Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dimi95]

Except . . . the Tower of Babel never existed,

Metaphorically , it is debatable.

But i understand what you mean.

 

[cladking]

Homo sapiens has been roaming this planet for at least 150.000 years

There are severe anomalies and almost no facts to support this contention. You don't know what Lucy or Eve were thinking. You merely believe they were like you because Charles Darwin said every individual is the same species as is parents. This is a stupid definition.

Here's the thing: you lack the education and qualification to come up with theories to explain these things.

You believe that it's impossible for science to be wrong and you say it in every single post. Indeed, if you posted nothing at all you'd still say it in every post because your quote says "science is reality". You simply ignore 500 years of history that shows that science is always wrong in the long run. I'm sure this works well for you but you should be prepared for the day that some of these dominoes collapse.

In the meantime you might try supporting your beliefs with logic and facts instead of derision and lectures and not forgetting it was a little boy who observed the king has no clothes.

 

[cladking]

Again your rejection of science in favor of Biblical mythology.

How many times do I have to tell you that I reject no experiment and the Bible is nothing but a data point? You are rejecting all data points in favor of doctrine and belief.

 

[cladking]

So far I've been told I'm ignorant and of course I don't know that much about the science and classifications) but I really DO understand the theory. Not that I know it all but it's really perfectly understandable...I don't agree with it, of course, but if I go along with it it's perfectly understandable, no problem. That there are certain "missing pieces" is perfectly ok with them. They pretend and/or posit as if their opinions are correct, maybe -- until "further evidence" comes to light...in my opinion, of course.

I've forgotten most of the little I learned about "Evolution" because I don't believe in it. I've constructed my models differently and tweak them anytime a relevant experiment comes around. I've studied far more biology than most people have and I've tried to keep up with new experimentation. My primary interest since three years of age has been thought and this is only tangentially related to biology because our definitions are lacking and our ability to study it reductionistically approaches zero. It is my belief after a lifetime of study that consciousness may never be understood through reductionistic means and that it must be viewed holistically. I doubt that even a proper definition can be developed on the current trajectory of science.

This matters because the last two speciation events in "humans" involve mostly only consciousness and very very subtle physiological differences.

 

[Dimi95]

How many times do I have to tell you that I reject no experiment and the Bible is nothing but a data point? You are rejecting all data points in favor of doctrine and belief.

Technically you do that also.
I would however have more understanding why @shunyadragon says that , and lot less when you say it.

The Bible is more then just one book.
It's a collection of books.
You can't recognize only one passage of one Book and reject every other based on that.
It does not go that way.
These books , they are written in parts of time , not all at once.

The tower of Babel metaphorically is refered to the Library of Alexandria.
You should read Revelation 17-19.

The tower of Babel clearly refers to set of books and different languages.

That's what context provides , and that is what evidence is suggesting.

That being said 3 or couple more centuries before does not make it false.

I mean it is very clear what is the stand of those who practice Science.

Those that want to find the ruins of it , they will never find it , because in that sense the tower never existed as some members have pointed that out.
That is clearly evident.

 

[cladking]

Mere pottery can actually tell us a great many things about a people.

You are extrapolating a species into existence and ignoring the cause and nature of change in species.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are severe anomalies and almost no facts to support this contention. You don't know what Lucy or Eve were thinking. You merely believe they were like you because Charles Darwin said every individual is the same species as is parents. This is a stupid definition.



You believe that it's impossible for science to be wrong and you say it in every single post. Indeed, if you posted nothing at all you'd still say it in every post because your quote says "science is reality". You simply ignore 500 years of history that shows that science is always wrong in the long run. I'm sure this works well for you but you should be prepared for the day that some of these dominoes collapse.

In the meantime you might try supporting your beliefs with logic and facts instead of derision and lectures and not forgetting it was a little boy who observed the king has no clothes.

Poor little Lucy and her pieces. I was working at a large publishing house in Manhattan when the book was published.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So in fact you do believe and you are saying that science is the most accurate determiner of reality and truth. By definition, this is called 'scientism', not science.

Empiricism is the only means of determining reliable inductions about how reality works and how it affects our conscious experience, i.e., knowledge. Through experience one can learn what actions lead to what results and also how those results affect us.

Other "ways of knowing" don't do that.

Holding the belief I just described is one of the neutral definitions of scientism. Another is the methods of science.

You like the negatively judgmental definition, which is more like, "excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques," which comes in two flavors, one being that a person thinks that empiricism will eventually all questions, which I haven't seen from anybody ever, but surely there must be people that believe that. I disagree with them but see no harm in holding such a belief.

The meaning you use implies that strict empiricists don't give enough respect to these other ways of knowing, that they are myopic and missing much of value by not employing these other ways of knowing or respecting the opinions of those who rely on them, which no doubt comes from a resentment when these claims are rejected.

I'm one who does that explicitly and have done so with you. I have called your fanciful speculations untethered to experience or reality and not knowledge since they are neither demonstrably correct nor can be used to in any way to improve the human condition or even one's own life, and you have responded emotionally.

I attribute life to a Creator, a higher power than physics and nature.

There is no known higher power than the laws of nature. If gods exist and are causally connected to any part of nature, they are another part of nature. Ig gods exist, there must be a priori laws that create and sustain them.

You might have heard about the fine-tuning argument for an intelligent designer - that the physical parameters of our universe must be as they are within a very narrow tolerance ("finely tuned") in order for the universe to sustain galaxies, like, and mind. This argument describes a deity who was constrained by nature to discover what those parameters were and to engineer a universe meeting those specifications.

The idea that a deity can know everything or even anything for protracted periods tells us that it has form that must be maintained lest its mind and memories evaporate away, and this implies the necessity of higher-order physical laws.

Our history begins with the "symbols" in caves. More accurately the history of "homo sapiens" begins.

That was a response to, "Our history extends way beyond our recorded history." Maybe you didn't understand the difference between our history and our recorded history. Man existed before he developed writing.

A thorough history of man goes back to the Big Bang, when the particles and forces that comprise him (as well as everything else) first arose and eventually formed filaments of galaxies of solar systems.

Man is made of heavier elements with multiple nucleons each which histories go back to the formation of the stars whose supernovas delivered the carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus necessary to make human bodies (and rocky planets and oceans) to the nebula that collapsed to form our solar system.

We can continue in this manner and connect those events to today. That was [1] material evolution. Next came [2] chemical evolution to form life on earth. Then came [3] biological evolution which yielded animals with brains. Then came [4] psychological evolution and the advent of consciousness and eventually intelligence in higher order brains leading to human intellect.

And finally, human [5] cultural evolution. This is where cave painting comes in - at the tail end of all of this.

You know you'd think as science progresses and we learn ever more about the complexity of reality and the impossibility of how it unfolds that people would be more willing to accept the possibility of Divine creation.

"The impossibility of how it unfolds"? That's not what we're learning.

You might be unaware that the march of science has been to replace supernatural explanations with naturalistic ones, which has led to the concept of the god of the gaps as believers struggle harder and harder to find jobs for gods that mindless natural forces aren't up to. What's still left for gods?

Ask the creationists. They focus on the twin origins problems - where did the initial universe that began expanding some 13.7 billion years ago come from, and where did the first life in the universe come from?

As I said, we have naturalistic hypotheses that if correct answer these questions without invoking gods, but they are not robust scientific theories, just logically possible hypotheses which enjoy the advantage over the religious alternatives of being more parsimonious than the ones that require that more than that blind nature exists.

I'm proposing because of the nature of consciousness and free will that reality is infinitely more complex than the infinite complexity we knew it already was and believers in science don't even blink an eye.

You don't know the nature of either consciousness or free will, and of course critically thinking empiricists are unmoved by believers' unfalsifiable speculations about either with no predictive power.

Gods were real.

Gods enjoy the same ontological status as vampires and leprechauns.

 

[cladking]

Yes you are intentionally ignorant and confused rejecting science in favor of Biblical and Egyptian mythology.

Yet here we are still unable to communicate after years and you can't see the language might be confused! You can't accept that it is known fact that we see what we believe. You can't imagine that every scientist has different models and 50% of aviation engineers and 3% of physicists incorrectly answer the question of whether or not an airplane can take off from a conveyor belt moving toward it. We can't see our own confusion and can't see the confusion of those who agree with us. I can explain in detail why physicists get the question wrong. Its root is confusion caused by language and the way we think.

Darwin's problems were caused by language as well. Then he's enjoyed centuries of support because people are still confused. 19th century scientists were great but we were misled.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've forgotten most of the little I learned about "Evolution" because I don't believe in it. I've constructed my models differently and tweak them anytime a relevant experiment comes around. I've studied far more biology than most people have and I've tried to keep up with new experimentation. My primary interest since three years of age has been thought and this is only tangentially related to biology because our definitions are lacking and our ability to study it reductionistically approaches zero. It is my belief after a lifetime of study that consciousness may never be understood through reductionistic means and that it must be viewed holistically. I doubt that even a proper definition can be developed on the current trajectory of science.

This matters because the last two speciation events in "humans" involve mostly only consciousness and very very subtle physiological differences.

Thinkin' things over, I just had two revelations or better put for some, realizations. One is that remembrance can precede a physical reaction, and two is that monkeys do not read and write books. I haven't tested these things out though. Oh wait, I should have said baboons or gorillas, whichever is said to be "closer" by biological substance to humans. Give a monkey a brush, paint and an easel and it might paint a picture. But not give classes on it or write a book about it. Hmmm maybe evolutionists believe in time monkeys, lions, and dolphins will write books.

 

[Pogo]

Off course bugs are animals.
Seriously, how you can remain this ignorant?

Conscious redirection of the energy most spend towards learning or organic incapacity?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet here we are still unable to communicate after years and you can't see the language might be confused! You can't accept that it is known fact that we see what we believe. You can't imagine that every scientist has different models and 50% of aviation engineers and 3% of physicists incorrectly answer the question of whether or not an airplane can take off from a conveyor belt moving toward it. We can't see our own confusion and can't see the confusion of those who agree with us. I can explain in detail why physicists get the question wrong. Its root is confusion caused by language and the way we think.

Darwin's problems were caused by language as well. Then he's enjoyed centuries of support because people are still confused. 19th century scientists were great but we were misled.

We do to communicate because you persist in rejecting science with the intentional ignorance of science and believing in an ancient mythical Biblical and created Egyptian mythology

 

[cladking]

So far I've been told I'm ignorant and of course I don't know that much about the science and classifications) but I really DO understand the theory. Not that I know it all but it's really perfectly understandable...I don't agree with it, of course, but if I go along with it it's perfectly understandable, no problem. That there are certain "missing pieces" is perfectly ok with them. They pretend and/or posit as if their opinions are correct, maybe -- until "further evidence" comes to light...in my opinion, of course.

I don't know what's wrong with people.

If I were a caveman and concerned about eating every day as every single caveman was I'd want to have a steady supply of food that could store itself alive until I was hungry since I lacked refrigeration. I could pull a darwin and wait until nature created a food species but that might take a million generations and I'd have my heart set on eating the next day too. Catching wild goats was difficult and keeping them impossible. What to do what to do.

Maybe making them tamer by imposition of an artificial bottleneck would work just like it did with Fido! Let them eat grass and tin cans every day and we might even get some milk for the baby homo sapien out of the deal. Does this make sense only if you have the fetching up of a caveman?

We know they invented agriculture and recent studies show how they invented agriculture. What is exactly the problem here? Why do my beliefs make me stupid and theirs make them justified in lecture after lecture. One might ask Who died and left scientists as the source of all reality.
...Such an awesome responsibility.

 

[cladking]

History of human kind existed before the tower of babel and that's it.

Oh!

Why don't you tell me one single event that is recorded in words, in history. You can't because we can't understand the writing. The pyramid builders said "osiris tows the earth by means of balance" but this is not understood as the means by which the pyramids were built.

Tell me one thing.

 

[cladking]

The part where it is completely insane to say such thing, knowing human history of civilization is much older then that (like at least another 8000 years) and human history in general even more (like 50 to 120 thousand).

Here I thought writing went back only to 3200 BC.

Let me ask, "if someone really wrote down "I am homo sapien" 8000 years ago how would you know he even knew what "homo sapien" means? I know if he italicizes it then he mustta been right.

 

[wellwisher]

Except . . . the Tower of Babel never existed in reality or symbolically.

The Tower of Babel is symbolic of spoken language suddenly becoming more diverse. This had a connection to ego subjectivity. The men of Babel, all became ego-centric, thinking they could build a tower to the heavens; subjectivity. All of a sudden, in their arrogance, they could no longer understand each other; babbling. This symbolizes shows how human language, became subjective and diverse, since any sound could mean anything. Today, there are 7000 human languages on earth. The symbolism suggests there may have been an original spoken language, at one time, that ended with the rise of the ego ,and leading to subjective language diversity; coining new words.

Since many scientists believe language is what allows us to think, even when we are trying to be objective, the use of language will add subjectivity, mostly due to misunderstanding; babbling. That sort of happened at Babel; coining new words, until nobody knew what the others were saying. They had to separate and start a range of settlements each with its own growing specialty language.

This symbolism gives us insight into the evolution of modern human consciousness, since symbolism is connected to right brain, while the left brain is more differential. This symbolism suggests there was a migration of ego consciousness, away from the right brain; instinctive, to the left brain; loss of natural integration; instinct, in exchange for more subjective diversity of thought/language.

If this happened today, and your ego started right brain, and then suddenly shifted to the left brain, the world would appear to change because of all the hidden; subliminal, details that would suddenly become conscious, as though new to you. The original matrix of language, in the brain, would also be influenced by the left brain POV, and its diversify nature, to help label the new details with new words. It must have been scary and exciting. Today we are more left brained and it takes effort to get the ego more right brained and then able to take advantage of its natural integration nature.

The future of conscious evolution would have the ego going from left, back to right, to gain more natural unconscious integral access. The left sees the details and the right can integrate into new theories. Today we generate more data than theory. Whereas that migration would help catch things up. Conceptually diversity is more complex ; higher entropy, while integration simplified to lower entropy and entropic potential. This implies new compact theory and an induced active application dynamics; mind expanding.

 

[Dimi95]

Yet here we are still unable to communicate after years and you can't see the language might be confused!

And each of your claims will be tested as you explain them.
This ofc shows confusion , but according to the evidence it shows confusion only on on one side of the coin where you can find all sorts of beliefs agreeing on certain points.
On the other side of the coin you can also find people agreeing , but what the evidence shows is that consensus about certain things is not based on personal belief,but on evidence.

We see that the one side of the coin can not understand the other side when it says , come - let us meet at the edges.
You refuse that everytime , no matter how is it explained to you.
Not just me , but many have tried in different ways , and your confusion is still there.
It is not that we want to convince those who have limited acces to knowledge , but those who say that they have worked with models.
What i see in them is 'modul colapse' and no suggestion that is something different then that.

If you don't know how to seperate personal belief with current understanding, then you should ask yourself why is that.

You can't accept that it is known fact that we see what we believe.

This is again wrong.
We believe what our senses tell us.

You can't imagine that every scientist has different models and 50% of aviation engineers and 3% of physicists incorrectly answer the question of whether or not an airplane can take off from a conveyor belt moving toward it.

Haha.

Airplane takes off because human kind has made that possible.
And they take off and land the moment i am writing this.

We can't see our own confusion and can't see the confusion of those who agree with us. I can explain in detail why physicists get the question wrong. Its root is confusion caused by language and the way we think.

Then start a discussion , and do it.
You say you can , so do it.

Darwin's problems were caused by language as well. Then he's enjoyed centuries of support because people are still confused. 19th century scientists were great but we were misled.

Still the same thing , you say things and no evidence for what you say.

 

[cladking]

And regardless of that , the evolution of human language shows gradual change.

It shows change since 2000 BC. No language traces back before this.

This was one of the many means I used to tentatively date the ToB; the advent of PIE languages. These all arose from dialects of Ancient Language that had been turned into pidgin languages.

Why do people assume I'm stupid. Ignoring data, facts, and experiment derives from confusion, not stupidity. Everybody makes sense in terms of their premises and your premises are wrong. Then you want to consider reality one experiment and fact At a time. Just as all things bear on all events and all experiment bears on all reality one must consider all known facts and experiment to deduce the nature of reality and this goes many times over with ancient reality that has been forgotten.

 

[Dimi95]

Oh!

Why don't you tell me one single event that is recorded in words, in history.
You can't because we can't understand the writing.

I am telling you that most of the evidence is gone, and you continue with this kind of reasoning.

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

The pyramid builders said "osiris tows the earth by means of balance" but this is not understood as the means by which the pyramids were built.

Tell me one thing.

From what i know , the pyramids are structures of the ancient , most of the traits that are there show that they are of old.
They have shapes that concerm geometry.

You are not going to circle that out.

 

[cladking]

This symbolizes shows how human language, became subjective and diverse, since any sound could mean anything. Today, there are 7000 human languages on earth.

You touch on several things here that I'd like to discuss but might wait for a more appropriate thread.

In every real way it might be said there aren't seven thousand languages but rather 7 billion because we each have different models and beliefs. 3% of physicists believe a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt. Obviously his models differ in significant ways from all the rest. He didn't learn and incorporate permanence of perspective. Anyone can misthink and these guys are sharp enough that it's little more than just this but what about aviation engineers. These guys are sharp too. But maintaining a single perspective isn't important in designing aircraft. It's a little more important in flying them because seat of the pants flyers don't live long and pilots do even worse. I suppose if you know better than to use the seat of your pants you'll be OK.

The left brain right brain thing is something I've thought a lot about. I think you're most probably right that people before babel used both sides and their functions were identical or nearly so. I too use both sides almost the same but I must talk and communicate left brained.

Thanks for the post, again. It makes me think.