Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dimi95]

I don't know how people do not understand that survival of the fittest is a misleading term , and those that survive , they survive because they are most adoptable to change.

 

[cladking]

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

I'm not a fan of Egyptology but I read a lot of it and converse on the net. I know what they think.

Yes, I use some harsh words about the field but have always tried to not use such terminology about ANY individual and when I do I try to balance it with praise. Egyptologists are bright people. Egyptology is moribund and inert. They are mystical.

They are wrong and ancient people invented agriculture by the imposition of artificial bottlenecks just like real life.

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

I know more about the literal meaning of the PT and how it fits together than anyone else. I know as much about pyramids as most Egyptologists. A few could smoke me.

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

Yes! Logic and common sense on this subject was in very short supply in his time but he is still wrong.

The real evidence showed up on surface later.

People always reason in circles. Homo circularis rationatio. It is unavoidable. EVERYONE DOES IT ALLTHE TIME. The ONLY way to stop is to have an experiment stop you. Biologists are still reasoning in circles because there is no experiment to stop them. There is also no experiment to show they are right.

They have been spinning their wheels and ignoring the FACT that ancient people invented agriculture without modern science. They have never asked themselves what science they did use because we believe they were stinky footed bumpkins. We believe they were ignorant and superstitious but people are all better now. The reality is quite the reverse. their species saw reality directly while we can, at best, see it in glimpses provided by experiment.

 

[cladking]

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.

It's all just word games. First they lash out if they can't win an argument and then it's all word games.

Egyptologists are even worse. Some of them suffer distress reading my posts. They see the evidence all scrambled and put in a different light and it gives them the heebie jeebies. I've even heard one say it sets off his seizures. I can imagine.

 

[Dimi95]

I know more about the literal meaning of the PT and how it fits together than anyone else. I know as much about pyramids as most Egyptologists. A few could smoke me.

Many , not few.

Be honest , when were you in Egypt to study this?

Like never , maybe?

 

[Pogo]

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"

This is a not unreasonable position.

and if there were it would be based on experiment not facts and evidence and most assuredly not by logic."

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

"Truth" is a statement concerning reality that is universally correct.

Again, a plausible proposition.

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.

This does nothing to clarify the prior statement except it seems to reinforce the idea that we have of you that words have no consistent meaning.

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

Ok, but I suspect we will differ on what experiment means.

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

This seems to be a break in that you seem to have a strange version of belief and what we can see. It is not true that we cannot see contrary evidence.

"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.

What a mess, Taxonomies of mnemonics? This is unparseable in English by typical definitions.

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

Well that is sort of what I was saying about taxonomies of mnemonics, somebody's dictionary is scrambled.

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.

Huh, if all you mean is that we must use the language we have, well duh, beyond that any meaning must have been confused.

 

[cladking]

I don't know how people do not understand that survival of the fittest is a misleading term , and those that survive , they survive because they are most adoptable to change.

I don't believe any of this. I don't believe it is a misleading term. I don't believe there is a referent. I don't believe any individual is more or less "selectable" than any other. This is all circular reasoning.

 

[Dimi95]

It's all just word games. First they lash out if they can't win an argument and then it's all word games.

Egyptologists are even worse. Some of them suffer distress reading my posts. They see the evidence all scrambled and put in a different light and it gives them the heebie jeebies. I've even heard one say it sets off his seizures. I can imagine.

It will be proper when you try to focus on science rather then irrelevant things like the pyramids.

 

[cladking]

Ok, but I suspect we will differ on what experiment means.

I have some flexibility on this especially since I discovered ancient science. Observation that can be predicted can rise nearly to the level of experiment. Any predictions made by a theory can be very highly supportive. In extreme cases prediction can be seen as virtually equal to experiment. If I were to predict that because of some unknown perturbation sunrise would be 18.3 seconds late in the morning and it is 18.3 seconds late it would rise virtually to the level of "theory". It would still need some substantiation and to examine the logic and math.

 

[Dimi95]

I don't believe any of this. I don't believe it is a misleading term. I don't believe there is a referent. I don't believe any individual is more or less "selectable" than any other. This is all circular reasoning.

I did not say they were selectable in the first place.

Why did you mentioned that?

 

[Pogo]

I don't know how people do not understand that survival of the fittest is a misleading term , and those that survive , they survive because they are most adoptable to change.

Well being cute like your avatar would likely make you more adoptable, so I wont niggle that even that is still just a poor representation of the theory.

Let's just stick with descent with modification and selection (environmental or otherwise including cuteness) as occurs on a population basis, not an individual level.

 

[cladking]

It is not true that we cannot see contrary evidence.

Of course it's true. There are anomalies everywhere but our brain filters them out. More accurately we just don't see what's in front of our face. We see what we expect. Beliefs and models are all the same thing and they determine what we see and how we see it. If this weren't true we would see plants and animals acting intelligently.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's all just word games. First they lash out if they can't win an argument and then it's all word games.

I've noticed that. I had to "debate" something in college as a course requirement and looking back on it, felt it was one of the stupidest assignments I ever had. But I suppose realistic to life as it goes now. Kind of sad. Very sad in some cases, like what I see here from certain persons. Realizing these are "debate" boards, but honestly, these "debates" about evolution and some other subjects have convinced me that so many just talk and don't know or care what they are talking about. Among other reasons.

 

[Pogo]

I don't believe any of this. I don't believe it is a misleading term. I don't believe there is a referent. I don't believe any individual is more or less "selectable" than any other. This is all circular reasoning.

No again, it is just your strawman misunderstanding, it is not about individuals and thus your beliefs and or disbeliefs are irrelevant to the actual subject

 

[Pogo]

Of course it's true. There are anomalies everywhere but our brain filters them out. More accurately we just don't see what's in front of our face. We see what we expect. Beliefs and models are all the same thing and they determine what we see and how we see it. If this weren't true we would see plants and animals acting intelligently.

You should look up the word projection as it relates to humans psychology.;

 

[Pogo]

I've noticed that. I had to "debate" something in college as a course requirement and looking back on it, felt it was one of the stupidest assignments I ever had. But I suppose realistic to life as it goes now. Kind of sad. Very sad in some cases, like what I see here from certain persons. Realizing these are "debate" boards, but honestly, these "debates" about evolution and some other subjects have convinced me that so many just talk and don't know or care what they are talking about. Among other reasons.

That you found the course stupid is not surprising considering how little you learned of the purpose of the course. On the other hand it does rather clarify why you are so at a loss when trying to convince anyone of the value of your position.

 

[YoursTrue]

No again, it is just your strawman misunderstanding, it is not about individuals and thus your beliefs and or disbeliefs are irrelevant to the actual subject

I do hope you can admit and realize your error when you claimed that Darwin did not use the term "survival of the fittest." In fact, from what I see you said after your mistake, you continued your idea that Darwin did not use it. He did. He did not initiate it. If you cannot admit the truth about that, henceforth nothing you say can be taken as reasonable because it appears you are too vain or proud to admit your mistake.

 

[YoursTrue]

That you found the course stupid is not surprising considering how little you learned of the purpose of the course. On the other hand it does rather clarify why you are so at a loss when trying to convince anyone of the value of your position.

Thank you. Because of your continued insistence about my lack of learning and that you intimate your superiority, you have no idea how much you have helped me understand both your way of approaching a topic as well as lack of truth. You were wrong when you said Darwin did not use the term "survival of the fittest." He did. He did not initiate the term, but later granted that it was a helpful expression and used it himself. That you cannot admit that sadly puts everything you say henceforth in jeopardy as for truthfulness.

 

[YoursTrue]

That you found the course stupid is not surprising considering how little you learned of the purpose of the course. On the other hand it does rather clarify why you are so at a loss when trying to convince anyone of the value of your position.

It's not "my" position. Darwin himself wrote about his appreciation for the expression "survival of the fittest," writing about it in the 5th edition of his book The Origin.

 

[Pogo]

I do hope you can admit and realize your error when you claimed that Darwin did not use the term "survival of the fittest." In fact, from what I see you said after your mistake, you continued your idea that Darwin did not use it. He did. He did not initiate it. If you cannot admit the truth about that, henceforth nothing you say can be taken as reasonable because it appears you are too vain or proud to admit your mistake.

He acknowledged that it was considered a synonym for natural selection, however your consideration of this as some sort of gotcha question only demonstrates you disingenuousness in understanding what Darwin meant as opposed to how it ended up being popularized. It is hardly the first or last time that a concept has been saddled with a misleading popular term that has become the popular moniker. How gay are you these days. On the other hand, you probably still subscribe to the derogatory interpretation of the Big Bang as opposed to it's modern understanding.
This pretense of concern and undie twisting is just a laughable example of just how poor your intellectual position is.

 

[YoursTrue]

He acknowledged that it was considered a synonym for natural selection, however your consideration of this as some sort of gotcha question only demonstrates you disingenuousness in understanding what Darwin meant as opposed to how it ended up being popularized. It is hardly the first or last time that a concept has been saddled with a misleading popular term that has become the popular moniker. How gay are you these days. On the other hand, you probably still subscribe to the derogatory interpretation of the Big Bang as opposed to it's modern understanding.
This pretense of concern and undie twisting is just a laughable example of just how poor your intellectual position is.

No, it was not a "gotcha" question. You were wrong and when corrected, still did not admit your error at first. Until you were pressed. Yes, I consider this sad but true on your part. Hopefully you will change. But thanks for admitting your were wrong. And Darwin really did like the expression Survival of the Fittest, but did not coin it. You may think that debate is a cleverness contest, but it is not and I really do not debate simply because there is no purpose to it in reality except like a contest. And those things don't always work out well. Soooo....have a good evening.