Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

As many times as wish given the fact you do not remotely understand or accept science as just science without a metaphysical agenda.

Science is a perspective as well as a methodology and body of knowledge. Perhaps only Kuhn could see that the body of knowledge is chiefly held as models derived from theory in turn derived from experiment and formed in constellations of paradigms. I can see a bit further that it is language that is the glue which holds it together and that this language is confused causing each model in each individual to be different.

I accept all science only on this basis. I do not accept "theory" founded in words that are abstract or untested. I can look at the results of poorly constructed experiment or irrelevancies because there can be things to learn from them but I never add them to my models.

But the problem here is different. The problem here is people believe in settled science and all settled science is a belief system and not a reflection of reality. Science is virtually by definition a mansion of cards where entire wings shake down and have to be rebuilt from the ground up. This is simply the nature of reductionistic science based on experiment. There will forever be an experiment coming down the pike that shakes things up and causes parts to fall. I am merely saying we have one now that will require a lot more extensive rebuilding than most in the past. Fear not, we are very adept at repairing this damage and every time we do the new construct goes up faster and is more secure than the old. Every time there is a more firm foundation and the chances of systemic failures in the future decreases.

You do realize the key thing that has to be incorporated here is just that there is no such thing as science except in the heads of scientists? This will cause extensive remodeling of what we know but it's not like we need to go back and reinvent the wheel.

I'm sorry reality and science aren't like you think but then this is what happens when you have people like Tyson running around preaching religion to the masses.

 

[cladking]

Which is the best respone to an incoherent metaphysical agenda. Not it doesn't."

You and most people ignore or gainsay every single point I make.

I address every single one of everyone's points art least once and some hundreds of times.

 

[cladking]

Consciousness is inside the brain and not outside the brain. The current rules of science are too narrow to fully examine consciousness since the best data is hidden, from more superficial third person approach of the scientific method.

I lack time so just this one point right now.

This is one of the places that the common wisdom and old wives tales has messed up. The individual and his consciousness are far more than just the brain and nervous system. It is his entire body and anything in his environment incorporated into his life. For instance a slime mold uses secretions to remind it where it has been so these secretions are part of his memory. The Egyptians built pyramids to remind them of great people all the way back to "Adam and Eve". An amputated arm can suffer phantom pain but the nerves that control the arm are still part of the consciousness.

But, yes, I agree. We can't see our consciousness and lack the proper models to see it in other species. Some of us are building these models but others already know everything there is to know about everything because they have google and siri. Their models will have to wait for learning they know nothing about consciousness.

Consciousness is a truly remarkable thing and the more I learn about it the more I appreciate it. It's true that in some ways homo omnisciencis thinking is even more remarkable but it is so confused and different between individuals that there are few commonalities other than we each see only what we believe. Thought is a subset of consciousness however one can not directly observe the consciousness that is foundational to all life from thinking. Like all things we must create models even to observe our consciousness.

The change at the Tower of Babel was absolute. We went from modeling reality in a logical mind to modeling our beliefs to modeling experiment as a belief. In some ways we might be more confused than ever.

 

[Dimi95]

Yup.

I'm well aware of this.

I believe it is caused by people parsing my words as metaphor. I can do nothing to stop it.

I don't think so!

If your defitions are not understandable and you refuse to explain them differently,then we can't understand them better and then maybe we can't also try and analyze all of that with different eyes..
How is that our fault?
What are you suggesting that we should do?

I say I mean something literally and they parse it otherwise.

They don't do that.
Stop with the ad-hominem.
Stop it , really , please be reasonable and discuss this properly

I define words and they parse them otherwise. I say I disagree with somebody about everything and they take it otherwise.

But you disagree with many people who have different beliefs and still hold to the same ground.
Don't you think that we have also abstract reasoning?

I make ever simpler sentences with ever more stringent definitions but God only knows how they parse something like "Life is consciousness".

They are not clear enough.
To the most , not just to me.
That is why you are answered that way.
Nobody here says that you are stupid , you may also disagree with us as we can also disagree with you.
If you are on public forum , then you should behave in that way with your answers.

They probably think I believe the "I" in "Life" has offspring with the "con" in "consciousness". I am at a loss to make myself understood and frankly I never did believe it was my fault. Even after putting many on the ignore list because they refused to parse "metaphysics" as "the basis of science" despite defining it over and over and over. This can't be my fault. It is the fault of those who refuse to see anything they won't believe.

Science is the attempt to explain the natural world using systematic observation and experiment.
Math is the center of this process,not metaphysics.

There are many causes of this and my inability to clearly state what I believe is a tertiary problem, at worst.

Would you possibly agree with the fact that you are maybe stuck within your thoughts?

I clearly state the evidence and it remains unseen.

And here we go - the same story again.
You don't do that clearly.
Please consider this and help us out a little bit.

How much simpler can a concept be than "all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden"?

No it is not.
We can see that within the genome.
Nothing there is sudden.
I repeat myself once again , DNA is not a human language.

That is where we see how genes code for genes.

An auto mechanic would never have trouble parsing this sentence.

You discuss vehicles and everything about them with auto mechanics.
You discuss Evolution with those who study Biology not with those who do mechanical engineering.

But anyone who believes in Evolution is left scratching his head asking me what I mean and denying there's evidence that speciation is sudden.

Nonono
Speciation is not sudden , but gradual and very slow.

I know what this is.
This is probably misconception from your side.
You think that punctuated equilibrium is a theory or am i wrong to conclude that?


Punctuated equilibrium is an observation,
NOT of the evolution of the genome
but of the evolution of the fossil record.

Please inform yourself about the genome.

The general principle of those who study molecular evolutionary biology is that the evolution of the genome is a predictable change that is not punctuated in any way, because it is very easy to either 'switch on/switch off' bits of the sequence in response to selection.
The functional evolution maps the selection very well in the more complex life forms that they easily become extinct with rapid change in the environment.

This term that is used previously is more commonly associated with the fossil record because some fossil species evolution appears to functionally evolve at different rates and times.

I talk to all kinds of people in real life and most have no trouble understanding me. Whether they are brilliant or more typical they normally understand even if they don't agree.

Ok , so this is the important thing that you probably have to face.
You need to discuss this with those who understand Biology.
Only they can adress this kind of 'isues'

People seem to have the idea that I'm stupid.

I have already answered this

I can assure you that even though there is no such thing as intelligence there is such a thing as "stupid" and I am not.

Haha , how is there no such thing as intelligence?
How did genes then had the capacity to code for other genes?
There is nothing sudden in the procceses.
Like 0 % chance.

I am dense as in thick as a brick so I guess people have just been playing games all these years because they don't want to deal with it.

Nobody wants to deal with metaphysics my friend , we want to deal with Biology.

They don't want to deal with Peers who have no intelligence or linear funiculars that are invisible to Egyptologists.

Haha , know we switched to Egyptologists.
What's the relevant part with them?

I don't know how i missed this answer.

I apologize if you thought i ignore it.

 

[Dimi95]

You and most people ignore or gainsay every single point I make.

I address every single one of everyone's points art least once and some hundreds of times.

Please make better definitions.
Like please , please?
Can you do that?

 

[Pogo]

Science is a perspective as well as a methodology and body of knowledge. Perhaps only Kuhn could see that the body of knowledge is chiefly held as models derived from theory in turn derived from experiment and formed in constellations of paradigms. I can see a bit further that it is language that is the glue which holds it together and that this language is confused causing each model in each individual to be different.

I accept all science only on this basis. I do not accept "theory" founded in words that are abstract or untested. I can look at the results of poorly constructed experiment or irrelevancies because there can be things to learn from them but I never add them to my models.

But the problem here is different. The problem here is people believe in settled science and all settled science is a belief system and not a reflection of reality. Science is virtually by definition a mansion of cards where entire wings shake down and have to be rebuilt from the ground up. This is simply the nature of reductionistic science based on experiment. There will forever be an experiment coming down the pike that shakes things up and causes parts to fall. I am merely saying we have one now that will require a lot more extensive rebuilding than most in the past. Fear not, we are very adept at repairing this damage and every time we do the new construct goes up faster and is more secure than the old. Every time there is a more firm foundation and the chances of systemic failures in the future decreases.

You do realize the key thing that has to be incorporated here is just that there is no such thing as science except in the heads of scientists? This will cause extensive remodeling of what we know but it's not like we need to go back and reinvent the wheel.

I'm sorry reality and science aren't like you think but then this is what happens when you have people like Tyson running around preaching religion to the masses.

Very nice, you are of the opinion that we are doing it all wrong and that we need to start over.
Unfortunately you seem to be unable to get two cards to stand without knocking them over with the next breath.

The Crackpot Index​

John Baez​

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:​

1. A -5 point starting credit.
   
   
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
   
   
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
   
   
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
   
   
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
   
   
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
   
   
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
   
   
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
   
   
9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
   
   
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
    
    
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)
    
    
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
    
    
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
    
    
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
    
    
15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
    
    
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
    
    
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
    
    
18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
    
    
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
    
    
20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
    
    
21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
    
    
22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
    
    
23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
    
    
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
    
    
25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
    
    
26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
    
    
27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
    
    
28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
    
    
29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
    
    
30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
    
    
31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
    
    
32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
    
    
33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
    
    
34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
    
    
35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
    
    
36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
    
    
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

---

© 1998 John Baez
[email protected]

home​

 

[shunyadragon]

You and most people ignore or gainsay every single point I make.

Which is justified based on the fact that all your arguments are based on a vague nebulous metaphysical agenda without science.

I address every single one of everyone's points art least once and some hundreds of times.

You have addressed nothing in terms of science, You have an odd primitive belief in Newtonian Physics.

Repeating vague metaphysical nonsense hundreds of times does not represent a coherent argument

See post #2,226

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is almost as if those claiming that no evidence exists don't care what others have to say and aren't interested in evidence that contradicts them.

You meant that it's exactly that way, right?

This is the reason I for one have long ago given up fetching answers for creationists and other faith-based thinkers, and you seem to be coming over to it as well.

There will be times when you may want to share your considered opinions to serve those who can learn from sound arguments, but hopefully you understand that you can't help these other people learn because you don't have their cooperation. Learning isn't imposed on others the way indoctrination is. For the latter, the person just needs to hear and understand the word, and if he has no defense, his mind will be shaped by that.

But that is not learning in the academic sense, which requires a prepared and apt student who is paying attention and open-mindedly trying to understand. If you don't have that - if all you encounter is resolute faith and a confirmation bias - you already know that you have no hope of getting through.

I will address another poster in a moment in this post at some length to whom, like you, I can teach nothing. I hope that you can see that I'm actually writing to people like you. My words are chosen to be understood by critical thinkers who can learn from language - people who like to ruminate about the ideas of others, people who will read them, consider them open-mindedly, acknowledge them, and either agree or explain where and why they disagree with something.

Unfortunately, as you know, there are many posters with whom that seldom or never happens. Writing only for them would be pointless.

It's like me going to the market and i ask one of the workers there to explain to me where i can find the bread ? And the worker answers with : It's 7' o clock. That's how you sound on my questions if you ever wonder..

I broached the topic of nonresponsive answers with him recently: "Your reply was nonresponsive, meaning it didn't affirm or attempt to falsify my comment, and in this case, went off on an unrelated tangent."

A few posts later came this more fleshed out discussion of how discussions do and don't make forward progress, which contained this passage:

"I liken it to a game of ping-pong. Responsive answers that either affirm or attempt to falsify, or that attempt to seek clarification, are returns. A long as this process - called dialectic - continues, progress is being made toward resolving differences of opinion. We can call this a volley, and it may be long or short. But as soon a one player fails to return a shot, the discussion (volley) is over. The issue ends with the last, plausible, unrebutted argument and its conclusion, whether that is because one discussant relents and agrees with the other, or because one discussant doesn't know what is expected or for any other reason is unable to cooperate."
Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

Would it surprise you that he never acknowledged seeing any of that much less agree or attempt to refute it. i.e., the volley ended there?

As I just discussed with Dan above, teaching and learning is a cooperative effort. You can't play ping-pong with a player who won't return your shots (answer responsively).

what definition of 'consciousness' are you using?

You probably won't get a useful answer to that. You might get "definitions" like "consciousness is life" or his definition of metaphysics as "the basis of science," but nothing you can use to understand what he means when he uses the word. Ask for his definition of sudden or science and you'll be as in the dark about what he means when he uses those words as you were before you asked.

I believe it is caused by people parsing my words as metaphor. I can do nothing to stop it. I say I mean something literally and they parse it otherwise. I define words and they parse them otherwise. I say I disagree with somebody about everything and they take it otherwise.

Multiple posters have told you what the problem is. You've seen my words to Dimi above. Here's another such comment from this thread:

"I would point out that the claim is that it is always the fault of the reader for not correctly parsing the words offered or not being able to see the many times evidence, defense or explanation have been provided (none is provided in my experience). Somehow, it is that they are invisible to us that are not anointed and possessed of the sort of omniscience that saying "NO!!!" implies to me"

This is an example of what I mean by somebody being unable to learn from words. People shower you with the answer, but it has no impact on your thinking. Instead, you think that others are transforming your words into metaphors. They're not transforming the words they say aren't clearly defined or the claims insufficiently evidenced into metaphors. They're telling you that the words are unintelligible as written.

I don't know whether you have it in your power to do better, but if you do, it will begin with taking the words others tell you seriously rather than inventing other explanations.

I don't expect any meaningful response from you whatsoever regarding this matter, which behavior is not limited to you, but is inexplicable to me. I'm imagining myself in your position reading words like these. If I'm tolling, which I don't believe you're doing, I engage the collocutor but bring out my troll toolbox, which contains Gish gallops, sea-lioning, deflection, equivocation, weasel words, and the like just to waste the other guys time and tick him off. That's what trolling is.

But if I'm sincere but confused, I still engage him, albeit differently. I want to know why he thinks those things about me and am concerned that he does think them and that he might be correct enough to ask questions to try to sort that out.

But you and the half dozen others I've gone down this road with before don't engage either way. They don't engage at all. The just ignore such comments and leave others to guess why they seem so uninterested in something that ought to interest them.

How many times have I told you that there is no science outside experiment and that no experiment supports gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest?

Dozens.

How many times has that been refuted, which refutations you have consistently ignored?

This is from yesterday:

You: "Have I ever mentioned that without experiment there is no science. Not only did Thales have no experiment he hadn't even thought of it. No science."

Me: "Yet Thales did science. He observed and collated celestial data then generated correct inductions confirmed by other observations. Yes science."

That's an example of science based only in observation with no active experiments. I expect you to ignore that again. Why should it be different this time?

[cont]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You just ignore it or repeat your mantra of "no it doesn't". I'm sorry but "nuh uh" is not an argument it is an admission that you have no argument. Why don't you find some theory that isn't supported by experiment to prove me wrong.

Actually, it is YOU that does that as I just demonstrated. You ignored my refutation and here you are now repeating your already-corrected error. Apparently, you didn't look at it, yet here you are representing that all you get for answers is "nuh uh."

You serve, I return, you drop the ball, volley over. It's also like playing fetch with a dog who brings you a stick to throw and then won't chase it when you do.

I claim that theory and experiment are the same thing. Theory is the paradigm that interprets multiple experiments.

You contradicted your first sentence with your second one, which describes the difference between the two. Experiment is action, and theory is words. One follows the other.

Survival of the fittest is a circular argument.

It's a definition, not an argument. It's a common error to call definitions circular arguments when they're not arguments at all.

The theory makes an argument (reasoned, evidenced claim) about how the tree of life we find today came to be using a few defined terms such as genetic variation and natural selection, but those terms and their definitions are not the argument or an argument.

Many little changes occur over the years.

I guess that not all change is sudden now.

There is no such thing as continual progress ... All observation suggests speciation is sudden and adaptation is even more sudden. All change in life at all levels is observed to be sudden.

Oops. Looks like we're back to change only being sudden. You just described continual progress: "many little changes occur over the years."

the experiment is quite impressive and far and away the best to support gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. However, other interpretations are possible

No, there are no other sound interpretations of what you witnessed in that video of E. coli evolving.

My contention has never been there is no evidence or that it is illogical.

Evidence can't be logical or illogical. It's the reasoning connecting it to any conclusions derived from it that is logical (valid) or not.

Also, you can't say at once that the scientific understanding of the evidence is logical but also wrong. When it comes to the proper interpretation of evidence, if we use valid reasoning, we get correct and useful conclusions, and if we use rogue logic, we get non sequiturs - conclusions insufficiently supported according to academic standards by whatever argument preceded them.

I maintain that the evidence is being misinterpreted.

Evidence cannot be misrepresented, either. I can be misunderstood.

Do you understand what a category error is? It's like when you call laughter red or liquid. Some words just can't be used to describe some nouns. Evidence can be perceived, interpreted, in some cases held, maybe destroyed. But it can't be fed or sued or illogical or misrepresented.

This topic comes up when religionists talk about Jesus fulfilling the law. That's a category error as well. Laws can't be fulfilled. Promises and prophecies can be fulfilled and criteria can be met or fulfilled, but laws aren't fulfilled. They can be written, obeyed, flouted, amended, enforced, declared (un)constitutional, and a few other verbs, but not fulfilled like a contract.

You've got to be kidding!!!!!!!!!

Universal Consciousness in the animal kingdom and intelligence in many advanced species.

There has been some mention of what is consciousness, when did consciousness begin and to what extent other animals other than humans have consciousness, I believe consciousness is universal with animals with a central nervous system at least, and evolved to be more complex over time. Some even...

www.religiousforums.com

I read most of the first post and saw he was supporting all my beliefs and never went back to it.

That post doesn't support all your claims about consciousness, which is that it is found in all life including non-animal and unicellular life. He wrote, "I believe consciousness is universal with animals with a central nervous system at least." He never broaches the subject of all life being conscious as you do, although he leaves the possibility open.

 

[Dimi95]

@It Aint Necessarily So

Hi , you wrote a long post which i took the time to read.

He is not illiterate in the field(at least i think so) , but ignorant of most of the theory and most of the evidence.
I understand some of his thoughts , but he is doing that because he has his own understanding of metaphysics,(probably?)
I can see that the error is in his definitions and conclusions.
It's not logical , the way he relates the first and the second part of some of his claims.
It is aples and oranges,literally.

He should tell us more about physics , continuing here with the field of Biology is a waste of time as i see.

I hope for one honest answer from him , and to be precise , and that would be a good start.

He is stuck somewhere and he admitted that in some of the responces.

The best we can do is try to help.

Maybe it will get better.

I am always expecting humbleness from those who stand behind it.

So maybe he will surpise.

Another thing i wanted to mention if it is ok.

"Oops. Looks like we're back to change only being sudden. You just described continual progress: "many little changes occur over the years."

These changes are not little.
Yes , they maybe suggest 'little' to the 'naked eye' , but not when you look up the DNA sequences of the genome thag once was replicated.

The procceses suggest complexity , since we can see how changes happen.
They suggest intelligence also - since we can see that in computer science.
It's like a language of numbers and we can see how it works into certain mathematical patterns.

We can see them as:
-Tandem repeats
-Interspersed repeats
-Intrachromosomal recombination
-Direct and inverted repeats
This is when it comes to DNA

And it is good to mention that viruses have other type opatterns in comparison with that of DNA.

I don't know that much about them , but i know the most important probably.

Viruses can interact with their host cells and evolve over time, but it's not an active process like we see in other living organisms. When a virus infects a host cell, it can replicate, use energy, and adapt to its environment.
But it can't do any of that on its own.

So knowing that viruses evolve only in living organisms , we can conclude that they are replicators who can adapt to change.

And this replicator evolves somehow when it affects a host cell.
That change shows no signs of anything sudden there.

He names them as little , which is incorrect since they can not be defined as little.
And by no means - sudden.

This goes to biochemidtry.
Evolution does not concern only Biology.
Biologist are oftenly those who make the prediction from bacause that is what the field requires them to do.

We can see this in the chemical reactions also
100,000 chemical reactions occurring per second in the brain.
Not sudden by any chance.

I don't know if you agree with him , but species evolve over time by procceses that are hapening within period of time.
There is no other plausible option.
All the evidence suggest that change is gradual.

The best way to explain gradual to him is probably that every step needs to be there , otherwise we would have lived in another reality.

We can't explain any other except the one that we live in.

I hope he can understand that with time

 

[cladking]

Stop with the ad-hominem.

The nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on this site was just a few pages back,. "you aren't stupid".

I'd like to thank the academy and all the little people who made this possible.

 

[cladking]

Would you possibly agree with the fact that you are maybe stuck within your thoughts?

We all are.

The difference is that I don't share any of your assumptions but I still have to make models composed of words that people parse. Every word comes with baggage and I don't mean the baggage, I mean the word.

 

[cladking]

Please consider this and help us out a little bit.

All observed change in species is sudden. How can I say this more clearly? I cite example, define every word, and draw conclusions from this observation and thousands of experiments that support it. What the hell am I supposed to do when it is ignored?

Only they can adress this kind of 'isues'

No!!! Only those who believe in biology are the problem.

The only possible answer is logic and experiment but these agree with me. remember I invented the theory based on these. It's like cheating to arrive at the truth without consulting text books that... ...drumroll please... ...I believe are wrong.

 

[cladking]

Which is justified based on the fact that all your arguments are based on a vague nebulous metaphysical agenda without science.

There is nothing metaphysical about "All observed change in species is sudden.". This is a fact.

 

[cladking]

Nobody wants to deal with metaphysics my friend , we want to deal with Biology.

And there it is, just like it always is. You believe biology says species evolve and everything else is not merely heresy but it is wrong. You can't even see you et al are doing it.

You don't want to hear anything that can't be found in a 9th grade textbook. The textbooks are wrong!

 

[blü 2]

There is nothing metaphysical about "All observed change in species is sudden.". This is a fact.

What time period, or time test, are you referring to, when you say "sudden"?

And where are those five distinct necessary and sufficient non-overlapping definitions of "atom"?

And where's that nice clear definition of "consciousness"?

If you don't know, just say so. If you know, then make a clear and unambiguous response. Shouldn't be rocket science, given your assertions.

 

[cladking]

But if I'm sincere but confused, I still engage him, albeit differently. I want to know why he thinks those things about me and am concerned that he does think them and that he might be correct enough to ask questions to try to sort that out.

We've been through this and it led nowhere.

Dozens.

How many times has that been refuted, which refutations you have consistently ignored?

I don't recall it being refuted. If it were refuted my entire world would implode because I am fist and foremost a metaphysician and only secondarily a scientist.

Try it again but put an asterisk next to it so i can be sure to see it.

Why do we build colliders if theorists can just induce reality?

 

[Pogo]

All observed change in species is sudden. How can I say this more clearly? I cite example, define every word, and draw conclusions from this observation and thousands of experiments that support it. What the hell am I supposed to do when it is ignored?



No!!! Only those who believe in biology are the problem.

The only possible answer is logic and experiment but these agree with me. remember I invented the theory based on these. It's like cheating to arrive at the truth without consulting text books that... ...drumroll please... ...I believe are wrong.

And your response is to make up something about the Lenski experiment that they might have been sudden changes due to variation in agar. First they are in a liquid medium on a shaker, and in either case the same media is used for all replicates. Second, you are ignoring the gene sequencing that has been done to indicate that there are numerous mutations most of which are not relevant to the behaviour but there have also been different mutations in different replicates that potentiated later mutations demonstrating that it was not a sudden change, but one that required a series in time.
Unless you are somehow trying to argue suddenness on geological time scales.

You have not demonstrated suddenness by any relevant set of observations only your claim that you find them sudden and you certainly have not shown thousands of experiments in support unless you are using geological time scales.

 

[cladking]

It's a definition, not an argument. It's a common error to call definitions circular arguments when they're not arguments at all.

I know the difference. But it would be like calling "car accidents" "vehicular inattentiveness". All accidents aren't caused by inattentiveness and all accidents aren't even accidents.

Defining them as "vehicular inattentiveness" is a form of circular reasoning as surely as saying the less fit have more accidents. The world is not beholden to bad definitions and what we have here is a very bad definition that leads directly to erroneous conclusions as surely as any circular argument by homo circularis rationatio.

Our species sees only what we believe as every experiment shows.

 

[cladking]

I guess that not all change is sudden now.

NO!!! This is no metaphor for "Evolution". Little changes occur and then backed off. Even in aggregate these little changes don't amount to speciation. Why should I have to keep saying the same thing as you parse my words to mean anything else?