Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[shunyadragon]

True so whatOh, and yes, I was thinking about you and your opinions as I was reading the Bible. The city of Athens still has plenty of buildings that were dedicated to gods, just as it is written in the Bible, You should know this. Furthermore the vestiges of the temple in Jerusalem are still there to be seen.

I have never doubted that there are many factual places, things and people recorded in the Bible like all ancient texts from around the world, and that is not the issue. We are talking about mythology in the Bible for which there is absolutely no evidence.

 

[gnostic]

To anyone who want to understand the history of the reptiles.

While we may commonly referred to the modern lizards and snakes as reptiles (class Reptilia), as we do with crocodiles, turtles and dinosaurs, the name dinosaur are technically not “lizard”, despite the fact that Richard Owen coined the name dinosaur that mean “terrible lizard” in 1842.

Lizards and snakes didn’t evolve from dinosaurs: dinosaurs weren’t their ancestors.

Reptiles evolved from the clade of Amniota, known as the Sauropsida. These early sauropsids were ancestors to all reptiles, were a number of different clades of the class Reptilia, during the Triassic period:

1. Archosauria
2. Lepidosauria

The lizards and snakes both belong to group Squamata, an order within the Lepidosauria.

Archosauria, on the other hand, have many different clades, including the crocodilian line (Pseudosuchia), and the Avemetatarsalia.

it is archosaurian Avemetatarsalia, in which all pterosaurs (Pterosauria, flying reptiles), marine reptiles (eg plesiosaurs), and dinosaurs (Dinosauria) - both non-avian & avian dinosaurs - all belong to.

so what we colloquially called lizards, dinosaurs are not lizards.

 

[Valjean]

Again fish is not a clade . Therefore being a fish has nothing to do with evolutionary nor with ancestry

If it's alive its part of a succession of clades.

 

[cladking]

You apparently do believe, because you have been claiming it existed for years.

Not really.

I have been claiming there was a speciation event when Ancient Language failed and homo omnisciencis arose.

I merely think it likely that the story of the "Tower of Babel" is a corruption of this event.

 

[cladking]

... science... ...beyond any doubt,

This is your problem. You don't understand metaphysics and believe it is magic just like science is magic. How poetic!

 

[Valjean]

That definition doesn't say that. Evolution says that.
And the definition is that it includes "some but not all of its descendant lineages".
Take both together and it follows that the descendant lineages that aren't included.... aren't included.


View attachment 99860




The above is a picture coming from a site that reflects science's answer to "what is a fish?"

Yes, they're all descendants of a little yellow man.

 

[cladking]

The evidence of no rubble pile anywhere, alternatively it was majicked into existence but only a few storytellers of a particular persuasion saw it and then it was majicked away. Tolkien wrote of similar things as did Bobby Henderson.

How do you know that the story isn't confused and the construct that fell was ancient science and language. Perhaps the "Tower of Babel" was where the edict changing the official language to pidgin language was first posted. Perhaps the Tower of Babel didn't even reach all the way to heaven. This kindda makes sense seeing how you don't believe in "heaven" anyway. I do; it was at 81' 3" altitude. You may not believe this but it's not only myself who doesn't know everything but everybody else singly and in aggregate!!!!

This is one of numerous collapsed pyramids. there are also collapsed ziggurats and thousands of other collapsed structures all over the world.

How big of a pile do you expect for a tower that stretched all the way to heaven. Please express this in cubic meters to seven decimal points.

Homo omnisciencis indeed.

 

[cladking]

This is one of numerous collapsed pyramids.

Speaking of funny things and Homo omnisciencis nobody has ever asked why the top of this pyramid is free of debris. Everybody just takes everything at face value because they only see what they expect. As soon as they see something outside their experience that's what they expect to see don't notice any anomaly.

We're such an odd species.

 

[Dimi95]

return question, you referred to three equivalent aspects of Nitrate, were you referring to graphical bond representations or something more nuanced?

The three resident structures that follow the octet rule form two double bonds with the adjacent nitrogen atoms. VSEPR theory - atoms will repel each other to give a Linear Geometry.

 

[Dimi95]

We must value human life and human comfort over all other life.

We must not waste resources and this especially applies to lives of God's creatures. Killing for no reason is sinful. It also applies to human resources and all things that could have been used to promote commonweal. Instead greed is the only standard of right and wrong.

Yes , we can talk about this also sometime,np.

But what happend with the evidence i presented?
What do you think of it?

 

[cladking]

It is actually very simple, just as with your imaginary perfect people,

No. They were in no way "perfect" and I'm not sure I'd want to be one. But they created a culture where the majority of people could be happy and comfortable. They enjoyed perfect communication. They thought and lived perfectly logically. Unlike us they cared about all of humanity past, present, and future. A man would be stoned or exiled for intentionally making an inferior product or poor quality. People with beliefs would be chased away. Lies were not only apparent but severely punished. Very few people were ever victims of crimes because judges were personally responsible for the future actions of anyone convicted.

However they were not only somewhat primitive but wholly alien to our species. They each had individuality and freedom but they had very narrow ranges of acceptable behavior. They had good medical care but short life spans. They lacked modern conveniences but most would be unnecessary anyway. They had great ability to think but didn't even experience it and all thought was highly limited by their limited knowledge and language. Up until 100 years ago I'd rather have been a homo sapien but now I'll pick our species. This is especially true since as a homo sapien I'd have a very highly limited ability to understand modern metaphysics and modern science is very important to me; even more important than modern science from 100 years ago would have been. Search engines are very important to me.

Homo sapiens were for all intents and purposes animals. Their aspect was animal. If one were among us we'd see him as an animal.

I may not be among the most civilized people in the world but I'm no animal (most of the time).


I have great respect for every homo sapien who ever lived because they truly were very wise rather than very boastful.

 

[shunyadragon]

Earliest evidence of the wheel

12,000-year-old stones may be early evidence of the wheel

Archaeologists have unearthed what may be some of the earliest evidence of wheel-like technology at the Nahal-Ein Gev II site in Israel.

archaeologymag.com

Archaeologists have unearthed what may be some of the earliest evidence of wheel-like technology in human history at the Nahal-Ein Gev II site in northern Israel.

The experimental spindles and whorls, the 3D scans of the pebbles and their negative perforations. Credit: Yashuv, Grosman, 2024, PLOS One, CC-BY 4.0
A recent study published on November 13, 2024, in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Talia Yashuv and Leore Grosman of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem suggests that a collection of perforated, donut-shaped pebbles dating back approximately 12,000 years were likely spindle whorls. This discovery significantly predates the traditional invention of the wheel, which is generally dated to around 6,000 years ago.

Spindle whorls are small, weighted objects attached to a spindle stick to facilitate the spinning of fibers such as flax or wool into yarn. These tools operate on a wheel-and-axle principle, enabling prolonged and efficient rotation essential for textile production.

Yashuv and Grosman utilized innovative digital 3D scanning technology to create detailed models of over a hundred limestone pebbles recovered from the site. Their analysis revealed that these stones featured consistent circular shapes with central perforations, indicative of deliberate craftsmanship rather than natural formation. To test their hypothesis, the researchers replicated the spindle whorls and collaborated with Yonit Crystal, an expert in traditional craft making, who successfully used the replicas to spin flax and wool. The experiments confirmed that the pebbles functioned effectively as spindle whorls, supporting the study’s conclusion that these ancient tools represent an early form of rotational technology.

(a) Manual thigh-spinning; (b) Spindle-and-whorl “supported spinning”; (c) “drop spinning”; Credit: Yashuv, Grosman, 2024, PLOS One, CC-BY 4.0
“This collection of spindle whorls would represent a very early example of humans using rotation with a wheel-shaped tool,” Yashuv explained. “They might have paved the way for later rotational technologies, such as the potter’s wheel and the cart wheel, which were vital to the development of early human civilizations.”

 

[Pogo]

No. They were in no way "perfect" and I'm not sure I'd want to be one. But they created a culture where the majority of people could be happy and comfortable. They enjoyed perfect communication. They thought and lived perfectly logically. Unlike us they cared about all of humanity past, present, and future. A man would be stoned or exiled for intentionally making an inferior product or poor quality. People with beliefs would be chased away. Lies were not only apparent but severely punished. Very few people were ever victims of crimes because judges were personally responsible for the future actions of anyone convicted.

However they were not only somewhat primitive but wholly alien to our species. They each had individuality and freedom but they had very narrow ranges of acceptable behavior. They had good medical care but short life spans. They lacked modern conveniences but most would be unnecessary anyway. They had great ability to think but didn't even experience it and all thought was highly limited by their limited knowledge and language. Up until 100 years ago I'd rather have been a homo sapien but now I'll pick our species. This is especially true since as a homo sapien I'd have a very highly limited ability to understand modern metaphysics and modern science is very important to me; even more important than modern science from 100 years ago would have been. Search engines are very important to me.

Homo sapiens were for all intents and purposes animals. Their aspect was animal. If one were among us we'd see him as an animal.

I may not be among the most civilized people in the world but I'm no animal (most of the time).


I have great respect for every homo sapien who ever lived because they truly were very wise rather than very boastful.

The Onion just bought Infowars, I hear they are looking for content for a relaunch.

 

[shunyadragon]

How do you know that the story isn't confused and the construct that fell was ancient science and language. Perhaps the "Tower of Babel" was where the edict changing the official language to pidgin language was first posted. Perhaps the Tower of Babel didn't even reach all the way to heaven. This kindda makes sense seeing how you don't believe in "heaven" anyway. I do; it was at 81' 3" altitude. You may not believe this but it's not only myself who doesn't know everything but everybody else singly and in aggregate!!!!

View attachment 99877

This is one of numerous collapsed pyramids. there are also collapsed ziggurats and thousands of other collapsed structures all over the world.

How big of a pile do you expect for a tower that stretched all the way to heaven. Please express this in cubic meters to seven decimal points.

Homo omnisciencis indeed.

Itis a well documented more recent event of the failure in pyramid engineering. Egyptians learned their lesson and improved their construction,

The Meidum Pyramid in Egypt was built around 2,700 BC during the reigns of King Huni and his son King Sneferu

Egyptians had writing in 3400 BCE

 

[shunyadragon]

Not really.

I have been claiming there was a speciation event when Ancient Language failed and homo omnisciencis arose.

I merely think it likely that the story of the "Tower of Babel" is a corruption of this event.

You apparently believe in the event of humanity speaking one language and dispersed by what event . . . .?

The evidence demonstrates that homo sapiens had vocal cords over 300,00 years ago and our primate ancestors had vocal cords, and of course speech.

 

[Pogo]

The three resident structures that follow the octet rule form two double bonds with the adjacent nitrogen atoms. VSEPR theory - atoms will repel each other to give a Linear Geometry.

Yup, that was a long time ago and I don't think I have used it since.
Thanks

 

[Eli G]

...
People don't understand any longer that everything that exists is unique and everything comes into and passes out of existence except for everything that has never existed and never will. Such things are axiomatic to other living things. We want to create categories and taxonomies as mnemonics and then forget that they are arbitrary, ephemeral, and abstract. Reality in binary, not analog. Consciousness is binary as well except in humans where it is a product of beliefs and language.

Darwin simply reasoned his way to a theory and our science is dependent on experiment.

Exactly.

People are disconnected from reality, speculating on ideas far removed from tangible and easily observable facts. They've lost sight of the fact that an organism's traits are passed down genetically to its offspring just as they are.

There's no mechanism through which a species can change so drastically that it becomes something entirely different from its original ancestor. This is the observable, verifiable truth, and no evidence has shown otherwise. Evolutionists theorize about what they believe might have occurred, but it's something they have never witnessed or even experimented in laboratories.

PS: And please, let's not revisit the confusion between microevolution and macroevolution. The distinction between these two has been exhaustively clarified.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Agreed. The ways people process information is endlessly fascinating to me. The issue of why they believe false and unfalsifiable claims - they often have no means to distinguish between these and correct ideas - isn't as interesting to me as why many posters won't engage in a constructive discussion of their posting habits.

We often get to a point in many of these discussions where the posting can be understood either as some kind of cognitive blindness or trolling (malice) depending on how much the poster is actually aware of. When one tries to probe further, it inevitable is a dead end ignored by the other party, and I can't understand it whichever of those two possibilities is the case.

Someone trolling might be interested in the questions only to spread more confusion while toying with others, but he doesn't ignore the invitation to explore the matter.

And somebody with a kind of blindness ought to be interested in why others see things in them about which they are unaware if those others are correct.

But neither of these happen. The issue is uniformly disregarded. There is no comment that indicates that the words were read or understood. Now THAT's an enigma.

The following from another post on another thread last August summarizes this nicely. The poster to whom this was addressed has a habit of changing the agnostic atheist's claim to that of the atheist who claims that gods don't exist. I have tried to engage him on why he does that several times, but instead of accepting or declining my offer, he declines to acknowledge seeing my words:

"Your posting has been a rich source of material to analyze. You refuse to cooperate when I ask you to discuss what makes you so hostile to atheists and why you continually change "I neither claim that gods do or don't exist" to "You believes God doesn't exist". I asked you several times each whether you were aware of any of these things to try to decide whether it was due to a cognitive defect - some kind of blindness - which would elicit empathy, or a form of trolling, which would do the opposite, or a third option if there was one, but you declines to answer or acknowledge seeing the questions, which helps me decide what the correct answer is.​

​

I shared those tentative conclusions with you for any corrections or objections you might have, but your response was the same - crickets. Since you elect to have no input there, you've had none, and I've stopped asking you - until now. I will ask again below.​

​

This is the kind of thing that I called endlessly fascinating to me. I really can't explain that behavior. When I imagine myself on the other end of such questions, I can't imagine ignoring it. My responses would express concern for why anybody thought such things about and an effort to explain myself. Even if the answer were something I wanted to conceal, I would still respond with something like, "I prefer to not discuss that." I can't imagine any scenario in which I would do what you've done.​

​

But you're far from alone. I've been through this with about a dozen other RF posters with questions like, "What are you hoping to accomplish here with creationist apologetics? Are you hoping to convince the scientifically literate of anything? Are you performing for an imagined audience of one to martyr yourself and curry favor?"​

​

But nobody responds. Never. Not even once. How mysterious that is to me."​

Maybe one day, one poster will actually engage me in this arena, and so I keep making the offer, but I accept the very real likelihood that this is what I will continue to see ad infinitum here on RF. So alien to my own way of processing information and understanding the world, I haven't even got a hypothesis to account for that.

As you just read, I haven't lost interest, just most hope of ever getting an answer. I still have a glimmer of hope there.

You: "The same symbols everywhere is a huge clue to what changed. Adam whose wernickes area was closely linked to higher brain functions through mutation was born. He was the first man. The mutation was exceedingly "adaptive" so spread like wildfire (suddenly) through the population creating the human race. This race went extinct at the tower of babel because the language became too complex for not only dimwits but virtually everybody."

He: "More foolish intentional ignorance of science"

You: "I missed the experiment where it was proven that nothing in the Bible could be real."

You missed the logical proposition that an idea doesn't need to be disproved to not be believed. Nothing in scripture can be said to be factual without external, empiric confirmation.

That was a response to, "You may recall the two of us having this same discussion wherein you kept telling me that I had never answered something you posted, I repeated my answer two or three times as I have with cladking here also to no avail, and then finally told you that I wouldn't post it again."

I just read the following:

He: "Many of us have already answered this question"

You: "No you haven't. Stop making things up"

You're also an enigma of the variety I've been discussing. How are we to understand you repeatedly having this experience with multiple posters and you not even considering the possibility that, assuming that you are not trolling - and I do; I don't think that about you - that you are blind to these answers and can never figure that out even with prompting and encouragement. Why aren't you curious that YOU might be the problem and have difficulty seeing that? THAT's the compelling mystery for me. Why not? If it were trolling or fear of being shown wrong, I would expect different answers from you that the ones we see above - more deceptive in the first case and more defensive in the latter.

So what then? What missing piece makes this make sense?

I'm curious how those taking this approach hope to maintain the interest of others. It seems a losing battle given what is demonstrated here. This apparent lack of interest in learning anything or paying any attention to what others have to say and just repeating empty claims or logical fallacies as if they are all that is needed is baffling to me. I've lost interest in trying to engage and establish any sort of dialog, because there is no interest reciprocated. What is offered amounts to proselytizing and often some sort of syncretic belief system based on personal speculation and claims about things not in evidence with none ever offered. The predominant position of an ideology from the literalists, I get, though the tactics and interest remains consistent regardless of the basis for rejection of science, but at least I understand the literalist theists motivations.

There are some for whom I cannot fathom their motivation. To consistently offer incorrect, often made up, information as fact for no obvious reason and to declare they have defended and explained this all billions of times, while carry on word games and diversion in response makes little sense as I see it.

I'm more curious how long others will hang with the various deniers when nothing that is presented to them is given even token interest and any failure to understand is blamed on others and not on the person that provides the empty posts.

I rather find the projection amusing. To see all the claims and accusations lodged against those that accept science by those actually embracing and acting out the substance of those claims and accusations is priceless. So too, the contradictions that occur in the same sentence or immediately following in the same paragraph of a post.

How those clearly uniformed come to post as if they are the only truly informed is very perplexing. As perplexing as why they lack any interest to engage and learn. Though I think it is in some part due to the fact that they are afraid they would learn something that would challenge their views or reveal how little they actually care to admit they really know.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually written languages did not suddenly appear, but evolved based on need to communicate, and began with much older proto-writing.

Proto-writing​

Main article: Proto-writing
Accounting tokens

Clay bulla and tokens – Susa (4000–3100 BCE)

Numerical tablet – Khafajah, Uruk V (3500–3350 BCE)

Pre-cuneiform tags depicting a goat or sheep alongside a numeral, likely "10" – Al-Hasakah (3300–3100 BCE)[21][22]
Turtle plastron inscribed with an eye-like symbol – Jiahu, China (c. 6000 BCE)
During the Early Bronze Age (3300–2100 BCE), the first writing systems evolved from systems of proto-writing, which used ideographic and mnemonic symbols to communicate information, but did not record human language directly. Proto-writing is attested as early as the 7th millennium BCE, with well-known examples including:

• The Jiahu symbols carved into tortoise shells, found in 24 Neolithic graves excavated at Jiahu in northern China, with radiocarbon dates from the 7th millennium BCE.[23][better source needed] The majority of the signs uncovered were inscribed individually or in small groups on different shells.[24][25] Most archaeologists consider the Jiahu symbols as not directly linked to the emergence of true writing.[26]
• The Vinča symbols found on artifacts of the Vinča culture of central and southeastern Europe, dating to the 6th–5th millennia BCE.[27]
• The Indus script attested in short inscriptions between 2600 and 2000 BCE.[28]

Other examples of proto-writing include quipu, a system of knotted cords used as mnemonic devices within the Inca Empire (15th century CE).[29]

Recording history​

Main articles: Recorded history and Ancient literature
The origins of writing are more generally attributed to the start of the pottery-phase of the Neolithic, when clay tokens were used to record specific amounts of livestock or commodities. These tokens were initially impressed on the surface of round clay envelopes and then stored in them. The tokens were then progressively replaced by flat tablets, on which signs were recorded with a stylus. Actual writing is first recorded in Uruk (modern Iraq), at the end of the 4th millennium BCE, and soon after in various parts of the Near East.[30]

An ancient Sumerian poem gives the first known story of the invention of writing:

Because the messenger's mouth was heavy and he couldn't repeat (the message), the Lord of Kulaba patted some clay and put words on it, like a tablet. Until then, there had been no putting words on clay.
— Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (c. 1800 BCE)[31][32]

The emergence of writing in a given area is usually followed by several centuries of fragmentary inscriptions. Historians mark the "historicity" of a culture by the presence of coherent texts written by the culture.[33] Scholars have disagreed concerning when prehistory becomes history and when proto-writing became true writing

 

[Eli G]

I'm curious how those taking this approach hope to maintain the interest of others. It seems a losing battle given what is demonstrated here. This apparent lack of interest in learning anything or paying any attention to what others have to say and just repeating empty claims or logical fallacies as if they are all that is needed is baffling to me. I've lost interest in trying to engage and establish any sort of dialog, because there is no interest reciprocated. What is offered amounts to proselytizing and often some sort of syncretic belief system based on personal speculation and claims about things not in evidence with none ever offered. The predominant position of an ideology from the literalists, I get, though the tactics and interest remains consistent regardless of the basis for rejection of science, but at least I understand the literalist theists motivations.

There are some for whom I cannot fathom their motivation. To consistently offer incorrect, often made up, information as fact for no obvious reason and to declare they have defended and explained this all billions of times, while carry on word games and diversion in response makes little sense as I see it.

I'm more curious how long others will hang with the various deniers when nothing that is presented to them is given even token interest and any failure to understand is blamed on others and not on the person that provides the empty posts.

I rather find the projection amusing. To see all the claims and accusations lodged against those that accept science by those actually embracing and acting out the substance of those claims and accusations is priceless. So too, the contradictions that occur in the same sentence or immediately following in the same paragraph of a post.

How those clearly uniformed come to post as if they are the only truly informed is very perplexing. As perplexing as why they lack any interest to engage and learn. Though I think it is in some part due to the fact that they are afraid they would learn something that would challenge their views or reveal how little they actually care to admit they really know.

Don't be so surprised by this. If you apply your own words to yourself, you will easily understand.

People do not want to be brainwashed, but to be shown real evidence of what others say. The speculations presented in evolutionist articles are not evidence that the evolution of species has ever been real at any time in the history of the universe, neither on the planet nor anywhere else in the cosmos.