Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[cladking]

Evidence and facts leads to theory.
Theory leads to study.
Study leads to experiment.

That's how it is done in Science.

No!

Evidence and facts leads to hypothesis.
Hypothesis leads to experiment.
Experiment leads to theory.

Theory would be reality itself except we must interpret experiment which we do in terms of our beliefs generating "paradigms".

 

[cladking]

That is why most of those who study it , they say we don't know.

Because that's the most reasonable answer at the moment.

That we don't know is not reasonable. We only don't know because Egyptologists are mystics who refuse the systematic application of science and technology.

I believe the builders made perfect sense just like all people always have.

 

[cladking]

You said that we are a product of consciousness.

I doubt I used these words noy because I don't believe this but they are atypical for me. I might say we are a product of our time and place or we are a product of consciousness in terms of our beliefs but what you posted is not the way I think.

You probably are misunderstanding me. All other life is individual and a product of consciousness.

 

[Dimi95]

No!

Evidence and facts leads to hypothesis.
Hypothesis leads to experiment.
Experiment leads to theory.

Theory would be reality itself except we must interpret experiment which we do in terms of our beliefs generating "paradigms".

Logic and common sense leads to Hypothesis
Hypothesis leads to evidence and facts
Evidence and facts lead to Theory
Theory leads to Study
Study leads to Experiment
Experiment leads to Science.

You forgot to mention what is at the end.

If you want to be correct on specifics.

 

[YoursTrue]

Darwin did not use the term and the common definition is wrong when discussing evolution but the mistake is typical of stinky footed bumpkins.

kinda sad when I see people as you do make assertions in a pejorative way against others but don't know what you're talking about. Darwin did not coin the term but he used it in a later edition of his book. He introduced the phrase in a few places in his works from 5th edition of Origin in 1869 although he did not abandon the term ‘natural selection’ yet viewed ‘survival of the fittest’ as a synonym or auxiliary phrase helping to clarify his meaning clear to readers.

 

[Dimi95]

That we don't know is not reasonable. We only don't know because Egyptologists are mystics who refuse the systematic application of science and technology.

I believe the builders made perfect sense just like all people always have.

You don't know everyone that studies this , and certainly don't know of what they say.

Neither do i , but the one i consulted knows more then me you or anyone else together.
Because that is their field of expertise.

There are certain Egyptologist that you are correct about , but don't assume they are the top ones.

 

[Pogo]

Logic and common sense leads to Hypothesis
Hypothesis leads to evidence and facts
Evidence and facts lead to Theory
Theory leads to Study
Study leads to Experiment
Experiment leads to Science.

You forgot to mention what is at the end.

If you want to be correct on specifics.

more or less, evidence leads to hypotheses which leads to test (experiment) and around to hypothesis again and if enough of this it graduates to a theory until some evidence comes along to question the theory at which point it absorbs or maybe dies and the process starts over.
In total we have science whether you call it the result or the process.

 

[cladking]

We truly are trying to understand your position and knowledge.

That's a little difficult to believe. I say the same thing over and over and it gets twisted.

"There's really not such a thing as "true" and if there were it would be based on experiment not facts and evidence and most assuredly not by logic."

"Truth" is a statement concerning reality that is universally correct. It is impossible to make any such statement in modern languages because word meaning is ephemeral. It is also highly improbable due to the complexity of reality and because there are an infinite number of perspectives.

"Experiment" underlies all modern science BECAUSE it is the only means we have to glimpse reality. Every experiment shows a sliver of reality.

"Facts and evidence" is everything that supports our beliefs. We can't see evidence that doesn't support our opinions.

"Logic" can not exist in confused language. Inductive logic is a mess because it's based on taxonomies which are mere mnemonics. Deductive logic is a little better but words still can't correspond directly to reality in confused language.

You can't mix and match these words because they are intended more like a dictionary and scrambled dictionaries are useless.

The only thing we have are experiment and reason and we must use a language confused at the tower of babel to communicate about experiment and reason.

 

[YoursTrue]

So amongst other things we are back to a question of the definition of sudden.
Can you give us an example of speciation that results in fundamental differences?
Why is accumulation of mutations in a subset of a population an unusual cause for speciation?
I'll leave the conscious changes in genetics for a later question.

You may say gorillas, spiders, humans, etc. are still "evolving," but there is absolutely nothing to show they are. That humans have groups with longer or shorter limbs because of inherited genetics does not mean in the sense of change (such as fish "evolving" to humans as theorized) that humans, spiders, bats, finches, etc. are "evolving" Darwinian style. And as I sometimes look at these responses you have actually firmly convinced me that -- neither you nor many scientists know what you're talking about. So -- thanks for that! That's one reason why I got on these boards and asked questions...

 

[Dimi95]

more or less, evidence leads to hypotheses which leads to test (experiment) and around to hypothesis again and if enough of this it graduates to a theory until some evidence comes along to question the theory at which point it absorbs or maybe dies and the process starts over.
In total we have science whether you call it the result or the process.

You are also probably correct , but i described it in the way of Evolution.

What Darwin had was logic and common sense , and not enough evidence at his time.

The real evidence showed up on surface later.

 

[cladking]

While often attributed to Darwin, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was actually coined by Herbert Spencer,

I REPEAT; I DIDN"T SAY HE COINED THE WORDS. I said he used and supported them.

 

[cladking]

You said that we are a product of consciousness.

Where did I say that?

 

[YoursTrue]

more or less, evidence leads to hypotheses which leads to test (experiment) and around to hypothesis again and if enough of this it graduates to a theory until some evidence comes along to question the theory at which point it absorbs or maybe dies and the process starts over.
In total we have science whether you call it the result or the process.

Evidence? Like Tiktaalik, that some believe confirms the idea that fish became humans?

 

[Dimi95]

That's a little difficult to believe. I say the same thing over and over and it gets twisted.

"There's really not such a thing as "true" and if there were it would be based on experiment not facts and evidence and most assuredly not by logic."

"Truth" is a statement concerning reality that is universally correct. It is impossible to make any such statement in modern languages because word meaning is ephemeral. It is also highly improbable due to the complexity of reality and because there are an infinite number of perspectives.

"Experiment" underlies all modern science BECAUSE it is the only means we have to glimpse reality. Every experiment shows a sliver of reality.

"Facts and evidence" is everything that supports our beliefs. We can't see evidence that doesn't support our opinions.

"Logic" can not exist in confused language. Inductive logic is a mess because it's based on taxonomies which are mere mnemonics. Deductive logic is a little better but words still can't correspond directly to reality in confused language.

You can't mix and match these words because they are intended more like a dictionary and scrambled dictionaries are useless.

The only thing we have are experiment and reason and we must use a language confused at the tower of babel to communicate about experiment and reason.

Oh , cladking ..
This kind of answer is the problem.

You are focusing on irrelevant things rather then focusing on Biology.

How many times you have been adviced not to do that?

 

[YoursTrue]

I REPEAT; I DIDN"T SAY HE COINED THE WORDS. I said he used and supported them.

That doesn't matter to some. It's amazing, and frankly, as I said, these "discussions" (I am generous in my use of the word discussion) have actually shown me that sooo many will argue for the theory of evolution as it stands despite their lack of knowledge and/or understanding. Yes. Whereas I surely don't know all the mechanics of life and its growth, these discussions about what people think and believe about the theory or process of evolution have convinced me that there are many, many "holes" in the theory that no one, scientists or their peers, or anyone here, can fill with anything solid.

 

[Pogo]

kinda sad when I see people as you do make assertions in a pejorative way against others but don't know what you're talking about. Darwin did not coin the term but he used it in a later edition of his book. He introduced the phrase in a few places in his works from 5th edition of Origin in 1869 although he did not abandon the term ‘natural selection’ yet viewed ‘survival of the fittest’ as a synonym or auxiliary phrase helping to clarify his meaning clear to readers.

Try again,
AI Overview
Learn more

While often attributed to Darwin, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was actually coined by Herbert Spencer, and Darwin later adopted it in his later works; the closest quote to this from Darwin would be something like "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change."

Not the Spencerian or Creationist version of the meaning.

 

[Dimi95]

Where did I say that?

Brother consciousness is not the problem.

Using the word 'product' is a problem.

We are no product , we are natural beings.

Do you understand the objection?

You used it when you said 'I might say that we are a product..'

Again , we are not any product.

 

[YoursTrue]

I REPEAT; I DIDN"T SAY HE COINED THE WORDS. I said he used and supported them.

That is correct.

 

[Dimi95]

Try again,
AI Overview
Learn more

While often attributed to Darwin, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was actually coined by Herbert Spencer, and Darwin later adopted it in his later works; the closest quote to this from Darwin would be something like "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change."

Not the Spencerian or Creationist version of the meaning.

@cladking

When you say 'fit' and 'those that are not fit' do you refer to those strong enough and not strong enough?

You see that it begins with : 'It is not the.."?

 

[YoursTrue]

Try again,
AI Overview
Learn more

While often attributed to Darwin, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was actually coined by Herbert Spencer, and Darwin later adopted it in his later works; the closest quote to this from Darwin would be something like "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change."

Not the Spencerian or Creationist version of the meaning.

You try again. Once again -- Darwin did not initiate or "coin the term," but he applauded it in his 5th edition of The Origin. Goodness, try getting it straight. Darwin introduced the phrase in a few places in his works from 5th edition of Origin in 1869. However, he did not discontinue the term ‘natural selection’ and only saw ‘survival of the fittest’ as a synonym or auxiliary phrase to help make his meaning clear to his readers. See better now? Understand? Me, oh my, what you and yours have shown me is that you will argue at anything if you want to deny what's there. So -- Darwin did not initiate the phrase Survival of the Fittest but felt it was an apt term to use and felt it was helpful. He -- did not -- (like you do) object, but praised and used the term. He did not talk against it.