Darwin's Illusion

[shunyadragon]

Wow!!!

Agriculture is less than 10,000 years old but not one farm animal or a single crop evolved over millions of years by survival of the fittest. Each arose suddenly in artificial bottlenecks just like in real life. Just like dogs and cats and every observed change in all species and in the fossil record.

Not a proposal nor hypothesis to support your assertions. Agriculture is an example of recent evolution of human behavior going back thousands of years and does not deal with the evolution of life over billions of years. Actually, horses have evolved in recent geologic history. Evolution of life occurred over millions and billions of years. You have not presented an alternate hypothesis for the diversity of life on Earth.

Any proposal or hypothesis needs to offer an alternate explanation based on the evidence of billions of years of the history of life on Earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

If I'm right then eventually it will be noticed and will lay the groundwork of an entirely new and non-newtonian modern science. There will be a line of Peers claiming to have beaten me
. . .

Still waiting for a description of this entirely new non-newtonian modern science.

 

[shunyadragon]

And best of all most farm animals and crops were invented using ancient science.

Stories of would be farmers trying to grow deer are hilarious if you have a sense of humor but I don't.

Going back into ancient human history near arctic tribes raised and herded reindeer as they do today in the Nordic countries.

 

[cladking]

Not a proposal nor hypothesis to support your assertions. Agriculture is an example of recent evolution of human behavior going back thousands of years and does not deal with the evolution of life over billions of years. Actually, horses have evolved in recent geologic history. Evolution of life occurred over millions and billions of years. You have not presented an alternate hypothesis for the diversity of life on Earth.

Any proposal or hypothesis needs to offer an alternate explanation based on the evidence of billions of years of the history of life on Earth.

All observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

You and Darwin merely assume nature operates differently because you have bad assumptions like there are no such things as bottlenecks in nature.

All the evidence and experiment supports my hypotheses.

 

[cladking]

Going back into ancient human history near arctic tribes raised and herded reindeer as they do today in the Nordic countries.

Yes. Ancient science worked.

 

[cladking]

Still waiting for a description of this entirely new non-newtonian modern science.

It is very similar to ancient science. You will dismiss it again if I repeat it.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is very similar to ancient science. You will dismiss it again if I repeat it.

You have not described it in the first place.

 

[shunyadragon]

All observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

False. The geologically recent evolution of horses never experienced bottlenecks.

You and Darwin merely assume nature operates differently because you have bad assumptions like there are no such things as bottlenecks in nature.

No assumptions, only objective verifiable evidence. Science acknowledges bottlenecks in nature. Bottlenecks occurred with sudden extinction events in geologic history such as occurred at the extinction event of larger animals like dinosaurs.

All the evidence and experiment supports my hypotheses.

Actually, you have not presented a coherent hypothesis yet that explains billions of years of the history of life.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wow!!!

Agriculture is less than 10,000 years old but not one farm animal or a single crop evolved over millions of years by survival of the fittest. Each arose suddenly in artificial bottlenecks just like in real life. Just like dogs and cats and every observed change in all species and in the fossil record.

Let's update the facts here, human agriculture evolved and began over 100,000 years ago. Notice this reference documents the progressive evolving human consumption of grains and not the sudden appearance of agriculture.

Humans feasting on grains for at least 100,000 years

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Humans feasting on grains for at least 100,000 years​

• By Katherine Harmon on December 17, 2009

Grains might have been an important part of human diets much further back in our history than previous research has suggested.

Although cupcakes and crumpets were still a long way off during the Middle Stone Age, new evidence suggests that at least some humans of that time period were eating starchy, cereal-based snacks as early as 105,000 years ago. The findings, gleaned from grass seed residue found on ancient African stone tools, are detailed online Thursday in Science.

Researchers have assumed that humans were foraging for fruits, nuts and roots long before 100,000 years ago, but cereal grains are quite a new addition to the early prehistoric gastronomic picture. "This broadens the timeline for the use of grass seeds by our species," Julio Mercader, an assistant professor at University of Calgary's Department of Archeology and author of the paper, said in a prepared statement.

Plant domestication, most scientists think, made its debut some 10,000 years ago, with grain storage cropping up about 11,000 years ago. An ancient site in Israel yielded a hearty collection of grains, which were dated to about 23,000 years ago, according to a 2004 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper. But such an early appearance of wild cereals in the human diet—as this new paper proposes—would push the assumed date of substantial grass-seed eating back more than 70,000 years.

So just what were these gatherers purportedly gnashing?

Mercader and a team from Mozambique's University of Eduardo Molande had uncovered hundreds of ancient artifacts in a limestone cave near Lake Nissa in Mozambique. Analyzing the surface of 70 of these tools, Mercader found some 2,370 granules of plant starch, which, he reasons, could not have accidentally come from growing plants in such dark reaches of the cave. The fact that so many of the tools had a coating is evidence of at least some processing to make the seeds more edible.

 

[viole]

Insofar as I understand, before humans were created there is nothing to suggest imo that bees, gorillas, etc. invented machines and items like plastics that polluted the earth. I use the word created because I do not subscribe to the theory of evolution as many propose it to be. So I hope you will discuss rather the point about destroying the earth by mankind's manufactured ways. The point is that before humans there is nothing that I learn suggesting that animals (not humans) polluted the earth to the brink of ruination of the earth's basic sustainable qualities.

Still, no defeater of evolution by natural selection. If evolution selects beings that destroy the ecosystem, then be it.
Evolution is blind and carries no moral baggage, nor final goal, at all. It is, basically, an ultimately pointless mechanism. Like the laws of nature the rest of the Universe follow.

Ciao

- viole

 

[cladking]

Still, no defeater of evolution by natural selection. If evolution selects beings that destroy the ecosystem, then be it.
Evolution is blind and carries no moral baggage, nor final goal, at all. It is, basically, an ultimately pointless mechanism. Like the laws of nature the rest of the Universe follow.

No moral baggage???!!

The belief in survival of the fittest is driving the poor poorer and the rich richer to fix the problem the rich created though planned obsolescence and the production of garbage and waste. Inefficiency causes ten times more CO2 than anything else and the "less fit" would profit most from eliminating it so instead we tear down brand new power plants and funnel all the profits to the few.

We are being less fit to death.

The worse products get and the fewer choices we have in buying them the more the rich get richer and the Congress gets senile. Here are your most fit and here is what the human race will become if Darwin was right but he was not.

The meek are the earth and will father the next species of humans if we survive the bottleneck. It can not be the rich and fit because it doesn't work that way except in Darwin's beliefs.

 

[cladking]

Let's update the facts here, human agriculture evolved and began over 100,000 years ago.

Nothing here related to agriculture.

I have little doubt humans were actually creating artificial habitat for themselves long before the invention of agriculture. Of course they'd notice that where they discarded seeds there would be more of those plants growing. They'd even notice they could attract some of their favorite game by planting the right things. Spreading seeds and eating the fruit is not "agriculture".

Farming is creation of new species by the imposition of artificial bottlenecks just like ancient science and real life.

Ancient people lacked our devolved "intelligence" and consciousness.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nothing here related to agriculture.

I have little doubt humans were actually creating artificial habitat for themselves long before the invention of agriculture. Of course they'd notice that where they discarded seeds there would be more of those plants growing. They'd even notice they could attract some of their favorite game by planting the right things. Spreading seeds and eating the fruit is not "agriculture".

Farming is creation of new species by the imposition of artificial bottlenecks just like ancient science and real life.

Ancient people lacked our devolved "intelligence" and consciousness.

The references I gave are based on actual physical evidence. You have responded with nothing but noise.

There is no evidence that farming created a new species. The evidence is clear it evolved over a period of 100.000 years.

You still have not provided your non-reductionist methodology that can be objectively confirmed.

 

[shunyadragon]

No moral baggage???!!

The belief in survival of the fittest is driving the poor poorer and the rich richer to fix the problem the rich created though planned obsolescence and the production of garbage and waste. Inefficiency causes ten times more CO2 than anything else and the "less fit" would profit most from eliminating it so instead we tear down brand new power plants and funnel all the profits to the few.

We are being less fit to death.

The worse products get and the fewer choices we have in buying them the more the rich get richer and the Congress gets senile. Here are your most fit and here is what the human race will become if Darwin was right but he was not.

The meek are the earth and will father the next species of humans if we survive the bottleneck. It can not be the rich and fit because it doesn't work that way except in Darwin's beliefs.

Nothing here has anything to do with the sciences of evolution.

 

[cladking]

Ancient people lacked our devolved "intelligence" and consciousness.

They also lacked a consciousness driven by belief and thought. Their consciousness was driven by the little they knew and was attuned to the real world through real science just like the science that brought us beaver dams, waggle dances, and termite agriculture.

One of the reasons natural science, consciousness, is so effective at guiding behavior is that the entire brain works in three dimensions and every member of the species "thinks" the same way and pull in the same direction. They don't consume the weak for their gain because they are weak.

 

[cladking]

There is no evidence that farming created a new species.

Farming is by definition the invention of new species. But even if dogs and cows could have evolved naturally eating wild plants is NOT "farming" or "agriculture" because otherwise the sparrow outside my window is farming right now.

 

[cladking]

Nothing here has anything to do with the sciences of evolution.

Where do you think punishing the less fit for the continuing sins of the more fit comes from?

All people would be better off if the sins were just stopped.

Instead we punish those who are the continuing victims because they aren't fit anyway. The Ukraine and Ireland exported huge amounts of food as the less fit who produced it starved.

 

[viole]

No moral baggage???!!

Of course not. naturalistic mechanisms are amoral.

The belief in survival of the fittest is driving the poor poorer and the rich richer to fix the problem the rich created though planned obsolescence and the production of garbage and waste. Inefficiency causes ten times more CO2 than anything else and the "less fit" would profit most from eliminating it so instead we tear down brand new power plants and funnel all the profits to the few.

So you think that random mutations and selections care about that?

So you think natural mechanisms ought to adapt to homo sapiens morality? What about evil gravity, causing people to crush their skull when they fall from the balcony?

We are being less fit to death.

And?

The worse products get and the fewer choices we have in buying them the more the rich get richer and the Congress gets senile. Here are your most fit and here is what the human race will become if Darwin was right but he was not.

And?

As I said, 99% of all species got extinct. That, by no means defeat solution by natural selection. Selection, usually, accompanied by someone else's deselection.

You are trying to give purpose, and meaning, to mechanisms that are, by their very nature purposeless.

The meek are the earth and will father the next species of humans if we survive the bottleneck. It can not be the rich and fit because it doesn't work that way except in Darwin's beliefs.

Darwin's "beliefs" have been confirmed to such an extent, that they are still alive and kicking today. During that time, even godly Newton's beliefs have been downgraded to being fundamentally wrong. Which should put the rest any ridiculous hypothesis of a scientific conspiracy protecting orthodoxy.

And you do not need to study microbiology to see that. All you have to do, is go to the apes section off your local zoo, go to the gorillas cages, and you will see evolution staring you in the eyes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[cladking]

And?

And murder is murder whether it's done to rob a woman of her purse or to cleanse the world of the less fit.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where do you think punishing the less fit for the continuing sins of the more fit comes from?

Sins are a religious theological biased concept in human behavior and have nothing to do with the sciences of evolution. The purpose of evolution is the survival of the species and evolution in response to changes in the environment. Good behavior dominates for the survival of the species.

Your crisscrossing ancient tribal beliefs with warped beliefs such as sin and human behavior.

All people would be better off if the sins were just stopped.

The grand delusion here is outside any concept of reality.

Instead we punish those who are the continuing victims because they aren't fit anyway. The Ukraine and Ireland exported huge amounts of food as the less fit who produced it starved.

You're neglecting the Russian role in the Ukraine Conflict and the issue of Ukraine being able to export grain to the world as it did before.

Nonetheless none of the above has a direct role in the sciences of evolution.