False and you failed to respond to the actual physical evidence I cited.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
False and you failed to respond to the actual physical evidence I cited.
cladking
Well-Known Member
When religion steals a concept like "sin" it doesn't magically cease to have a referent. Reality nor language works this way. "Sin" is merely another abstraction that has been appropriated by religion that means "behavior detrimental to the commonweal". Murder is sin whether you worship Peers or Priests. Destroying property, lives, and misappropriating wealth or labor are sins.
Even believers in science must live in the REAL world with other people whether these others are more or less fit to survive is irrelevant. Ironically Ancient Language collapsed because those who didn't understand science were at a disadvantage. like human "advancement" things are made worse to suit the lowest common denominator which is the source of deevolution in homo omnisciencis. Unlike all other species we really do change gradually over our 4000 year existence and it's all downhill.
Other species must pass through a bottleneck to change because there is little variation in the behavior of individuals. Even Beaver Einstein will act much like every other beaver and have the same interests and needs of other beavers. This hardly applies to the species that acts on beliefs.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Then you support bulldozing new power plants, making products designed to break, and adding contaminants to food to increase their weight and cost!
No, nonetheless absolutely nothing to do with the sciences of evolution.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I've never heard the argument that ancient herders just went out and gathered up goats, pigs, and cattle. I'm surprised such unfit and timid creatures could exist in nature.
Perhaps these were all bred through the introduction of artificial bottlenecks as most scientists (and farmers) believe.
Still nothing to do with the sciences of evolution.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I was referring to the murder of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin.
Holodomor - Wikipedia
And the man made great potato famine that wiped out Ireland.
cladking
Well-Known Member
If you just exclude all evidence other than what you choose to call evidence then anything can be "science". Science has a metaphysics but Evolution does not.
Nothing is excluded that is relevant to the history of life and humanity on Earth that relates to the sciences of evolution.
cladking
Well-Known Member
One last time; "Agriculture" is by definition the invention of species created by the introduction of artificial bottlenecks. You can use semantics to say this so it agrees with Darwin but it's not agriculture to be eating wild seeds or hunting buffalo.
Eating food and growing it are distinct concepts if we have to use language.
All individuals eat but most species do NOT grow food. Sure there are species like squirrels that mostly play in trees planted by their great great great grandparents but these are not "farmers" even though like all species they affect the niche in which they live and very frequently adapt it to their unique needs.
Darwin was wrong. He looked at life through a kaleidoscope of 19th century ideas and beliefs. The real world simply doesn't work like Darwin imagined while unaware of most evidence and excluding ideas that ran counter his beliefs. He was caught up in a world that just never existed just like every homo omnisciencis who has ever lived.
Simply facts of the history of humanity, and nothing related to the sciences of evolution. The survival of the human species as well as all life is dependent on the positive behavior that contributes to the survival of the species, and not the negative behavior that does not contribute to the survival of the species. Though above this the survival of the species and adaptation is dependent on the adaptation to the changing environment.I was referring to the murder of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin.
Holodomor - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And the man made great potato famine that wiped out Ireland.
So far you have failed to address the main issues of billions of years of the evolution of life.
Still waiting . . .
One last time . . .
False and you failed to respond to the actual physical evidence I cited, and the foundation issues of the sciences of evolution.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Agriculture - Wikipedia
Try reading those first couple sentences and parsing them the way they were intended.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Correct!!!
I was describing the nature of sin and the evil of supporting it in the name o0f Charles Darwin.
"Evil" is the intentional propagation and support of things that are harmful to the commonweal for any reason at all.
When religion appropriates a word it doesn't cease to have a referent. "Evil" is as real as human or scientific progress. Such progress doesn't come from Peers, it comes from individuals; the meek as well as the most fit.
Last edited:
You're illiterate as to the history of animal domestication. The domestication of wolves and the evolution of dogs began ~30,000 years ago.
Back to the beginning...
There is archaeological evidence dogs were the first animals domesticated by humans more than 30,000 years ago (more than 10,000 years before the domestication of horses and ruminants). This started when wolves began scavenging food scraps from humans, who then began to domesticate the wolves providing them with shelter and protection. In return, the wolves helped the human hunter-gatherers with hunting. As these domesticated wolves were breeding, over 1,000s of years they became dogs as we know them today.Alongside evolution of the wolf’s physiology, there is evidence of the developing bond between humans and what we now call dogs. At a burial site in Predmosti (Czech Republic) a dog was discovered buried with a bone (believed to be from a mammoth) carefully placed in his mouth after death – it is believed to be 32,000 years old. In Ober-Kassel (Germany) the skeleton of a disabled dog was buried with the bodies of a man and of a woman; radiocarbon dating puts this at about 14,300 years ago. This is a unique early example of the developing connection; beyond uisng dogs for practical purposes only.
Other early dog burial sites were discovered in many other places; the mummified Black dog of Tumat in Russia is thought to be 12,450 years old, and in Israel at the Ain Mallaha Natufian settlement, there are 12 individuals buried, one with their hand resting on the body of a small puppy (dating back at least 12,000 years).
From at least 6,000 years ago dogs were deified in many leading civilizations (Anubis in Egypt, Xolotl for the Mayas, Cerberus for the Greeks). Their role was either to accompany the deceased people to the other world (this stresses the guide role of dogs) or to guard the other world.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Consciousness is not thought. "Thought" exists only in homo omnisciencis and arises from beliefs and models. It is a comparison of sensory input to models. Beliefs, superstitions, symbolic language, analog, and all abstractions and taxonomies exist only in our species and are not real nor reproducible. Our consciousness is merely consciousness modified by language.
Consciousness is life. All life is individual and conscious. Like reality itself all consciousness is digital. Consciousness arises from the organism and its interactions with reality and not from the brain itself. If you leave a mnemonic it is a piece of consciousness. If consciousness makes a decision it arises from the entire living thing. Consciousness provides free will and the only means of survival for all life. It drives change in species through behavior which is selected randomly. This behavior is driven by the individual's genes as expressed in consciousness that drives it. Consciousness changes by experience and knowledge. It is axiomatic to consciousness that cause precedes effect and that reality is as it appears. It is axiomatic that everything is unique and there are no two of anything. This makes numbers an abstraction and consciousness recognizes no abstractions or symbols. It sees all of reality simultaneously from the inside and only in terms of its own nature. It is wholly logical and based on the logic of nature. Brains are wired with this logic. Survival is wired into every individual.
Consciousness is pattern recognition. It exists to explain, understand, and control reality and create success for the individual. This success has nothing to do with Darwinian "fitness". It exists to keep behavior in accord with reality and thereby increase its odds of survival.
In humans it makes placebos work. Human "consciousness" is so different than other species and ancient people that it would require many volumes just to outline the consciousness of any individual. It is founded in belief and driven by language which serves to perpetuate beliefs in the species and the individual. Other species would consider humans more like sleep walkers than conscious entities. Other species have an excellent grasp of the nature of consciousness but they see it from the inside and only in terms of their own nature.
This is the formatting of reality and consciousness. It is nothing like Darwin's beliefs created from his time and place. Rather than experiment to found Evolution, he chose models based on old ideas. If everything is trying to live then logically everything that doesn't must not be as capable of life. While there is logic in this it is tertiary to what creates success. Consciousness is usually primary in most events and chance is secondary. "Fitness" is usually irrelevant or at most tertiary. There is no such thing as "species" which is an abstraction. There are groups of individuals which experience consciousness the same way and can interbreed.
We (homo omnisciencis) are confused. We have always been confused. But through experiment we have come to learn a great deal about reality in a way that is reproducible.
Consciousness is life. All life is individual and conscious. Like reality itself all consciousness is digital. Consciousness arises from the organism and its interactions with reality and not from the brain itself. If you leave a mnemonic it is a piece of consciousness. If consciousness makes a decision it arises from the entire living thing. Consciousness provides free will and the only means of survival for all life. It drives change in species through behavior which is selected randomly. This behavior is driven by the individual's genes as expressed in consciousness that drives it. Consciousness changes by experience and knowledge. It is axiomatic to consciousness that cause precedes effect and that reality is as it appears. It is axiomatic that everything is unique and there are no two of anything. This makes numbers an abstraction and consciousness recognizes no abstractions or symbols. It sees all of reality simultaneously from the inside and only in terms of its own nature. It is wholly logical and based on the logic of nature. Brains are wired with this logic. Survival is wired into every individual.
Consciousness is pattern recognition. It exists to explain, understand, and control reality and create success for the individual. This success has nothing to do with Darwinian "fitness". It exists to keep behavior in accord with reality and thereby increase its odds of survival.
In humans it makes placebos work. Human "consciousness" is so different than other species and ancient people that it would require many volumes just to outline the consciousness of any individual. It is founded in belief and driven by language which serves to perpetuate beliefs in the species and the individual. Other species would consider humans more like sleep walkers than conscious entities. Other species have an excellent grasp of the nature of consciousness but they see it from the inside and only in terms of their own nature.
This is the formatting of reality and consciousness. It is nothing like Darwin's beliefs created from his time and place. Rather than experiment to found Evolution, he chose models based on old ideas. If everything is trying to live then logically everything that doesn't must not be as capable of life. While there is logic in this it is tertiary to what creates success. Consciousness is usually primary in most events and chance is secondary. "Fitness" is usually irrelevant or at most tertiary. There is no such thing as "species" which is an abstraction. There are groups of individuals which experience consciousness the same way and can interbreed.
We (homo omnisciencis) are confused. We have always been confused. But through experiment we have come to learn a great deal about reality in a way that is reproducible.
cladking
Well-Known Member
This is all speculation and supports my theory better than yours.
cladking
Well-Known Member
This is untrue. It is also unevidenced and illogical. It is representative of the biggest non sequitur in human history.
There is far too much speculation in what is called "science". It is how we ended up with the evil called "survival of the fittest".
Now that I read this, I just realized what you are responding to. The term bottleneck used out of context as I recall was inappropriately redefined to mean something it isn't. If memory serves, it was repeatedly described as some sort of speciation event where gene frequencies change at an individual or family level was referred to as a speciation event without a new species actually evolving. Though one is claimed to have evolved. By fiat I suppose. It in no way reflects a bottleneck as defined in science. I suspect this semantic juggling act occurs to avoid admission of the proper application of the correct term. Which, of course, is selection, whether natural or artificial.
Recognizing you probably know this, but considering it worth repeating, a bottleneck or population bottleneck is the drastic reduction in population size that often means an similar reduction in population genetic diversity. It is not a speciation event. The species is the same on either side of the bottleneck event.
All this semantic juggling and redefinition without supporting evidence to avoid admitting the act and actions of selection is the sort of argument that I see as representing the pinnacle of anti-science thinking and arguments I have seen on this thread.
Indeed, I see that I was just repeating what you have later defined here. But given the proclivities of some actors in this debate to avoid the facts, seeing those facts repeated may serve some purpose if nothing more than to emphasize the actual terminology and the proper use.
And I don't see any reason that there will ever be one forthcoming that is more than speculation, overactive imagination and empty claims.
Still, I find it interesting that this thread is still going on without one anti-science proponent coming up with any sort of valid argument that is more than denial and rejection out of adherence to the personal view that what they believe about the world is the reality of it.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
"Life" doesn't exist in the conclusion that the fit survive. Life resides in the premise that everything is trying to live and this "trying" manifests through consciousness.
Darwin put the cart squarely before the horse.