Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah for sure.
It is all about how that which is within it serves you.
People should not serve any books.
I mean , who knows whobwas Adam.

What we know are 'gossips'.
That is why they are classified as such.
I have trying to explain that here in different ways , but it is useless.
It is just a separate discussion , and it does not have place here in these fields of discussion.

At least i think so.

Without getting too deep and fomenting a diversionary discussion, I will mention that, based on the evidence, my interpretation of the Bible falls into a position that we don't know enough to have the best interpretation and that a literal interpretation is an unwarranted dogma.

I would mention this too. That those claiming God-given free will seem at odds with that position by their actions that seem to want to subvert and subjugate the free will of others and force belief in their personal positions. A position that I don't see as advocated in my biblical interpretation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I've suggested, I think that depends what your purpose is in holding these discussions. If your purpose is to educate the creationist you have responded to, then I agree that you will fail. If you find nothing else of value to you or any others reading your words in those discussions, then the exercise is pointless.

But that's not my experience. Even knowing that I will almost certainly never get through, I enjoy writing post like this one. I enjoyed writing those words to you.

Agreed, and that's even more interesting to me than what they believe. Faith-based thought is no longer in my repertoire, although I have experience with that from my religious past, so I understand the willingness to engage in that, and in the case of many, that there is no other way to acquire ideas more lofty than the best place to get an Italian meal nearby or which musician one likes best, which are examples of empirically acquired knowledge, except to just accept them uncritically.

These are the people who voted for Trump thinking that he might have answers or help them despite all of the evidence to the contrary because they were told that and believed it uncritically. Anybody who still thinks that that kind of uncritical, faith-based thinking isn't dangerous and potentially very damaging only need look at what is coming, as other faith-based thinkers deploy their anti-scientific agendas (watch what RFK Jr does to health care, or the Republicans to climate change mitigation). Look at what the church has done to American women based in this kind of thinking.

Agreed. I'm sure that you're familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect. We can imagine three levels of cognitive competence.

[1] Expertise - one is a well-trained critical thinker with a large fund of knowledge in a specialty area. He's usually correct and he knows he is in his field of expertise, like maybe an attorney or an engineer.

[2] Aware of expertise - one doesn't possess that specialized knowledge himself, but is aware that others can and often do, especially if certified by some reliable source as in having a professional license or degree.

[3] The Dunning-Kruger set - one is unaware that that expertise exists. He is unaware of what critical thinking is or does for the critical thinker. His opinions are all received uncritically. It is the only way he can acquire new ideas above the level of good Italian restaurants. These are the only kinds of things he learns using evidence he evaluates directly and correctly himself and uses to arrive at sound conclusions independently. It's the limit of his critical thinking skills, and he doesn't recognize them as such as he has no real concept of the process. And so he thinks that everybody else's beliefs are also ideas accepted uncritically. meaning that no opinion is more valuable than any other to him. And so, the opinions of a Fauci, for example, with degrees, board certifications in infectious diseases, immunology, and epidemiology, and decades of experience as well as a proven track record and professional accolades, has no more weight to him than a crackpot like RFK Jr's. One can recognize such people when they say regarding Fauci "That's just his opinion."

Yes, you are missing something, but I don't know how to impart my ideas to you if I haven't yet. I've already addressed that with you here when you brought it up a few posts back. I don't see the value to either of us for me to repeat that. If you care to review that link, begin with, "Second, your words don't make sense and aren't credible."

You've still failed to address my point, which is why you are uninterested in whether there is any merit to the criticisms a few of us have leveled at your posting behavior. You wrote, "I am not uninterested, but rather very interested, that Is why I keep asking people to quote their alleged answer," but that only makes my point that you are uninterested in discussing these criticisms and keep returning to comments like the one above, which discusses a non-problem.

You don't need words repeated if you have seen them before. You can quote them and/or link to them. They are etched in stone in some server for the foreseeable future. You're representing here that you need to have somebody like me repeat them when what you write is that you've never seen them and want evidence that they were written as the other poster claims.

I have done it for you, repeatedly and to no avail. Look at what's happening here again. Once again, I am redirecting you to words already written with the RF link above, but it will undoubtedly be to no avail as has been the case in the past. We are back into that loop for as long as I agree to continue participating where you fail to acknowledge words written to you then need them repeated over and again, lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum.

Look at your words, as if you've just had a brainstorm that will resolve this issue - just repost my previous words to prove that they were ever posted, with the implication that you will then be forced to address those words. That doesn't happen. As I said, if I allow it, we will do this over and over and over and over again. Over and over, you will say to just show you what I wrote. Eventually, I will refuse. I'm already half-way there with this round. You'll notice that I didn't actually quote any of those words this time. I just linked to them.

Evolution is something YOU'VE never witnessed. I have as have millions of other informed people. I've watched E.coli evolve metabolically in time-lapse photography. Somebody reproduced the link recently in this or a similar thread. Consistent with my words to Leroy above, I don't find any value in searching for it again and linking to it here. If you didn't look at it then, you won't look at it now.

Also, you can submit a query to AI if you ever become interested in learning the answers to your questions. I did so just now. I asked, "Has evolution ever been witnessed in a laboratory?" The answer began, "Yes, evolution has been witnessed and documented in laboratory settings through various experimental studies. One of the most notable examples is the work conducted by Richard Lenski and his team on *Escherichia coli* (E. coli) bacteria"

Most people can't evaluate scientific arguments themselves, and most of those are unaware that many others can. See Dunning-Kruger above.

You're a creationist. Your beliefs are faith-based, not evidence based. If evidence mattered to you, you'd have watched the E. coli video, or you would already have queried AI, but we both know that's not going to happen.

But apparently almost nobody wants to say that reason and evidence aren't involved in their thinking - just faith - so, they represent an interest that they don't have in those things as you have here. But one should go by the actions of others and not their words to decide how they process information.

I suppose I do have to admit recognition of an interest in how people come to think as they do. Especially given the danger to free thought and the acquisition and study of knowledge that some thinking seems to promote. Even if one cannot help some people, it can be useful to explain to others that might be taken in by such seductive intensity.

 

[Dimi95]

Without getting too deep and fomenting a diversionary discussion, I will mention that, based on the evidence, my interpretation of the Bible falls into a position that we don't know enough to have the best interpretation and that a literal interpretation is an unwarranted dogma.

I would mention this too. That those claiming God-given free will seem at odds with that position by their actions that seem to want to subvert and subjugate the free will of others and force belief in their personal positions. A position that I don't see as advocated in my biblical interpretation.

Yeah , for sure.

But i will also mention that the Bible is not in any way considered a single entity or a single book to reflect Christianity and the Christian canon.
But that is what Christian canon is in principle , The New Testament.
It is a set of many books , and not all books represent the same amount of evidence.

Therefore , each book needs to be studied separately.

That is however another discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you for your clarification of "sudden".

Now where are those five distinct, necessary and sufficient and non-overlapping definitions of "atom" among the unbounded choices you assert are out there? Or were you just talking nonsense when you asserted that?

And what definition of "consciousness" are you using? The notion appears to be central to whatever it is you're arguing, so if you don't know what you actually mean by the term, please just say so and the caravan can move on.

Was there ever any meaningful response to your request for the definitions of atom that we are assured exist?

Having asked for a list of Darwin's assumptions and a breakdown of how they are all wrong so many times without ever getting anything like that in return, I haven't held out any hope that you would be more successful in your effort. But I don't pay attention to all posters here anymore and could have missed some isolated and unusual outlier.

 

[cladking]

No one, I MEAN NO ONE, has supported any reason to consider that Homo sapiens was a different species in the past than it is today. No one, I MEAN NO ONE, has provided any evidence or reason to conclude that Homo sapiens went extinct at some time in the past and was replaced by another species of Homo currently claimed to be something called "omnisciensis".

The very fact that no species on earth acted human until 40,000 years ago suggests that a new species arose 40,000 years ago. The fact that our memory and history go back only to 2000 BC suggests that a new species arose ~2000 BC.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ridiculous!

It's weird. I had this sudden sensation that someone posted some empty claims completely devoid of understanding, evidence or reason and that the response ridiculous was the most obvious and proper response.

I'm getting this question in my mind about what "acting human" means, and wondering on what basis it is made. I don't know of evidence that supports such a wild claim. Perhaps someone just believes they just know and it is revealed truth to be believed without question.

Suddenly!, I get this feeling that someone doesn't understand the difference between history and recorded history. As if the person making the claim has no real basis to make such a wild and empty claim. Or even the awareness to recognize how it has been demonstrated that a claim that history is only a few thousand years old has been refuted and shown to be...you guessed it, ridiculous.

Maybe no one posted anything. Hopefully not, since such claims are ridiculous and won't be and cannot be supported.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Species concepts are more than just whims or vague notions about change and the type and extent of change. If a person wants to propose a new species they certainly require more than just empty claims to back the proposal.

I'm curious how someone could come to the conclusion that any change is randomly associated with speciation. You could just pick any event in the course of a species history and decide that a new species exists. Of course, there would be no value in trying to delimit them into some rational taxon to differentiate them from other species either extant or historical. The invention of the automobile would be justification to claim that Homo sapiens are now Homo mechanicaltransportis.

I'm always amazed at the degree of disconnect that exists in those that seem to offer claims as fact from a seeming position of omniscience.

 

[YoursTrue]

Bugs remain bugs even if they change colors by genetics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Was there ever any meaningful response to your request for the definitions of atom that we are assured exist?

Having asked for a list of Darwin's assumptions and a breakdown of how they are all wrong so many times without ever getting anything like that in return, I haven't held out any hope that you would be more successful in your effort. But I don't pay attention to all posters here anymore and could have missed some isolated and unusual outlier.

It doesn't look like either you, @blü 2 or I are ever going to get any meaningful, on point, evidence-based response to our queries. As if the person making the claims can't really provide any evidence or reason to support those claims.

I'd say that it is just going to be rinse and repeat and diversion at best. Apparently, this is how some perceive science. SMH.

 

[Pogo]

Bugs remain bugs even if they change colors by genetics.

Yes that is what evolution predicts, thank you for reminding us of another correct prediction of the theory.

 

[gnostic]

The very fact that no species on earth acted human until 40,000 years ago suggests that a new species arose 40,000 years ago. The fact that our memory and history go back only to 2000 BC suggests that a new species arose ~2000 BC.

There were no speciation event 4000 years ago.

Speciation is biological, not because this 2000 BCE or the Tower of Babel myth.

Anatomically, the Homo sapiens have changed much at all, whether you compare them 40,000 years ago, 4000 years ago or 40 years ago, they are anatomically the same.

There are very little changes to Sumerian art & cuneiform writing 200 years before 2000 BCE, and 200 years after 2000 BCE. And it is the same with Egypt in that range (400 years before & after 2000 BCE), with their art and hieroglyphs/hieratic writing, the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom didn’t change their styles that much. The main changes for Egypt, whereas the Old Kingdom focused more on Atum or Ra, while the Middle Kingdom focused more on Osiris, and it will changed again in the New Kingdom with Amun-Ra.

But who they worshipped, don’t make them different species.

Whether they write history or not, don’t make them different species. You are ignoring the fact, that while Egypt and Mesopotamia may have developed their archaic writing systems in the late 3rd millennium BCE, many cultures outside of them didn’t write in different periods from ancient times to more recent history, where there were cultures that didn’t use writings, like indigenous natives of the Malay Archipelago, Papua New Guinea and Australia.

When people invent or adopt writing systems, don’t make them different species. Australian indigenous natives have for tens of thousands of years were satisfied with oral traditions and indigenous arts, but the spoken languages that were used before the British colonisation, were in the hundreds.

You cannot used your silly tower of babel nonsense on every cultures with a fixed 2000 BCE barrier.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There were no speciation event 4000 years ago.

Speciation is biological, not because this 2000 BCE or the Tower of Babel myth.

Anatomically, the Homo sapiens have changed much at all, whether you compare them 40,000 years ago, 4000 years ago or 40 years ago, they are anatomically the same.

There are very little changes to Sumerian art & cuneiform writing 200 years before 2000 BCE, and 200 years after 2000 BCE. And it is the same with Egypt in that range (400 years before & after 2000 BCE), with their art and hieroglyphs/hieratic writing, the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom didn’t change their styles that much. The main changes for Egypt, whereas the Old Kingdom focused more on Atum or Ra, while the Middle Kingdom focused more on Osiris, and it will changed again in the New Kingdom with Amun-Ra.

But who they worshipped, don’t make them different species.

Whether they write history or not, don’t make them different species. You are ignoring the fact, that while Egypt and Mesopotamia may have developed their archaic writing systems in the late 3rd millennium BCE, many cultures outside of them didn’t write in different periods from ancient times to more recent history, where there were cultures that didn’t use writings, like indigenous natives of the Malay Archipelago, Papua New Guinea and Australia.

When people invent or adopt writing systems, don’t make them different species. Australian indigenous natives have for tens of thousands of years were satisfied with oral traditions and indigenous arts, but the spoken languages that were used before the British colonisation, were in the hundreds.

You cannot used your silly tower of babel nonsense on every cultures with a fixed 2000 BCE barrier.

I still wonder what acted human means and why doing so suggest speciation or why the suggestion of speciation is treated as if actual speciation took place. Apparently, acting human is writing, but it isn't inventing airplanes, cars or atomic power. It isn't using telephones or going into space either, apparently.

Fortunately, I don't base my conclusions on the arbitrary, uninformed individuals that think they can scan the brains of long-dead humans with no brains available to scan. It must be some sort of Christmas miracle to get these scans of ancient (and I hesitate to use the term, but it applies in this case) Homo sapiens for comparison to the brains of contemporary Homo sapiens.

I wonder if they were upside down landing Homo sapiens in the past?

 

[YoursTrue]

Then there are those who are certain they communicate with the dead.

 

[cladking]

Then there are those who are certain they communicate with the dead.

Alas, poor Yorick.

I'm sure I know he'd tell us about survival of the fittest and not exercising for two days.

 

[YoursTrue]

Alas, poor Yorick.

I'm sure I know he'd tell us about survival of the fittest and not exercising for two days.

Meanwhile, there was (and possibly is) a controversy going on in the Catholic Church about this in reference to the soul and religion and evolution.
I have been reading about Cardinal Ratzinger who became a Pope (Pope Benedict XVI, I think) and his views.

 

[YoursTrue]

Alas, poor Yorick.

I'm sure I know he'd tell us about survival of the fittest and not exercising for two days.

I'd hate to communicate with his skull. (little joke there) But I've been thinking about it. You talk about consciousness and I appreciate that. I doubt doubt doubt that scientists can explain it as a "natural" part of evolution. But -- here's the thing -- if I wanted to (which I don't) I could try to communicate with spirits. But my God forbids me to do so in various ways. I won't go into it now on the board here in this context, but yes -- there are those who would agree with the theory of evolution in its broadest aspects starting from the first cells onward as if they could explain it for certain and then of course say that when and if they get "further information" they'll amend their viewpoint. And then in their minds go beyond that. Either way -- it's imagination in its various capacities.

 

[cladking]

I'd hate to communicate with his skull. (little joke there) But I've been thinking about it. You talk about consciousness and I appreciate that. I doubt doubt doubt that scientists can explain it as a "natural" part of evolution. But -- here's the thing -- if I wanted to (which I don't) I could try to communicate with spirits. But my God forbids me to do so in various ways. I won't go into it now on the board here in this context, but yes -- there are those who would agree with the theory of evolution in its broadest aspects starting from the first cells onward as if they could explain it for certain and then of course say that when and if they get "further information" they'll amend their viewpoint. And then in their minds go beyond that. Either way -- it's imagination in its various capacities.

I can't reconcile the advent of life with my contention that life is consciousness. I don't believe it's necessary at this time because even though I can define terms and scientists can't this is all just a format to learn about these things through experiment. They aren't an answer, they are a question.

Perhaps a "Creator" had a hand in abiogenesis or perhaps He still has a hand in consciousness but there's no need to assume a God created life. Perhaps consciousness and life merely arose in tandem and even the slightest little sliver of consciousness was so important to survival it bred true.

Unlike some scientists who know everything, it's far above my paygrade to know anything. I'm suggesting it's time we START experimenting, not that it's time we STOP.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can't reconcile the advent of life with my contention that life is consciousness. I don't believe it's necessary at this time because even though I can define terms and scientists can't this is all just a format to learn about these things through experiment. They aren't an answer, they are a question.

Perhaps a "Creator" had a hand in abiogenesis or perhaps He still has a hand in consciousness but there's no need to assume a God created life. Perhaps consciousness and life merely arose in tandem and even the slightest little sliver of consciousness was so important to survival it bred true.

Unlike some scientists who know everything, it's far above my paygrade to know anything. I'm suggesting it's time we START experimenting, not that it's time we STOP.

In reference to knowing everything -- I think that's what Eve wanted when the serpent tempted her.* Of course she didn't create herself. Just like I am SURE that I didn't know anything before I became conscious. That's how I have to put it. I'm purty sure I didn't know anything when I was an embryo. Although I may have reacted to certain things as "I" began to grow in the womb.
*Naturally she couldn't know everything. She could only see a certain distance -- couldn't see the "other side" of the world, etc. Anyway, can't go much further than that.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can't reconcile the advent of life with my contention that life is consciousness. I don't believe it's necessary at this time because even though I can define terms and scientists can't this is all just a format to learn about these things through experiment. They aren't an answer, they are a question.

Perhaps a "Creator" had a hand in abiogenesis or perhaps He still has a hand in consciousness but there's no need to assume a God created life. Perhaps consciousness and life merely arose in tandem and even the slightest little sliver of consciousness was so important to survival it bred true.

Unlike some scientists who know everything, it's far above my paygrade to know anything. I'm suggesting it's time we START experimenting, not that it's time we STOP.

We can be on a jury and the jury can be split. The same evidence or reasoning was heard by all.

 

[Valjean]

Bugs remain bugs even if they change colors by genetics.

What would distinguish a non-bug? Why could that not be achieved by accumulated change?