequent and thus don't make sense, while monthly and yearly visits were too far apart, so a new unit of time was coined for this purpose of tithing every seven days. Thus was born the week and the weekend.​

.

I mention the distinction between "used as" and "is an" to indicate interpretation of a story. I'm not certain that even something written with a certain original intent can't be read allegorically for other meaning. Of course, this may open a Pandora's box for almost any interpretation, but given that paradigm already exists, I don't think it will be much of an addition.

The main point my use of allegory was meant to convey was that it is not an historical narrative describing events that are known to have taken place. If calling it speculation is the more correct description, that doesn't change the lack of historicity of the story under review.

Though I am enjoying the discussion. It has made me look and consider which I think is a key value of having your words questioned. I wish others would embrace that more happily or at all.

 

[cladking]

A breeder selects traits that are useful to people and tries to propagate those traits into the population. A breeder of border collies does not try to decimate the border collie population in order propagate some new trait they have discovered.

You're not thinking these things out.

If a breeder selects a male and female for timidness or any characteristic he is effectively not breeding every other individual. This is why I call it an "artificial bottleneck" instead of any of the inappropriate terms you use. It is much like what causes real change in species rather than "survival of the fittest" by any other name.

This is the observation that ancient humans used to invent agriculture.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This explains the hypothesis: Fire and brimstone: Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps destroyed by 'cosmic fireball,' evidence shows

OK.

Incidentally, I see no reason not to think that the stories were not meant to be understood as historical truth. Had they been written in the light of today's scientific understanding, they would have been widely rejected like the claims of a flat earth are today and indeed like claims that it is an accurate telling of history are even by most believers.

What do you think the hidden meaning of the myth of the days of creation was? All I see there is the overt meaning - a best guess at a timetable for the creation of the world.

Have I shared my thoughts with you on why I think that timetable exists in that creation myth? From an earlier post, arguing that the days of creation were meant to be understood as 24-hour days:

​

Moreover, we know that the ancients believed that the days of creation were 24-hour periods. It's clear that the timeline was added to justify the commandment to honor the Sabbath every seventh day for 24 hours - from one sunset to the next one. And it's pretty easy to figure out why this one creation myth out of thousands has a calendar in it, suggesting that it was added later. This day of rest added to the creation story says to me that there was a transformation in human culture from a time when able-bodied people worked every day, as in the Hebrew's nomadic days, when social groups were smaller and religion was administered by one of them where they were, to a time when man had settled, populations became larger, and a centralized temple and an established priesthood needing to be supported by the community arose.​

​

A new work ethic was necessary to accommodate the need for people to travel to and from a central temple to bring tithes to the now full-time, professional priesthood and stay for services. Whereas once it was unacceptable to take a day off for anything less than illness, it now was necessary to make the opposite true: It became a sin to not do that. Put down that plowshare and shepherd's crook one day a week and take the family to synagogue, since it can't come to you.​

​

Odin and Tiamat didn't need to rest. Just this creator god. So why else embarrass this deity by implying it took six days to act and then had to rest? Why is that in this story?​

​

And why a week? What an unnatural unit of time. The three natural cycles are the 24-hour day, the 29.5-day month, and the 365.25-day year. Daily trips to the temple are too frequent and thus don't make sense, while monthly and yearly visits were too far apart, so a new unit of time was coined for this purpose of tithing every seven days. Thus was born the week and the weekend.​

.

Humans need to rest. I don't find it very logical that an all powerful being would need to.

It's questions like that, as a child, which used to get me the stink eye from some adults at church.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not thinking these things out.

If a breeder selects a male and female for timidness or any characteristic he is effectively not breeding every other individual. This is why I call it an "artificial bottleneck" instead of any of the inappropriate terms you use. It is much like what causes real change in species rather than "survival of the fittest" by any other name.

This is the observation that ancient humans used to invent agriculture.

Sigh!

You are simply wrong.

What a breeder does, doesn't fit the definition of bottleneck.

The terms I use are appropriate. I'm actually a biologist in these discussions and not making claims that cannot be supported by any evidence, experiment or valid reference.

What exactly are your qualifications? Posting on numerous different platforms across the internet is not a qualification for scientist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not thinking these things out.

If a breeder selects a male and female for timidness or any characteristic he is effectively not breeding every other individual. This is why I call it an "artificial bottleneck" instead of any of the inappropriate terms you use. It is much like what causes real change in species rather than "survival of the fittest" by any other name.

This is the observation that ancient humans used to invent agriculture.

The best definition for an artificial bottleneck would be a person intentionally reducing the numbers and genetic diversity of a population. That in no way reflects what occurs during artificial breeding and you cannot show us that it does. All you can do, and the evidence supports me in this, is to repeat your erroneous claims as if they are some sort of valid fact.

What you do my friend, is entirely inappropriate in a discussion of the facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not thinking these things out.

If a breeder selects a male and female for timidness or any characteristic he is effectively not breeding every other individual. This is why I call it an "artificial bottleneck" instead of any of the inappropriate terms you use. It is much like what causes real change in species rather than "survival of the fittest" by any other name.

This is the observation that ancient humans used to invent agriculture.

I have read your work. You offer no reason to indicate that you know anything about the origin of agriculture or that your claims about it amount to more than just being wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not thinking these things out.

If a breeder selects a male and female for timidness or any characteristic he is effectively not breeding every other individual. This is why I call it an "artificial bottleneck" instead of any of the inappropriate terms you use. It is much like what causes real change in species rather than "survival of the fittest" by any other name.

This is the observation that ancient humans used to invent agriculture.

We have been breeding animals for thousands of years. There is no evidence that their genetic diversity has been radically reduced and certainly their populations probably exceed that of their wild ancestors. What is a more successful species than cattle, hogs, chickens, corn cotton and soy?

I am certainly not the one not thinking things through. But typically you show a propensity for projection in your writing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not thinking these things out.

If a breeder selects a male and female for timidness or any characteristic he is effectively not breeding every other individual. This is why I call it an "artificial bottleneck" instead of any of the inappropriate terms you use. It is much like what causes real change in species rather than "survival of the fittest" by any other name.

This is the observation that ancient humans used to invent agriculture.

Ancient Og: Me notice you corn tastes better than mine Ancient Ug. Mine grow stronger though Ancient Ug. Maybe we breed together and see what happen? Strong and tasty.

Ancient agriculture. No genetic bottleneck.

Good grief guy. Even if you think you are going to reinvent science, it might be good to know something about it first.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not thinking these things out.

If a breeder selects a male and female for timidness or any characteristic he is effectively not breeding every other individual. This is why I call it an "artificial bottleneck" instead of any of the inappropriate terms you use. It is much like what causes real change in species rather than "survival of the fittest" by any other name.

This is the observation that ancient humans used to invent agriculture.

Speaking of not thinking these things out, you seem to think that natural breeding between a male and female includes the sperm and eggs from other members of the species not actively breeding with the pair. That is what you are implying. I get the impression that you see a male and female mating is an artificial situation when the genetic information of others is not a part of that mating. The artificiality of the situation is that the breeding occurs at the will of the breeder and the control of the breeder under the controlled conditions set by the breeder.

Change in species is a gradual condition due to selection on variation within a population. Artificial breeding is evidence for this as it mimics natural selection with humans as the agent of selection.

You do realize that you can't learn by imagining that you know something and then assuming it to be correct without verifying it?

 

[YoursTrue]

Humans need to rest. I don't find it very logical that an all powerful being would need to.

It's questions like that, as a child, which used to get me the stink eye from some adults at church.

Resting doesn't mean God needs to sleep or relax. It meant that He stopped creating at that point. And well can begin at another point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exodus 31:17 New World Translation. It is an enduring sign between me and the people of Israel,+ for in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested and refreshed himself.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exodus 31:17 New World Translation. It is an enduring sign between me and the people of Israel,+ for in six days Jehovah made the heavens and the earth and on the seventh day he rested and refreshed himself.

Right. Each day was not a 24-hour period.