Darwin's Illusion

[Hamilton]

How else do you answer claims without evidence?

Repeated requests for evidence of your claims went unanswered but sarcasm got a response so I'd say it wasn't useless.

With counter evidence.
I was pretty clear about the futility of responding to the more hostile posts on this thread.

If all you wanted was any response for whatever, yes you got it. I am pleased to have made you happy. Now that I have done so, I hope you won't bother me anymore, at least until you have caught up with the state of research in biology and biochemistry. "There are more things in heaven and earth ... Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

[cladking]

So then you're not talking about babies communicating pre-linguistically from birth.

Metaphysical language is "linguistic". Like "all" language there are non verbal components but Ancient Language was as dependent on words as are modern languages. It can not be translated.

According to Chomsky, the rules of language are hard-wired into the brain a priori and force conception to occur as objects (nouns) and processes (verbs) with features (adjectives and adverbs) and in relation to one another (prepositions) - a sort of universal grammar imposed on all speakers in all languages.

Chomsky is wrong. Did I ever mention that all science is wrong and did I not list "linguistics" as one of the three "sciences" that is most wrong? Darwin was more right than Chomsky! Ancient Language was hard wired modern language is not. It is acquired when we are babies. All of its rules are acquired.

There is surprising variation in the structures of modern languages. Some actually have some similarities to Ancient Language such as Basque, Hawaiian, and Irish. Most of these similarities are superficial but they are interesting. My guess is that these similarities are the result of the hard wiring reasserting itself.

Are you aware of what's Broca's region is for? It's for articulation of speech, not comprehension (spoken or written) or the ability to think in language. I had a post-stroke patient with a Broca aphasia. He lost all speech except the f-word. It was the only word he could speak. I watch him in frustration with fully formed thoughts in mind that he was unable to launch followed by a few examples of the word he COULD speak.

I don't know. My hypothesis is that the wiring of the brocas area is reflected in the way people think. I'd remind you that there is no understanding of "consciousness" and not even a working definition. I'm on my own here. I have a well fleshed definition but exactly how this is propagated in an animal brain is beyond my ken and it's virtually certain that it is more complex in homo omnisciencis. Even if I'm right some of this stuff will not be understood for decades.

Like a patellar reflex. No thought required. No brain required.

Not quite. There is a gap where experience and knowledge come into play. But it's kindda like muscle memory so it's fast.

These words mean nothing to me without your clear description of what you think makes those comments controversial and what evidence you think makes them true

I have no clue what to say. Evidence is real even if it disagrees with our beliefs.

This is evidence for a universal, metaphysical, and binary language unique to homo sapiens. It was carried everywhere humans went for 40,000 years until the "tower of babel".

 

[John53]

With counter evidence.
I was pretty clear about the futility of responding to the more hostile posts on this thread.

If all you wanted was any response for whatever, yes you got it. I am pleased to have made you happy. Now that I have done so, I hope you won't bother me anymore, at least until you have caught up with the state of research in biology and biochemistry. "There are more things in heaven and earth ... Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I have no idea how asking someone for evidence of their claims is hostile. It's a public forum, all are welcome to respond within the rules of the forum. If you only want those who agree with you to respond go to a DIR.

 

[cladking]

I have no idea how asking someone for evidence of their claims is hostile. It's a public forum, all are welcome to respond within the rules of the forum. If you only want those who agree with you to respond go to a DIR.

I'm not trying to point fingers but asking for evidence after it is presented is hostile.

Quoting presented evidence and saying no evidence has been presented in even more hostile.

This goes on a great deal whenever anyone is suspected of heresy.

 

[John53]

I'm not trying to point fingers but asking for evidence after it is presented is hostile.

Quoting presented evidence and saying no evidence has been presented in even more hostile.

This goes on a great deal whenever anyone is suspected of heresy.

I've asked you for evidence of your claims and you have provide nothing other than an anecdote about upside down flies. How many times must I ask for evidence of claims before I can suspect there is none? Repeated claims without evidence is nothing more than proselytising.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ancient Language was as dependent on words as are modern languages. It can not be translated.

All symbolic language can be translated into other languages with a little loss of fidelity regarding subtle meaning. Whatever early man thought is thinkable today. However early man expressed his thoughts, those thoughts can be written in modern language if we know both languages well enough.

Chomsky is wrong

Not because you say so. You'll need more than a claim.

My hypothesis is that the wiring of the brocas area is reflected in the way people think.

And what support do you have for that idea? I told you why we believe that it is only involved in speech articulation, not thought. Destruction of the region results in no discernible intellectual loss. Shouldn't beliefs correspond to what is observed (correspondence theory of truth, verificationism)?

I'd remind you that there is no understanding of "consciousness" and not even a working definition.

I have a partial (not "no") understanding of consciousness, and a working definition for it. Don't we all? You seem to be using the word as if others know to what you refer.

What do you think this graphic tells us?

 

[blü 2]

He won't because his standard of evidence is subjective. Where as you are special, because you are not at all subjective. You are as you nothing, that is how objective you are.

We can discuss the nature of his evidence when he finally tells us what it is.

We didn't say he had evidence. He said that. If it's subjective let him say that too.

 

[blü 2]

People see what they believe. When I cite evidence and I have cited tens of thousands specific pieces of evidence and could cite far far more if I were challenged or anyone chose to discuss this instead of their own beliefs. Evidence that supports my theory is handwaved, gain said and turned into strawmen. I am "corrected" often which is when instead of arguing against the evidence I present, believers in Darwin and the status quo merely state THEIR OWN BELIEF about its meaning. People very very rarely actually address any of my evidence OR any of my arguments. They see reality through the kaleidoscope of their own beliefs so of course my beliefs and my evidence is distorted and confused into a misty aura with no meaning except to those suffering from the inability to accept modern beliefs.

I don't expect you to see this either. I've cited dozens of times and then it is quoted in the very post I am told I have no evidence at all. I consider much of my evidence to be profound because it flies in the face of belief and points in only one direction; the direction of reality. Here is an example I'm sure you'll recognize since I've posted it so many times with no significant contradiction. You still won't see it but you should recognize the words because they've been posted so many times. History doesn't start for 1200 years after the invention of writing. This is a fact and all facts are evidence. All facts should be explained by prevailing theory or the very least no fact should contradict prevailing theory. Some anomalies are only natural because of the reductionistic nature of science and model formation in each individual. But this fact (go back and find it since you missed it many times before) contradicts everything we believe. It is not explicable in terms of the models and theory that comprise the status quo. The first thing people would have recorded would be ancient stories, history, and the knowledge they acquired to do everything they did (science and/ or metaphysics. Yet nothing at all survives. Nothing was copied for preservation. Nothing survives in whole or in part. Indeed there are blank pieces of paper all the way back to the invention of writing but nothing that is written on for many centuries. Then most of the writing that does survive is indecipherable gobblety gook that modern "theory" actually believes is incantation!!! I should not need to point out the illogic of this so invite the reader to find it himself. Scholars believe that the only bits of writing that survive are representative of all the writing and imply the reason for the invention of writing was to create lists. It simply never occurred to them that what survived is a result of the mother of all sample bias. They pull things out of tombs and "temples" and extrapolate it as representative of a culture and society. They interpret and translate everything in terms of later beliefs nd then assume the writing is the earliest example of superstition. It's all nonsense. People really do make sense but only in terms of premises and OUR premises are at fault.

I have shown massive amounts of evidence to prove this. Some of this evidence is equally profound but it is equally invisible to believers. The exact same "symbols" are inscribed in caves all over the world. This is wholly inexplicable in terms of all applicable theory but is fully consistent, even expected by my theory which was developed BEFORE these symbols were even known.

Across the board all evidence and experiment agrees with my theory but not only is this invisible to believers but the very words are invisible. They are brushed off in the parsing. They don't even make it to consciousness. If the words are seen thy are gainsaid. No, nobody has ever cited an experiment that contradicts any part of my theory. Yes, there have been earlier incarnations of the theory that were disproven by readers but NOT the current version.

Here's another bunch of words which is not parsed properly, gainsaid, ignored, handwaved, and twisted into something that can be dismissed out of hand. Most won't see it and will just think I'm repeating myself again! Reality occurs in events. On every level from the microscopic to big bangs everything is an event that occurred due to the logic (laws) of nature that applied to initial conditions. But Darwin thinks that change in species is different. He actually believes that tiny changes accumulate until no new species arises (every individual is the same species as its parents). His position springs naturally from his many assumptions I've listed many times even in the last several days. He could have have come up with no other wrong conclusion than the wrong conclusion he invented. He believes nature has some deficiency that stops her from making one fit individual after another. Nature isn't alive or conscious but nature isn't like humans who waste lives, effort, and wealth. Individuals are all different because nature "knows" that to survive bottlenecks and to propagate life that there have to be different genes in each species. This is almost certainly what all those unused genes are in the genome; directions for life to survive under any conditions whatsoever. Short of being entirely consumed in a supernova or crashing into a red giant odds are good nothing could extinguish life on earth.

But I know in advance there will be no discussion of any facts because my evidence is invisible. It will be parsed wrong, hand waved, and turned into straw. People will play word games.

If anyone wants to discuss the evidence I'm your man. Don't expect a reply to word games or lectures. I don't agree with your premises (the premises) of modern science so I'm interested only in logic, experiment, and fact. I wouldn't mind some "evidence" if common sense is used in its citation. Interpretations of fact based on failed or disputed paradigms are irrelevant.

All those words and still nothing of WHAT THIS EVIDENCE IS OR WHERE YOU STATED IT.

IF you actually have any evidence THEN you're doing yourself a great disservice by failing to set it out.

And meanwhile you can hardly be surprised that people like me feel forced to the conclusion that you have nothing by way of evidence at all.

 

[cladking]

I've asked you for evidence of your claims and you have provide nothing other than an anecdote about upside down flies. How many times must I ask for evidence of claims before I can suspect there is none? Repeated claims without evidence is nothing more than proselytising.

This is hostile.

 

[cladking]

All symbolic language can be translated into other languages with a little loss of fidelity regarding subtle meaning.

AL was representative, not symbolic.

Whatever early man thought is thinkable today.

Ancient man didn't think. We can't really do this.

However early man expressed his thoughts, those thoughts can be written in modern language if we know both languages well enough.

It is probably virtually impossible to understand AL and modern language. It is impossible to understand AL if you already understand modern language. This is why writing was invented. Messages needed to be carried to the illiterate without drift in meaning.

 

[John53]

This is hostile.

In your opinion, in my opinion making claims and refusing to post evidence is hostile.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I must be weird, I enjoy learning things and I don't mind being proven wrong. Getting people to offer up the evidence to learn from seems to be the difficult bit.

I don't get it either. All I see are word games to get out of providing evidence. Or blaming others for not providing it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He won't because his standard of evidence is subjective. Where as you are special, because you are not at all subjective. You are as you nothing, that is how objective you are.

I don't know that there is a standard of evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In your opinion, in my opinion making claims and refusing to post evidence is hostile.

Mine too. And then trying to pass off some story that believers can't see my special answers. That treating us like we're stupid if you ask me.

I point out that there is no evidence when there are just claims without evidence. It isn't that I don't see anything and I don't see evidence that others aren't seeing something that is actually there.

This word game where a request was made to list the objections to Lenski's E. coli study and the response is that the person has objections in three categories isn't what was requested. It doesn't tell us anything that anyone can accept or reject. It's a word game.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

People see what they believe. When I cite evidence and I have cited tens of thousands specific pieces of evidence and could cite far far more if I were challenged or anyone chose to discuss this instead of their own beliefs. Evidence that supports my theory is handwaved, gain said and turned into strawmen. I am "corrected" often which is when instead of arguing against the evidence I present, believers in Darwin and the status quo merely state THEIR OWN BELIEF about its meaning. People very very rarely actually address any of my evidence OR any of my arguments. They see reality through the kaleidoscope of their own beliefs so of course my beliefs and my evidence is distorted and confused into a misty aura with no meaning except to those suffering from the inability to accept modern beliefs.

I don't expect you to see this either. I've cited dozens of times and then it is quoted in the very post I am told I have no evidence at all. I consider much of my evidence to be profound because it flies in the face of belief and points in only one direction; the direction of reality. Here is an example I'm sure you'll recognize since I've posted it so many times with no significant contradiction. You still won't see it but you should recognize the words because they've been posted so many times. History doesn't start for 1200 years after the invention of writing. This is a fact and all facts are evidence. All facts should be explained by prevailing theory or the very least no fact should contradict prevailing theory. Some anomalies are only natural because of the reductionistic nature of science and model formation in each individual. But this fact (go back and find it since you missed it many times before) contradicts everything we believe. It is not explicable in terms of the models and theory that comprise the status quo. The first thing people would have recorded would be ancient stories, history, and the knowledge they acquired to do everything they did (science and/ or metaphysics. Yet nothing at all survives. Nothing was copied for preservation. Nothing survives in whole or in part. Indeed there are blank pieces of paper all the way back to the invention of writing but nothing that is written on for many centuries. Then most of the writing that does survive is indecipherable gobblety gook that modern "theory" actually believes is incantation!!! I should not need to point out the illogic of this so invite the reader to find it himself. Scholars believe that the only bits of writing that survive are representative of all the writing and imply the reason for the invention of writing was to create lists. It simply never occurred to them that what survived is a result of the mother of all sample bias. They pull things out of tombs and "temples" and extrapolate it as representative of a culture and society. They interpret and translate everything in terms of later beliefs nd then assume the writing is the earliest example of superstition. It's all nonsense. People really do make sense but only in terms of premises and OUR premises are at fault.

I have shown massive amounts of evidence to prove this. Some of this evidence is equally profound but it is equally invisible to believers. The exact same "symbols" are inscribed in caves all over the world. This is wholly inexplicable in terms of all applicable theory but is fully consistent, even expected by my theory which was developed BEFORE these symbols were even known.

Across the board all evidence and experiment agrees with my theory but not only is this invisible to believers but the very words are invisible. They are brushed off in the parsing. They don't even make it to consciousness. If the words are seen thy are gainsaid. No, nobody has ever cited an experiment that contradicts any part of my theory. Yes, there have been earlier incarnations of the theory that were disproven by readers but NOT the current version.

Here's another bunch of words which is not parsed properly, gainsaid, ignored, handwaved, and twisted into something that can be dismissed out of hand. Most won't see it and will just think I'm repeating myself again! Reality occurs in events. On every level from the microscopic to big bangs everything is an event that occurred due to the logic (laws) of nature that applied to initial conditions. But Darwin thinks that change in species is different. He actually believes that tiny changes accumulate until no new species arises (every individual is the same species as its parents). His position springs naturally from his many assumptions I've listed many times even in the last several days. He could have have come up with no other wrong conclusion than the wrong conclusion he invented. He believes nature has some deficiency that stops her from making one fit individual after another. Nature isn't alive or conscious but nature isn't like humans who waste lives, effort, and wealth. Individuals are all different because nature "knows" that to survive bottlenecks and to propagate life that there have to be different genes in each species. This is almost certainly what all those unused genes are in the genome; directions for life to survive under any conditions whatsoever. Short of being entirely consumed in a supernova or crashing into a red giant odds are good nothing could extinguish life on earth.

But I know in advance there will be no discussion of any facts because my evidence is invisible. It will be parsed wrong, hand waved, and turned into straw. People will play word games.

If anyone wants to discuss the evidence I'm your man. Don't expect a reply to word games or lectures. I don't agree with your premises (the premises) of modern science so I'm interested only in logic, experiment, and fact. I wouldn't mind some "evidence" if common sense is used in its citation. Interpretations of fact based on failed or disputed paradigms are irrelevant.

This looks like word salad and there is no evidence in support of your claims to be found here. It looks like you've built a backdoor to get out of providing evidence by claiming it is there, but only special people can see it. That's ridiculous.

I don't see any reason to continue engaging with you. I have reached the limits of my patience. You refuse to work with anyone on here that doesn't just believe you without question.

Best of luck.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think I've worked this out. I should believe whatever is posted without question or need of evidence. Everyone is right (except Darwin of course).

Of course. That's the way you do it. Accept all assertions for nothing, hate Darwin for free. It's a dire strait..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How else do you answer claims without evidence?

You can ask for evidence. But how often do you have to ask and get nothing before it is clear that is the only thing you will get.

Repeated requests for evidence of your claims went unanswered but sarcasm got a response so I'd say it wasn't useless.

Yes. That seems to be the way. You can make a post that talks down to others, but don't dare be sarcastic in response.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In your opinion, in my opinion making claims and refusing to post evidence is hostile.

People that refuse to present evidence and use word games or those that make posts talking down to others maybe need to get a thicker skin or a better, more open-minded approach. Perhaps provide the evidence so many keep asking for.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sarcasm.

Well, you start off with extraordinary claims that are not correct. And some of the standard creationist tropes about people getting fired for supporting alternatives. The evidence indicates that anyone that got in trouble was over teaching their beliefs as fact and it was very few.

There is a controversy in science regarding modification of the theory of evolution, but the legitimate scientists don't reject what Darwin founded. They are still going to go with a theory of evolution, just one modified to fit what they feel isn't explained by the existing theory.

Then you mention the views of lawyers on the theory of evolution. What a lawyer thought was what started the ID movement to get religion dressed up like science so they could teach Christianity in school at public expense.

The whole tenor of your post was talking down to us as if we don't know what scientists are.

It seemed very closed-minded to me and worthy of sarcasm.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not trying to point fingers but asking for evidence after it is presented is hostile.

Quoting presented evidence and saying no evidence has been presented in even more hostile.

This goes on a great deal whenever anyone is suspected of heresy.

You are asked for evidence, because you really do not provide any. Your response is word games.

You make claims that are obviously claims and not evidence. Your claim that one of the assumptions of Darwin was stable populations wasn't evidence and not only that, was wrong.

Your claiming categories of objection is not evidence. It doesn't even tell us what you actual objections are.

I guess you really believe you are doing something, but you aren't. Like I say, I find no further reason to engage with you. I have found no value in it.