Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

You are not going to circle that out.

This is so precious I might have to take it to a more appropriate thread.

 

[cladking]

Yes , but we don't know about other writing systems and how they developed , since most of the evidence does not exist anymore.

We know quite a bit about how Sumerian came into existence. Egyptian is a little less straight forward but not much. These are just dialects of the same language.

Not once you have provided any evidence for that so i can look it up where i would be possibly wrong.

I told you that it is axiomatic. I'm not going to continue to be drawn off topic and forced to repeat myself. No more.

 

[cladking]

Oh, in your collection of irrelevancies we could add the 600,000 mph velocity around the galaxy.
Do you have any sort of a point?

Thanks. I never computed this number. Perhaps the entire universe is moving much faster yet. Maybe the entire universe is so heavy because it's just tiny particles moving at nearly the speed of light. Even people who know the earth spins at 1000 MPH don't think about it. I don't know anything but I can compute what happens when an airplane taxis on a conveyor belt because I keep all my models in mind.

The fact that others can make mistakes does not make your thought experiments correct.

And it doesn't make them wrong.

Ah yes the ancient wisdom. The earth is the center of the universe and all the stars and the sun revolve around it.

Homo sapiens knew a lot about physics and astronomy and far more about biology and what we'd call "psychology" but theirs was science not art. Remember Newton studied the pyramids because he correctly believed the builders knew the weight of the earth. He found it but didn't see it.

I'm still waiting for an answer for how ancient people invented agriculture and most of it over a few hundred year period in the 9th millennium BC.

That's quite a feat without Darwin showing them how.

 

[Dimi95]

We know quite a bit about how Sumerian came into existence. Egyptian is a little less straight forward but not much. These are just dialects of the same language.

Not so fast.

Dorric is one of the 'language' in the Sumerian tablets and it is connected with Dorric tribes and their way of expressing thought, not with Sumerian or Egyptian writing system in general.
It is something totally different from the Egyptian and Sumerian.
Dorric is the language of the 'barbarians'.
Barbaric dialect as you say it.
But there is nothing that suggest that they speaked the same language , only with different dialect.

I told you that it is axiomatic. I'm not going to continue to be drawn off topic and forced to repeat myself. No more.

Yes , i don't deny it.
Either way it is the same.

You are yet to provide any logical conclusion.

 

[Pogo]

You have no evidence to support your belief there was no fundamental change in humans. We dig up words and parse them like ours and we dig up bodies and assume they were just like anthropologists because they look just like anthropologists et al.

A reasonable assumption that has worked for as long as anybody has thought about it is that things tend to be the same unless something changes them. A simple version is that a body in motion tends to remain in motion unless acted upon.
If you wish to claim sudden fundamental changes it is for you to describe and explain the change.

I like how every believer took the acceleration of the expansion of the universe in stride. The acceleration doesn't matter until someone says it doesn't matter. Kuhn reigns.

What? It was accepted when it became the most parsimonious explanation of the observations/data. And no, Kuhn is out to lunch in that it doesn't require the death of anyone, that is not how science works and Einstein recognized his error. Yes there is inertia, and static friction is different than sliding friction, but as with static vs sliding, once overcome with sufficient evidential force, the use of what Kuhn said philosophically is more inertia from those who don't understand science than it is to those who do.

Homo omnisciencis.

Most people were once certain God created the world on Sept 4,241 BC. You're like a Nostradamus who can see behind him as well.

Yes most people are simple, so what? It was a convenient explanation for what they didn't understand.

And how many times have a told you that if you flip a coin a billion times that every outcome is equally likely? All heads is exactly as likely as ANYTHING else. Butterflies in China cause hurricanes as surely as any fast moving molecules hitting a 14 year old boys eardrum making sound. Why do people want to look at the reduction of reality and not see the real thing in front of their face. Reality is binary and only half harmonic with the other half pure chaos determined by whether there are an odd or even number of variables most likely.

We will add statistics to ever growing fields that you misunderstand and misuse.

You assume you see reality and then you assume you can extrapolate experiment to apply to even things that can't be seen and for which no evidence exists. Worse you believe experts can see reality and don't need experiment. You believe in miracles like defining fitness as the cause of gradual change makes it all pop into existence.

No as with expansion of the universe we did not have to experiment with creating a universe, only apply knowledge priorly gained and select between things that reasonably explain the observations and given those explanations look for further evidence that they explain even things we had not yet observed. Nothing is set in stone, but alternative explanations have to explain all of the current data before they will be considered. That is science, not metaphysics whatever that is.

If you computed the odds of what happens between any two moments no matter how close together the universe isn't large enough to hold all the zeroes to express the number but you want to believe we can see and understand all of it by merely looking if we have sufficient training.

So what? That is just the beginning of the specious argument that we can't know everything so my Wild Assed Guess is just as good as anything.

The mind boggles at the hubris of homo omnisciencis.

The mind boggles at the mind that thinks it has presented evidence and an argument for this. You do understand the meaning of the word hubris.
Oh, nevermind, you have your own language where hubris means anyone disagreeing with your mental masturbation.

 

[leroy]

That shouldn't be a mystery to you if you had read and understood what I wrote to you, especially if you also read what I wrote to Dan.

You should know by now why I am unwilling to repeat myself to you beyond a limit, and you should also know why I wrote the post that I did, which apparently had no meaning for you as you didn't acknowledge reading or understanding it beyond realizing that it wasn't me repeating previously posted words as you keep requesting.

Sorry, Leroy. I would like to invite you in and share ideas with you, but that has been impossible, and I don't expect that to change.

So why would I write those words fully expecting that they would have no impact on you? I've also already answered that more than once, but I would be surprised if you could tell me what that answer was. That's the problem here, and an insurmountable one so far.

That answer again for the benefit of those who haven't been following: There are other readers here who can and who I hope do benefit from reading a post.

Broadly speaking, we can divide RF members into those with adequate reading comprehension and intellectual discipline who can focus on, understand, and critically assess an argument, and if they find it compelling, will have their belief set modified by the experience.

The second group is the set of RF readers for whom the words just bounce of them as if one were writing to them in a foreign language.

The first group are people who can teach and learn, and they are the reason for writing expository text. If we use the metaphor of a university course, that is the lecture section.

The second group can do neither, but we can learn from by observing them and generating a set of data points that can be arranged along a spectrum and assigned a relative frequency according to how much they resemble one another and how much and in what ways they vary. We can call this the lab section.

That shouldn't be a mystery t

Yes in fact it is a mystery, in the sense that I don’t understand why is it that someone is willing to invest o much time and effort in explaining all that (talking about the stuff that you explained in the post) but you are not willing to rewrite your question in a less ambiguous way

my first hypothesis usually would-be that you what to keep things ambiguous so that you can use the ambiguity to your favor and declare victory…………………….but you don’t seem to be the type of person that would behave like that

why do you keep avoiding my request on quoting @cladking question and your alleged answer ?

 

[leroy]

And yet, they found the fossil exactly where they expected to find it.

Originally, the fossils was expected to be found in the late Devonian, because it was though that the transition between fish and tetrapod’s took place during that period.

We now know that probably the transition took place long before that ………… therefore it should count as a correct prediction any more………that is my point……….feel free to agree or to disagree but your video doesn’t address my concern

 

[Pogo]

Thanks. I never computed this number. Perhaps the entire universe is moving much faster yet. Maybe the entire universe is so heavy because it's just tiny particles moving at nearly the speed of light. Even people who know the earth spins at 1000 MPH don't think about it. I don't know anything but I can compute what happens when an airplane taxis on a conveyor belt because I keep all my models in mind.

Yes, because you knew enough of the explanations developed by others and communicated to you, you did not develop these models on your own, they were developed by others through observation, hypothesis and testing

And it doesn't make them wrong.

It doesn't in any way make them right either, as with velocity of objects, it needs to be evidenced with observations not just conjecture. Without evidence we are justified in dismissing it if it is contrary to current understanding.

Homo sapiens knew a lot about physics and astronomy and far more about biology and what we'd call "psychology" but theirs was science not art. Remember Newton studied the pyramids because he correctly believed the builders knew the weight of the earth. He found it but didn't see it.

Yes, Newton came up with a bunch of ideas we consider wacky, the difference between the ones we remember and the others is his provision for the remembered ones.

I'm still waiting for an answer for how ancient people invented agriculture and most of it over a few hundred year period in the 9th millennium BC.

Well you will probably be waiting a long time since that is not the "paradigm" and nobody significant thinks that.
My guess, it started with Uggette sloppily spreading some grain around the cooking place and everybody else rolling eyes. one year later they found their old site and lo there was some of the grain they had foraged for. after several more years of Ugg being sloppy and the same result Ugg's partner scattered some grain and when they came back next year there it was.

Or maybe it was just realization that not knocking down the berry bush to get at the hard to reach parts left a bush there the next year.

Different things different times different places by a variety of people.

That's quite a feat without Darwin showing them how.

Descent with variation and selection also applies to knowledge of groups while not being biological evolution.

 

[Pogo]

Yes in fact it is a mystery, in the sense that I don’t understand why is it that someone is willing to invest o much time and effort in explaining all that (talking about the stuff that you explained in the post) but you are not willing to rewrite your question in a less ambiguous way

my first hypothesis usually would-be that you what to keep things ambiguous so that you can use the ambiguity to your favor and declare victory…………………….but you don’t seem to be the type of person that would behave like that

why do you keep avoiding my request on quoting @cladking question and your alleged answer ?

Some more for you to learn that successful people understand though with variance.

Sunk cost - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is the sunk cost fallacy?​

The sunk cost fallacy is our tendency to follow through with something that we’ve already invested heavily in (be it time, money, effort, or emotional energy), even when giving up is clearly a better idea.

 

[leroy]

Point 2 is not part of the definition of "paraphyletic". You made that up.

this is the defintion of paraphyly:
Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages.


The “grouping” is the subjective part of the definition there is no objective/empirical way to make the groups………………..we decided to include tuna, eels and sharks in the “fish group” and exclude humans and dolphins from that group for no objective nor empirical reason …………..we simply found it convenient

 

[Pogo]

Originally, the fossils was expected to be found in the late Devonian, because it was though that the transition between fish and tetrapod’s took place during that period.

We now know that probably the transition took place long before that ………… therefore it should count as a correct prediction any more………that is my point……….feel free to agree or to disagree but your video doesn’t address my concern

The transition from fish to tetrapods was thought to occur during a period, but there were no fossils. Shubin predicted they might find one there, and lol a fishapod was found, confirming the theory yet again. Might be obvious to you in hindsight, butsome are still looking for a precambrian rabbit

 

[Pogo]

this is the defintion of paraphyly:
Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages.


The “grouping” is the subjective part of the definition there is no objective/empirical way to make the groups………………..we decided to include tuna, eels and sharks in the “fish group” and exclude humans and dolphins from that group for no objective nor empirical reason …………..we simply found it convenient

Your point?

 

[leroy]

So.... species don't jump lineages.


The lineage that humans find themselves on, are not fiches. So the descendants thereof won't be fishes either.


No, that's not how that works and it's been pointed out ad nauseum by now.

That has happen multiple times in the past, sharks eels and tuna all evolved from different ancestor that we wouldn’t call “fish”………the descendants of humans could be fish there is no taxonomical rules that prevents it.

You keep forgetting that both fish and paraphyletic groups are subjective terms, weather if 2 organisms are part of the “paraphyletic group fish” or any other paraphyletic group is subjective and depends on what we as society decided

 

[Pogo]

That has happen multiple times in the past, sharks eels and tuna all evolved from different ancestor that we wouldn’t call “fish”………the descendants of humans could be fish there is no taxonomical rules that prevents it.

You keep forgetting that both fish and paraphyletic groups are subjective terms, weather if 2 organisms are part of the “paraphyletic group fish” or any other paraphyletic group is subjective and depends on what we as society decided

When is your sixth birthday, we might come back then to try to explain modern taxonomy again.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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 enjoy the same ontological status as vampires and leprechauns.

I obviously differ from your assessment of things. Bye for now, take care and have a good one! Oh, and thank you very much for offering your viewpoints. Again -- take care, much appreciated.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

People assume those who do not agree with the ToE are dumb. That's about it...

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Yes why should those who disagree actually believe any evidence at all of when writing started?

 

[cladking]

A reasonable assumption that has worked for as long as anybody has thought about it is that things tend to be the same unless something changes them

It is not reasonable. All things change all the time. Even a gold nugget will corrode away in tens of thousands of years. You can't step into the same river twice. Generally there are many many small changes that don't amount to a hill of beans and then suddenly things change dramatically; just like species.

Without evidence we are justified in dismissing it if it is contrary to current understanding.

There is no "current understanding" of the speed of the universe because there is no evidence. Just because you might never have thought that we are atoms in a larger world moving at the speed of light doesn't mean you have any evidence to refute it.

 

[cladking]

Yes, Newton came up with a bunch of ideas we consider wacky, the difference between the ones we remember and the others is his provision for the remembered ones.

Everybody makes sense all the time. I can deduce some of the reasons he might have thought ancient people knew the weight of the earth but I don't know all of them or any for certain.

Descent with variation and selection also applies to knowledge of groups while not being biological evolution.

Please restate or elaborate.

 

[cladking]

Yes in fact it is a mystery, in the sense that I don’t understand why is it that someone is willing to invest o much time and effort in explaining all that (talking about the stuff that you explained in the post) but you are not willing to rewrite your question in a less ambiguous way

my first hypothesis usually would-be that you what to keep things ambiguous so that you can use the ambiguity to your favor and declare victory…………………….but you don’t seem to be the type of person that would behave like that

why do you keep avoiding my request on quoting @cladking question and your alleged answer ?

Believers ignore what they can't understand because they are fixated on their beliefs instead of why they believe it. Without knowing their own axioms, definitions, and assumptions they simply can't support or deny any argument that isn't framed in terms of what they believe. You can be sure they'll be all over anything when you misspeak or make an error of fact.

I wonder if it's always been true that religious arguments are usually stronger than scientific ones and I just couldn't see it because I had more beliefs in science in the past. Frankly I think the quality of posters here arguing the "religious" perspective is exceedingly high. While there are some good arguments from the science side it seems most are far more akin to lectures than argument.