Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

Others can't see any concealed evidence you claim supports you, and so should consider your claim unevidenced until they see evidence themselves according to Hitchens' Razor.

This is highly illogical. Science and reason are not group projects. "Evidence" is not set in concrete but rather interpretative.

It simply doesn't matter if anyone else can't see the same "symbols" in caves all over the world or not. It doesn't matter who thinks they are evidence or not. Nobody gets to determine what is evidence or even what is real. It doesn't matter what anyone chooses to be able to see. It also doesn't matter what anyone thinks he sees such as gradual change in species by contemplating fossils. Reality doesn't care about opinions.

You are misapplying Hitchen's Razor and would be better advised to look more closely at ideas like "survival of the fittest" and "superstition made ancient people strong and wise". The reality is that superstition can only destroy and kill and this is why no other species can even have a superstition and why homo sapiens had no words that showed superstition OR ANY OTHER ABSTRACTION.

Again all people for all time since babel believe their reasons are sound and their knowledge is complete. If this isn't self evident then you need to study experiment and history. Of course you believe my claims are extraordinary which is why you can't see that reality is a collection of events, math is logic quantified, and life is consciousness. You can't see evidence for what you can't believe.

 

[gnostic]

Did you forget that i thought beavers ate fish from time to time? Shows what I know doesn't it?

All animals eat, so what do the dietary habits of beavers have anything to do with anything I said?

Do you have any evidence to support beavers eating fishes?

Examples, photos or videos?

Didn’t someone already corrected you about beavers?

Beavers eating fishes are misconceptions in myths. They eat leaves, fruits and woody parts of plants, such as barks and just below the barks.

They don’t build dams to catch fishes, to feed on, but the dams are important ecology systems for fishes or for frogs to leave eggs. Fishes and amphibians that lay their eggs in fresh water, because some fishes do prefer to lay their eggs, in more gentle flowing water; the dams in which beavers build their dam, do contain rushing flows of water.

But while fishes and frogs benefited from beavers’ abilities to built their dams, the dams are actually their home and shelters to escape from land predators, but it is also provide immediate storage of food for them.

Beavers are not predatory animals and they are not carnivores and not omnivores, cladking; they are strictly herbivores.

You really are ignorant, that you believe in fish-eating & fish-farming beavers. That’s children stories and folklore, cladking. LOL

 

[blü 2]

I am in no way suggesting that faith and belief are superior to science.

I am suggesting that faith and belief are fundamental to the human consciousness whether one is a shaman or a scientist. I am suggesting there is far more faith and belief in Darwin than there is science.

For example?

 

[gnostic]

And you've never presented any evidence for this while I've presented copious argument and evidence you are wrong. You are simply assuming that people didn't used to make any sense so stories you deem senseless can have no basis in reality. You are wrong in your assumptions and your conclusions.

As I have told you before, there are no Hebrew texts prior to the invention of Proto-Canaanite alphabet which didn’t exist before the 11th century BCE. And there are no Genesis, certainly not in the 15th century BCE; the Genesis did not until the 6th century BCE , when prominent Jews were hostages living in exile in Babylon, especially the royal families, aristocrats and the priesthood.

It was priests who were often literate scribes. They may have been inspired by Nebuchadnezzar completed Etemenaki, a ziggurat started by the Assyrian Esarhaddon, when he was rebuilding Babylon, after his father and predecessor Sennacherib had destroyed the city. Only the ruined foundations are left today, that tell us the scale of the ziggurat construction.

There was no ziggurat in Babylon, prior to 2000 BCE, because Babylon during second half of 3rd millennium BCE (meaning 2500 - 2000 BCE) was a small & minor city, during the Sumerian and Akkadian periods. There were no dynasty in Babylon during this millennium...Babylon didn’t become important until the Amorites made Babylon into their capital during the 19th century BCE. The dynasty didn’t reach its zenith until Hammurabi, reigning during the early half of 18th century BCE. Even then, the Amorite dynasty built no ziggurat in Babylon.

There may have been ziggurat constructed by another dynasty, the Kassite dynasty, but like I said Babylon was destroyed by Sennacherib during the 7th century BCE, while his son, Esarhaddon, started rebuilding Babylon, including the construction of a new ziggurat.

Etemenaki although larger and taller than most older ziggurats, it was shorter than two pyramids in Giza, Egypt.

There was no Tower of Babel, but perhaps Jews were inspired to write of Babel when they saw the size of Etemenaki, but as I said, it was still was much shorter than the 26th century pyramid of Khufu.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For example?

Good luck.

 

[cladking]

They conversed? Does that mean using words, or does that word include the bees' communication for you? The problem for me is that I never really know what you are saying, but would like to. Unfortunately, that will be difficult to impossible without your understanding and cooperation.

The principal point of language is communication. "Converse" is the "exchange of meaning using language".

Others can't see any concealed evidence you claim supports you, and so should consider your claim unevidenced until they see evidence themselves according to Hitchens' Razor.

I think the claoim gffor the existence of metaphysical language is extraordinary and the existence of a world wide system of writing 40,000 years ago is extraordinary evidsence. the ability to predict thermal anomalies in G1 based on "incantation" in even more extraordinary.

I think you're tilting at windmills attacking a belief in natural selection as a threat to man.

All the threats facing man have a common denominator; not understanding the nature of consciousness (and science).

I suppose that you believe that a literal tower was built that God destroyed leading to multiple mutually unintelligible languages, but as is so often the case, I don't really know just what you mean.

No! There was something that represented the dissolution of the language that was interpreted as be9ing a tower in Babel but I know this is confusion. I have reason to believe that "neter" is confused for "God". It was nature, a natural phenomenon" that brought down a tower that may or may not have existed. My best guess is that the referent is Meidum and the edict was written on the tower shortly before it collapsed but I'd guess there's less than a 55 probability this is correct. Every explanation is very low probability but the story is still "true".

Suddenly, I am reminded of Baha'u'llah. Those two sentences are poetry, and a good example of what I called a verbal Rorschach test. Are they from the Book of Thoth? Are they translations of the inscriptions of ancients? Is this Ancient Language to you?

This has a complex answer. To make brief there are a few things called "The Book of Thot(h)". This one comes from later eras and is translated by Butler.
\
You see poetry and I'm not sure what I see because it is confused and in unraveling the confusion the meaning changes. But AL was literal so any phrase that can be taken literally is less likely to be confused. Suffice to say there are some common sense guidelines for unraveling it.

Perhaps it was poetry but some of the concepts stand on their own and underlie much modern thinking.

The "Book of Thot" to which I often refer was the ancient equivalent of "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" inscribed on the walls of the Mafdet Mongoose that causes the thermal anomaly.



We need to learn about and study consciousness for any of this to be apparent and to see just how wrong Darwin was. People are too hung up on what thy think they know to see what they don't know or the real meaning of what they do know. "Evolution" just sounds good but it is not supported by experiment or logic. If consciousness lies at the heart of life Evolution almost certainly can not be right because Darwin knew nothing about it and neither do we.

 

[cladking]

As I have told you before, there are no Hebrew texts prior to the invention of Proto-Canaanite alphabet which didn’t exist before the 11th century BCE. And there are no Genesis, certainly not in the 15th century BCE; the Genesis did not until the 6th century BCE , when prominent Jews were hostages living in exile in Babylon, especially the royal families, aristocrats and the priesthood.

Are you aware that early versions of the Bible appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back as far as 1500 BC. There are earlier versions possibly including the "Negative Confessions".

I believe all history and science were recorded in AL until the official change in language in 2000 BC (tower of babel). Everyone knew the authors were powerful and wise so every scrap of paper was studied to death trying to find their secret. It was impossible to find their secret because their secret was ancient science and the language could not be understood without at least the same level of science.

These ancient writings were interpreted copied with admonitions not to change a word until they became the ancient holy books. Some are barely confused at all.


History doesn't start until 2000 BC. Even though writing was fully developed by 3200 BC there is "no" history until the official language changed. We believe the people in this period were superstitious bumpkins just like we are. I disagree. I believe all their work was lost to later scholars and the rest is misinterpreted by archaeologists due to sample bias, poor methodology, and erroneous assumptions.

 

[cladking]

For example?

I've listed these so many times and in so many posts I tire of it. I've listed over 50 in this thread alone. First I say no one can see this then I list one and no one sees it.

This might be the last time.

He believed in stable populations.
He believed consciousness is irrelevant to Evolution.
He believed in linear human progress.
He believed he could see gradual change in the fossil record.

I could go on and on but most people are already anxious not to see these.

 

[gnostic]

This is highly illogical. Science and reason are not group projects. "Evidence" is not set in concrete but rather interpretative.

No, evidence are physical.

The theory should be based on evidence, not the other way around.

You observed or detected the evidence, and measured and tested them, you would analyze their properties or investigate how the evidence work.

The theory may be interpretive, but also proposed a logical and testable explanation, based on preliminary evidence.

For instance, when Darwin was young naturalist, on board of his Beagle, and reached Galapagos, there were numbers of islands, in which tortoises and finches and other animals were different from islands to islands, as well as different from the mainland (Argentina). Those were Darwin’s preliminary evidence, and what got him interested in different species that evolved separately for generations in isolation from one another. And it weren’t just animals, but the environment of islands that revealed why the species were different from island to island.

He continued to research when he came home, and it took decades before On Origin Of Species was published for the first time. The first and original edition (1859) say nothing about “survival of the fittest”.

His evidence exist before he examined them, he was just there to think seriously about speciation, as did Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s contemporary. Wallace also proposed Natural Selection after his visits to the Amazon and to the Malay archipelagos.

 

[gnostic]

Are you aware that early versions of the Bible appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back as far as 1500 BC. There are earlier versions possibly including the "Negative Confessions".

No, you are wrong, the Dead Sea Scrolls didn’t exist in 1500 BCE.

The oldest scroll was the Great Isaiah Scroll, possibly dated to the late 4th century BCE, but more likely in the 3rd century BCE.

The younger scrolls were dated to the 2nd century CE.

Where did you get 1500 BCE?

 

[blü 2]

I've listed these so many times and in so many posts I tire of it. I've listed over 50 in this thread alone. First I say no one can see this then I list one and no one sees it.

This might be the last time.

He believed in stable populations.
He believed consciousness is irrelevant to Evolution.
He believed in linear human progress.
He believed he could see gradual change in the fossil record.

I could go on and on but most people are already anxious not to see these.

BUT Darwin, as I pointed out to you, published over 163 years ago; and if you want to talk about the Theory of Evolution and not the History of the Theory of Evolution then you have to talk about the Theory of Evolution, 2023 model.

Consciousness is not relevant to evolution until humans started selective breeding programs for domestic animals in the Black Sea region perhaps 11,000 years ago. But apart from selective breeding, and some experimental studies in genetics, consciousness is not otherwise a requirement in any sense for evolution to work.

When you say Darwin believed in "human progress," what do you mean by the expression "human progress"? Better communications, food supply, education, health? What, exactly? And what's a nice clear example of his being wrong?

Darwin pointed to change in the fossil record. That it was gradual was a reasonable hypothesis at the time, though since the 1940s ideas such as epigenetics and punctuated equilibrium have become part of the mix. So what? Do you think it's unusual for further researches across decades to find new aspects of old ideas?

 

[cladking]

Consciousness is not relevant to evolution until humans started selective breeding programs for domestic animals in the Black Sea region perhaps 11,000 years ago. But apart from selective breeding, and some experimental studies in genetics, consciousness is not otherwise a requirement in any sense for evolution to work.

Yes. This assumption is still in vogue. I'm suggesting it will go out of style before we understand the reality of change in species.

We also still assume there are "laws of nature", Reality can be understood one experiment at a time, and reductionistic science is a legitimate means for understanding everything.

I am merely suggesting, just as the ancients extrapolated, that nature does the same thing; it selects for consciousness and does this by selecting specific behavior while omitting all other behavior.

When you say Darwin believed in "human progress," what do you mean by the expression "human progress"? Better communications, food supply, education, health? What, exactly? And what's a nice clear example of his being wrong?

Most people still believe there is some point (goal) to evolution. This is no longer popular among scientists but it still exists here as well. Most people, including most scientists, believe that humans are always advancing in terms of language, art, and understanding of reality. Most people including scientists believe progress is linear. I believe our species has been devolving since it began 4000 years ago and every "advance" is actually just a simpler and lower quality way to do things.

There are always long term cycles within short term ones. Until a few years ago before government came to believe there are too many people eating too many farting cows longevity had gradually climbed for centuries but it is now in virtual freefall. The increase was principally the result of better diets but of course better healthcare also played a significant role. Now most people are under increasing stress so longevity will continue to crash due to things like accidents, suicides, and heart disease. And this discounts the probability of having a real plague instead of the silly practice run we just had. As hygiene, diets, and lives deteriorate, stress increases, and populations density increases in impoverished areas the odds of a plague soar. If someone wanted to engineer this we are certainly on the right track.

Did you ever wonder how the old barter economies worked? I'd wager a applecart full of assumptions it worked more efficiently and fairly than money. Education has failed in the US. It requires a college diploma to approximate the level of knowledge held by the typical 11th grader in 1910. It is the failure of education that has resulted in the micromanagement of every worker and a chief cause of increasing stress levels. Every year in virtually every economy more money is printed than markets can absorb putting us on the verge of (possible) hyperinflation and more stress. Infrastructure is suffering at the expense of the commonweal. In an era that product quality has fallen to garbage status the financiers and industrialists who bring us this garbage are earning more than ever before by huge margins. In an era that government pretends to be concerned with global warming their actions are to increase CO2 production, decrease efficiency, reward incompetence, and tax the economy to build infrastructure on the beach ahead of rising sea levels.

It's always been thus. It's just a little crazier now days. Civilizations destroy themselves and new ones replace them.

Darwin pointed to change in the fossil record.

This is nonsequitur. Of course it changed but the evidence suggests the change was sudden and occurred when niches changed.

That it was gradual was a reasonable hypothesis at the time, though since the 1940s ideas such as epigenetics and punctuated equilibrium have become part of the mix. So what? Do you think it's unusual for further researches across decades to find new aspects of old ideas?

Sure. Of course science changes in light of new evidence (ideally it's new experiment). But this just shows a couple of his assumptions were wrong and I believe they all were. We still have "survival of the fittest" even if it's all gussied up in new semantics. Even punctuated equilibrium is believed to be the result of "natural selection" and consciousness is still ignored just like every single individual. Yes, we have genetics now and a lot more understanding of the reality of change in species but we still have Darwin's perspective and we still have his assumptions and terminology. We still believe reduictionistic science can be directly applied to something we don't even know can't be reduced and still see "species" where this is just a word and all life is individual.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are familiar with no metaphysical languages and even imagining one will prove difficult.

OK. I can see that I'm not going to be able to understand what you mean by metaphysical language, which is unfortunate for both of us, since you would like to be understood and I would like to understand you.

May people can't follow precise language and get lost before the end of the sentence.

Perhaps, but we still seek to be precise with language for those can understand what is being said.

Nobody gets to determine what is evidence or even what is real.

I think we all do.

The principal point of language is communication. "Converse" is the "exchange of meaning using language".

So since any form of exchange of information is language as you use the word, it's also conversation. Regarding communication, words are more useful when their extension - the collection of things or types of things to which they are intended to refer - is relatively limited. Perhaps you've seen the problem caused by calling all worldviews including atheism a religion.

 

[cladking]

Where did you get 1500 BCE?

It was in some book I read. I've done a great deal of research and while most have been on the net I've also read a lot of books. I have not kept notes nor always bookmarked sources. I just try to keep a trail of breadcrumbs.

As always (I could be wrong but as I remember the author of the book claimed some of the Scrolls have roots going much farther back. One of the earliest (I believe 1500 BC) was most interesting to me because it appeared to be an Ancient Language original translated into the nature of truth, how to recognize it, and the light that is consciousness.

I do not claim to be infallible or know anything at all.

The Dead Sea Scrolls - Historical Timeline

The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library offers an exceptional encounter with antiquity. Using the world's most advanced imaging technology, the Digital Library preserves thousands of scroll fragments, including the oldest known copies of biblical texts, now accessible to the...

www.deadseascrolls.org.il

People would do well to read the ancoient writing. Ancient Language survives only in the Pyramid Texts (The Pyramid Texts Index) but a great deal of ancient writing looks silly not because it is religious gobbledty gook but it is an attempt to preserve ancient knowledge and ancient writing. Much of it contains remarkable truth even in its confused state. I would suggest almost all of it and most of the Bible. There are gems hidden in plain sight everywhere.

 

[cladking]

OK. I can see that I'm not going to be able to understand what you mean by metaphysical language, which is unfortunate for both of us, since you would like to be understood and I would like to understand yo

You do realize that I don't really understand the nature of metaphysical language either. All I can do is model the meaning so I can understand it and then make deductions based on my understanding of consciousness and the one metaphysics involved to build the models and another to model the language itself. I've been working on understanding consciousness for only a very few years and this is key to understanding metaphysical language. I'm working alone shaming Egyptology, reinventing ancient science, and being the first of my species in trying to understand consciousness. You might be expecting too much from me and too much understanding of the rules, grammar, and nature of Ancient Language. I can't speak it. I understand only most of it. I have the equivalent of a bright 5 year old's understanding. Much of the most esoteric concepts are opaque to me because my only direct source is a silly little book of rituals read at the kings' ascension ceremonies.

But it's not as hard as all that.

Bring this (boat) to the dead king. Which boat shall I bring to thee, O dead king? Bring to the dead king that which flies up and alights.

They meant " literally bring this literal physical boat to the actually dead king. Which literal boat shall I literally bring to you, O sincerely dead king? Literally bring to the very dead king that which literally flies up and actually physically alights (right on top of the pyramid).

The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 12. The Ferryman and the Deceased King's Ascension, Utterances 300-311

The Pyramid Texts, Samuel A.B. Mercer tr., at sacred-texts.com

www.sacred-texts.com

This stuff isn't really hard to understand at all. you merely need to solve it by deducing what words are correct in context and agree with reality (the laws of nature). Once you solve it you can begin making deductions and noting the differences between the way they think and the way we think. This was easier for me, remember, because I can read minds.

 

[cladking]

I think we all do.

I stand corrected. What I meant was that everything I present as evidence is palpable and can be experienced. It is real no matter who chooses to dismiss it.

 

[cladking]

Perhaps you've seen the problem caused by calling all worldviews including atheism a religion.

I understabnd your point but we are homo omnisciencis who each reason only in circles unless derailed by experiment. We hitch the cart before the horse and speed in circles until an experiment brings the horse and cart into line.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

BUT Darwin, as I pointed out to you, published over 163 years ago; and if you want to talk about the Theory of Evolution and not the History of the Theory of Evolution then you have to talk about the Theory of Evolution, 2023 model.

Consciousness is not relevant to evolution until humans started selective breeding programs for domestic animals in the Black Sea region perhaps 11,000 years ago. But apart from selective breeding, and some experimental studies in genetics, consciousness is not otherwise a requirement in any sense for evolution to work.

When you say Darwin believed in "human progress," what do you mean by the expression "human progress"? Better communications, food supply, education, health? What, exactly? And what's a nice clear example of his being wrong?

Darwin pointed to change in the fossil record. That it was gradual was a reasonable hypothesis at the time, though since the 1940s ideas such as epigenetics and punctuated equilibrium have become part of the mix. So what? Do you think it's unusual for further researches across decades to find new aspects of old ideas?

Darwin did not assume populations were stable. That doesn't make sense for a theory that is about selection acting on variation. Variation wouldn't be part of a stable population.

I agree. Consciousness is not a relevant assumption for the theory of evolution. Even if it were, there is no reason that a theory could not be formulated without reference to it. Darwin made no references to genetics or population biology and still came up with a salient theory.

I don't see anything in a nebulous claim about human progress either. Neither do I see any connection that would make the original theory of evolution dependent on whatever human progress means.

Fortunately for us that Darwin was a keen observer and equally fortunate that he was not the first to explore the fossil record. He had the work of the likes of Cuvier and Smith to guide him in the study of fossils.

The way these so called objections sound, they seem to paint Darwin just sitting around shooting out ideas and picking ones he just happened to like rather than performing rigorous research using logic and reason. In fact, I think that former paradigm is the guiding principle behind empty assertions.

 

[blü 2]

Yes. This assumption is still in vogue. I'm suggesting it will go out of style before we understand the reality of change in species.

Really? What do you mean by "consciousness" and what role in evolution do you attribute to it that isn't covered by the examples I gave?

We also still assume there are "laws of nature", Reality can be understood one experiment at a time, and reductionistic science is a legitimate means for understanding everything.

We know there are useful, accurate generalizations about the way real things behave. The rate at which an unrestrained object falls towards the earth has remained constant, and we calculate accordingly. If it changes, we'll be (a) aware of it very quickly, and (b) very puzzled for a while.

Same for the way electricity behaves, light behaves, sodium behaves, our genetics behave, on and on.

So what? That's how science works, and that's how technology from science works. For example, at this point of time, "dark matter" is the name of a problem, not a thing.

I am merely suggesting, just as the ancients extrapolated, that nature does the same thing; it selects for consciousness and does this by selecting specific behavior while omitting all other behavior.

That's magical thinking unless and until you can present evidence that (a) nature is capable of intending (b) nature is capable of carrying out its intentions (c) how such things are possible.

Most people still believe there is some point (goal) to evolution. This is no longer popular among scientists but it still exists here as well.

So what?

Most people, including most scientists, believe that humans are always advancing in terms of language, art, and understanding of reality. Most people including scientists believe progress is linear.

The evidence for this is highly persuasive.

But every thoughtful person is aware that it depends on a whole lot of systems working correctly and harmoniously, environmental, educational, economic, scientific, resource-related, and so on. And that if they don't There Will Be Consequences.

Meanwhile, like good hockey players, you play what's in front of you, and try to stick to your game plan, which I trust includes helping out the earth and your fellow humans where you can.

I believe our species has been devolving since it began 4000 years ago and every "advance" is actually just a simpler and lower quality way to do things.

Our species is homo sap sap and although it's not possible to pinpoint when it began, we can estimate that Mitochondrial Eve existed something like 150,000 years ago, and Y-chromosomal Adam something more than 200,000 years ago. 4,000 years ago there were civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Harappa, China. Çatal Hüyük was already some 5000 years in the past.

You might enjoy bringing yourself up to date with the archeology. The net is full of good stuff if you know how to discriminate between reasoned enquiry and Answers in Genesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not true about me. I was questioning why people believe in the ToE. And from what I have seen AND read, I have been convinced thanks to many here that not only can "science" be wrong, but the theory doesn't add up. Bye for now and take care.

I wonder what posts you have been reading.

Severe case of head-in-sand