Darwin's Illusion

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Well this is very embarrassing. Thanks.

But the point stands because they create dams and grow water plants.

I would use the word "build" or "construct" rather than "create." Nothing is created. As far as growing water plants I'm not sure I follow you? Are you saying they practice aquaculture in some way like growing rice, or lilly pads. What water plants are you aware of that they grow?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I take NO source as gospel. Where you want to judge the source instead of the evidence I care only about the evidence and logic and don't care one whit about how I acquire it. But this is because you are making a very fundamental mistake; you believe evidence is science. You believe evidence is theory. So to you sources have to be vetted so you don't get the science wrong. The reality is evidence can only be used to formulate hypothesis and has nothing to do with theory. As such if I get bad evidence (like beavers eating fish) it has no effect at all on my theory because my theory is the product of experiment and logic.

People want the sources so they can evaluate them and compare what you say against what is there. Your conclusions may not reflect what you are claiming your sources say, for instance.

Or it may be that what you post is just your personal opinion with no sources to back it up.

It looks like you are just trying to rationalize your position without any real support of it. That isn't very logical or reasonable and not following the example of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can write an 8000 word definition of "natural selection" and anyo9ne can properly call it "survival of the fittest". Mere words and fixation on words is semantics. Any argument that relies on mere words is a semantical argument which isn't really an argument at all but is mere word play.

It would not be proper and that has been pointed out to you.

You are the one providing evidence for fixation on words by your repeated use of a phrase that you have been shown many times does not reflect definitions within science or knowledge of natural selection that has been acquired.

Your arguments vary from the semantic to the fantastical with hardly ever any support for them. They are cast out as if your personal opinion is a fact. It has been well established here that your personal opinions are not facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I take NO source as gospel. Where you want to judge the source instead of the evidence I care only about the evidence and logic and don't care one whit about how I acquire it. But this is because you are making a very fundamental mistake; you believe evidence is science. You believe evidence is theory. So to you sources have to be vetted so you don't get the science wrong. The reality is evidence can only be used to formulate hypothesis and has nothing to do with theory. As such if I get bad evidence (like beavers eating fish) it has no effect at all on my theory because my theory is the product of experiment and logic.

It is not the first time that errors in your opinions have been pointed out.

You don't have a theory. You have speculation with no basis other than what appears to be an erroneous belief in things that are often incorrectly believed by you.

Genetic bottlenecks do not increase diversity. They are not speciation events. That is just one of many errors you perpetuate and it does have an impact on what you believe. You can deny that, but it is a fact.

 

[cladking]

You claimed that we shouldn't accept old things (eg Darwin's Natural Selection), today, but aren't you forgetting that you are the one continuously postulating (without evidence) that 40,000 years ago, people spoke metaphysical language (which you called "Ancient Language") and they were true scientists (your "Ancient Science")?

Some things old are tried and true. Darwin is dated.

Yes. All consciousness (other than homo omnisciencis) are scientists. Every single one of them. They are also metaphysicians. Ancient Language arose 40,000 years ago from pro-Ancient Language that was spoken by proto-humans. The only difference was that a mutation connected the speech center to higher brain functions allowing far greater complexity in language and the ability to pass highly complex knowledge from generation to generation. It is this, the ability to pass down knowledge, that created the human race.

This is such a simple concept it is remarkable that there is any push-back at all but all I get is static and referrals to anthropology and other "sciences" that don't even know what consciousness is!!!!!!

There were some symbols here and there in prehistoric times, and you want to call it "metaphysical language", and yet you cannot even translate these symbols yourself, so how do you even possibly know it is "metaphysical"?

You missed the point.

My theory demands there was a universal human language that existed everywhere but linguists, atheists, scientists, and common wisdom ALL AGREE there was no common ancient language. I am saying that the same symbols inscribed in caves all over the world proves there was a single Ancient Language. It supports my theory AND says current beliefs are in error.

And, yes, I can "read" Ancient Language AND I know what many of the symbols mean. My theory existed even before I found Ancient Language but many details were found after I learned to interpret the language.


My theory does far more than show just how wrong Darwin was it also solves many of the problems that perplexed Darwin and still elude scientific study. It explains how so many Peers were able to be so wrong. It shows the proper way to interpret all the experiment related to Evolution. It shows the proper way to interpret vast amounts of disparate evidence.

 

[cladking]

Genetic bottlenecks do not increase diversity.

I NEVER said they did and have specifically denied it numerous times.

I said localized population bottlenecks introduce much different genes back into the species.

Even calling it a "genetic bottleneck" is assuming the conclusion and leaving out "localized" changes the meaning.

Modern words must be parsed so you shouldn't change the meaning when you change the words.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Do you dispute Darwin said it?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What source would you trust? Would you need to sit and hear him say it? How would you know he wasn't reading from a script?

It doesn't matter if you can't quote the source in this situation. So Darwin said 'from these simple BEGINNINGS...' does nothing to establish or support your preconceived notion that Darwin thought all life and all nature was exceedingly simple. In fact if you were capable of reading and comprehending what he wrote, it's very obvious that it refutes your notion. Darwin was amazed that such incredibly diverse and complex forms evolved from such simple organisms in the BEGINNING. This is an example of you picking/choosing a single phrase which you twist, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary right there in the context, to support your ill conceived notion that Darwin though life was simple. The opposite is true, that is abundantly clear, and you twist things to suit your needs!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. You misunderstand. I have no problem with Peers or the Peer review process. I'm sure that for the main part peers do far more good than harm.

My problem is two fold. One, and less important, is that everything they do will tend to support the status quo and it's the status quo I hate. But the major problem is that many people believe Peers and science are infallible and that something can't be Science at all until a Peer says it is. "Peers" are irrelevant to science and the scientific method. They are extra-metaphysical but many encourage those who don't understand science to believe in Peers to feather their own nests.

Schools have failed and nowhere is this failure more pronounced than in teaching metaphysics. I guess it's easier to just teach hat Peers are the be all end all of science and drop it there instead of getting into critical thinking that smacks of philosophy. Just as biology has removed consciousness from the study of life Peers remove the need to understand how science works.

We've reached a point not where science understands the formatting of reality but that a formatting has been forced upon all and if you want to get funding you must work within it. We have essentially enshrined the status quo and no deviation, no science, and no research can even take place in this country unless it's sanctioned by Peers.

I suspect that the real reason you do not like peer review and have made it the focus and fictionalized it in your narrative is that your ideas about pyramids, ancient language and ancient science would not make it passed review and that chafes you.

It cannot be that your ideas have no basis in fact, so you blame peer review.

Rejection of wild ideas is because the ideas are wild and have no logical, rational basis or support of the evidence. Not because of some conspiracy to maintain some imagined status quo or to force evidence to fit a preconceived view.

It is convenient to make statements that you blame the school system, but you really don't have any evidence to support that claim regarding peer review.

 

[IThoughtAboutIt]

Mere words and fixation on words is semantics. Any argument that relies on mere words is a semantical argument which isn't really an argument at all but is mere word play.

I'm sorry. Did you say something? I was trying not to focus on the mere words.

Are you suggesting we have discussions (arguments) without words? Please tell me more about this... without using words of course.

Have you ever investigated what 'words' actually are? What definitions 'are?' How they are used and their importance in communication and the exchange/discussion of ideas?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I NEVER said they did and have specifically denied it numerous times.

I said localized population bottlenecks introduce much different genes back into the species.

Even calling it a "genetic bottleneck" is assuming the conclusion and leaving out "localized" changes the meaning.

Modern words must be parsed so you shouldn't change the meaning when you change the words.

You did say it numerous times. You are saying it now. No reason to think you won't continue to misuse the term.

Bottlenecks are near extinction events that do not increase genetic diversity. Calling it a genetic bottleneck is not assuming a conclusion. You can twist it anyway you like, but it does not change the fact that you do not understand what the term describes.

If you radically reduce a population, then the variation within that population is radically reduced. How can a loss of variation introduce different genes into a population?

This is another "beavers raise fish" issue that you refuse to acknowledge or change. It is something easily recognized by the peer review of this forum.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some things old are tried and true. Darwin is dated.

Yes. All consciousness (other than homo omnisciencis) are scientists. Every single one of them. They are also metaphysicians. Ancient Language arose 40,000 years ago from pro-Ancient Language that was spoken by proto-humans. The only difference was that a mutation connected the speech center to higher brain functions allowing far greater complexity in language and the ability to pass highly complex knowledge from generation to generation. It is this, the ability to pass down knowledge, that created the human race.

This is such a simple concept it is remarkable that there is any push-back at all but all I get is static and referrals to anthropology and other "sciences" that don't even know what consciousness is!!!!!!



You missed the point.

My theory demands there was a universal human language that existed everywhere but linguists, atheists, scientists, and common wisdom ALL AGREE there was no common ancient language. I am saying that the same symbols inscribed in caves all over the world proves there was a single Ancient Language. It supports my theory AND says current beliefs are in error.

And, yes, I can "read" Ancient Language AND I know what many of the symbols mean. My theory existed even before I found Ancient Language but many details were found after I learned to interpret the language.


My theory does far more than show just how wrong Darwin was it also solves many of the problems that perplexed Darwin and still elude scientific study. It explains how so many Peers were able to be so wrong. It shows the proper way to interpret all the experiment related to Evolution. It shows the proper way to interpret vast amounts of disparate evidence.

Here we go.

I don't think anyone misses the point of all this or that it has no basis in fact.

 

[gnostic]

I take NO source as gospel. Where you want to judge the source instead of the evidence I care only about the evidence and logic and don't care one whit about how I acquire it. But this is because you are making a very fundamental mistake; you believe evidence is science. You believe evidence is theory.

Once again, you are showing just how little you understand science work.

You say you only care about evidence and logic, and yet go out of your ways in presenting evidence when asked.

And this evasion of yours just demonstrated you have no evidence whatsoever.

None of your claims are evidence-based. These claims are just claims - no evidence, just personal opinions.

You say...

“...you believe evidence is science. You believe evidence is theory”​

...what do you think your claims are?

Your claims are not evidence, they are just your words, your personal opinions. And yet you believe that “evidence is your claims or opinions”...they are not, and you deluded yourself thinking that you’re an expert or a genius.

As to logic, you still don’t understand logic itself is a man-made invention, it isn’t infallible or inerrant. And I all have seen in just about every threads and posts you have made, are not logic-based...they are merely your personal opinions, and instead of showing logic, they are just filled with confirmation bias and use circular reasoning excessively.

You deluded yourself if you think you are “logical”.

 

[gnostic]

Some things old are tried and true. Darwin is dated.

Yes. All consciousness (other than homo omnisciencis) are scientists. Every single one of them. They are also metaphysicians. Ancient Language arose 40,000 years ago from pro-Ancient Language that was spoken by proto-humans. The only difference was that a mutation connected the speech center to higher brain functions allowing far greater complexity in language and the ability to pass highly complex knowledge from generation to generation. It is this, the ability to pass down knowledge, that created the human race.

This is such a simple concept it is remarkable that there is any push-back at all but all I get is static and referrals to anthropology and other "sciences" that don't even know what consciousness is!!!!!!



You missed the point.

My theory demands there was a universal human language that existed everywhere but linguists, atheists, scientists, and common wisdom ALL AGREE there was no common ancient language. I am saying that the same symbols inscribed in caves all over the world proves there was a single Ancient Language. It supports my theory AND says current beliefs are in error.

And, yes, I can "read" Ancient Language AND I know what many of the symbols mean. My theory existed even before I found Ancient Language but many details were found after I learned to interpret the language.


My theory does far more than show just how wrong Darwin was it also solves many of the problems that perplexed Darwin and still elude scientific study. It explains how so many Peers were able to be so wrong. It shows the proper way to interpret all the experiment related to Evolution. It shows the proper way to interpret vast amounts of disparate evidence.

This 40,000 year-old Ancient Language and Ancient Science are nothing more than your deluded fantasy.

You haven’t shown evidence of anything, let alone being able to read those symbols like a written language.

And beside all that, what has this to do with Darwin. He was a naturalist, in the fields of geology and biology. He wasn’t an archaeologist, nor a philologist. He never claimed to be able to read or translate any ancient languages, as that weren’t his expertise.

You still making him something that he is not, like he didn’t coined “survival of the fittest” and he didn’t start, nor write about Social Darwinism. You still cannot even admit you have made mistakes.

How about stop writing fiction? And a very bad and illogical fiction at that.

That’s all you have been doing.

 

[cladking]

I suspect that the real reason you do not like peer review and have made it the focus and fictionalized it in your narrative is that your ideas about pyramids, ancient language and ancient science would not make it passed review and that chafes you.

The reasons I stated are amply sufficient. It galls me that so many people don't understand the nature of science any longer. Even many scientists are highly mystical. There have been so many great scientists in the last 200 years upon whose shoulders I try to stand but some wouldn't know metaphysics if it bit them on the nose. Darwin was not a scientist or a metaphysician. He was much more a philosopher with a scientific perspective.

Again I have nothing against Peers except for the overreliance on their opinion in the distribution of research money. They tend to enshrine the status quo by their very existence but this hardly means each of them aren't the foremost experts in their specialties. And herein is another major problem with people believing expert opinion is the final word: There are almost no generalists among peers. Yes, some have training or have thought extensively about the "big picture" but there is still a tendency to not see the forest for the trees because of the extensive specialization involved in modern science.

The very concept of "Peer review" rubs me the wrong way because nobody's opinion is gospel. Science is not a collective endeavor any more than is thinking or generating ideas. Sure a group of experts is formidable but they are still limited by their ability to communicate and by their beliefs and models. There has always been a strong tendency for consensus opinion to be wrong in the long run.

My theory can't be rejected by Egyptologists. It's an impossibility. They will not deign to reject any theory that doesn't hold that the ancient Egyptians were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never changed. The first corollary is that they spoke and wrote only in gobbledty gook that can't be comprehended at all without a doctorate in Egyptology.

 

[cladking]

Bottlenecks are near extinction events that do not increase genetic diversity.

No. Most bottlenecks other than highly localized bottlenecks are not the result of having too many unfit individuals in a species or from their predators suddenly becoming more fit. They are caused by variations in the niche that select for unusual behavior which is caused by consciousness. This unusual behavior is caused by individual variation and then this unusual variation is "selected" by nature which adds a new dimension to the gene pool.

If you radically reduce a population, then the variation within that population is radically reduced.

Of course it is! But when it happens naturally and only locally the new reduced genetic variation is bred back into the entire population.

 

[cladking]

...what do you think your claims are?

They're a different way to interpret ALL known evidence. Again, though, I'm more confident in my appraisal of human evolution than any other.

Your claims are not evidence, they are just your words, your personal opinions.

I am not expressing "opinion" per se. I am stating that there is a different way to interpret all known experiment. Why don't you want to talk about this? Why can't you say one experiment that contradicts ANY part of my theory? Why do you change the subject to your beliefs? I can open any textbook or wiki and find your beliefs.

As to logic, you still don’t understand logic itself is a man-made invention, it isn’t infallible or inerrant.

I suppose you think mathematics in man made as well!!! How convenient that 2 + 2 is 4 just as 2 x 2 is four. I'm sure cavemen sat around a fire for days abstracting overt this.

And beside all that, what has this to do with Darwin.

Darwin was wrong. He was wrong for the many reasons I've already mentioned and have never been really addressed among which is that if consciousness is life then so long as consciousness can't be defined or reduced neither can life. Instead of addressing this it is handwaved.

You still making him something that he is not, like he didn’t coined “survival of the fittest”

He defined it and his definition is still with us.

 

[cladking]

Of course it is! But when it happens naturally and only locally the new reduced genetic variation is bred back into the entire population.

After it is bred back into the overall population the genetic variation of the off spring of that population has more diversity and a little better chance of surviving a bottleneck like the one that gave rise to the new behavior. If a year after I invented upside down flies I had repeated the "experiment" in the same place a new variation of upside down flies would have appeared much sooner.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. Most bottlenecks other than highly localized bottlenecks are not the result of having too many unfit individuals in a species or from their predators suddenly becoming more fit. They are caused by variations in the niche that select for unusual behavior which is caused by consciousness. This unusual behavior is caused by individual variation and then this unusual variation is "selected" by nature which adds a new dimension to the gene pool.



Of course it is! But when it happens naturally and only locally the new reduced genetic variation is bred back into the entire population.

Bottlenecks do not add genetic variation into a population. You said you weren't claiming that, but it is exactly what you are claiming and it is exactly wrong. Whether it is local or wider ranging, a bottleneck is an event that radically reduces the size of the population, reducing genetic variation of the population. Humans have gone through bottleneck events. Of course, you don't believe that because the evidence doesn't fit your preconceived fantasy of the history.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

After it is bred back into the overall population the genetic variation of the off spring of that population has more diversity and a little better chance of surviving a bottleneck like the one that gave rise to the new behavior. If a year after I invented upside down flies I had repeated the "experiment" in the same place a new variation of upside down flies would have appeared much sooner.

This is nonsense. There is no logic or facts to it. It is just something you made up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The reasons I stated are amply sufficient. It galls me that so many people don't understand the nature of science any longer. Even many scientists are highly mystical. There have been so many great scientists in the last 200 years upon whose shoulders I try to stand but some wouldn't know metaphysics if it bit them on the nose. Darwin was not a scientist or a metaphysician. He was much more a philosopher with a scientific perspective.

Again I have nothing against Peers except for the overreliance on their opinion in the distribution of research money. They tend to enshrine the status quo by their very existence but this hardly means each of them aren't the foremost experts in their specialties. And herein is another major problem with people believing expert opinion is the final word: There are almost no generalists among peers. Yes, some have training or have thought extensively about the "big picture" but there is still a tendency to not see the forest for the trees because of the extensive specialization involved in modern science.

The very concept of "Peer review" rubs me the wrong way because nobody's opinion is gospel. Science is not a collective endeavor any more than is thinking or generating ideas. Sure a group of experts is formidable but they are still limited by their ability to communicate and by their beliefs and models. There has always been a strong tendency for consensus opinion to be wrong in the long run.

My theory can't be rejected by Egyptologists. It's an impossibility. They will not deign to reject any theory that doesn't hold that the ancient Egyptians were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never changed. The first corollary is that they spoke and wrote only in gobbledty gook that can't be comprehended at all without a doctorate in Egyptology.

You don't understand science. You believe science is a bunch of nonsense you made up.