Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dimi95]

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.

Yeah , but how many times did we tried and nothing...

I agree however.

You are certainly correct.

But he uses the 'poor' , so i figured out that maybe the usefull thing would be:
'with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.'

I agree with your assesment that we should stick with what you suggested.

But he denies it every time more and more.

I am answering him to convince him , as i think we are all trying to do the same.

I must also say that i am learning about terms this period , so please don't mind my mistakes.

 

[cladking]

How is the evidence of gradualism disproved?

You have no experiment. Your "evidence" is a fossil record composed chiefly of missing links.

 

[cladking]

He believes objects like tables, chairs or planets are not independently real, but exist only in the mind of the observers.

They exist just fine. We just couldn't see them if we didn't believe in them.

 

[Dimi95]

They exist just fine. We just couldn't see them if we didn't believe in them.

Again you are making this kind of small mistakes in your answers.

We observed them and then believed in them.
Even the ancient observed them.

 

[cladking]

Again you are making this kind of small mistakes in your answers.

We observed them and then believed in them.
Even the ancient observed them.

No. First we set things on convenient rocks in caves. Then we built houses and tables for convenience. After the tower of babel we still needed tables so we built them and used them because we believed in them

 

[Dimi95]

No. First we set things on convenient rocks in caves. Then we built houses and tables for convenience. After the tower of babel we still needed tables so we built them and used them because we believed in them

Even before they were set , they were observed.

Even animals observe things.

And again the tower of Babel is back in the game.

You see how you always switch to the tower of Babel?

 

[gnostic]

Do you believe only the fittest species survive?

Your version of what you believe Natural Selection is, is a strawman/comic version, that has nothing to do with speciation at all. You have redefined the word “species”, that NO ONE WOULD USE, EXCEPT YOU.

Speciation is not when parent(s) reproduce offspring of completely different species.

That’s now how biology, or any other science work.

You don’t even understand what speciation or species is, so it rather comical that you actually believe you understand the Natural Selection evolution.

And btw, stop using the word “fittest”, as “fittest” is not evolutionary mechanism. The actual mechanism in the Theory of Evolution is “Natural Selection”, not “Survival of the fittest”.

“Survival of the fittest” is often misunderstood phrase, that majority of biologists don’t use today. This is the 21st century, but you are stuck with this 19th century phrase that was originally intended for (outdated) sociology theory, and coined by the British sociologist Herbert Spencer.

 

[cladking]

You see how you always switch to the tower of Babel?

The "Tower of Babel" defines our species. It is the simplest way to interpret the many experiments that show you can't see a table unless you first believe in it.

This was a speciation event that gave rise not only to homo omnisciencis but ultimately to experiment and modern science where experiment is the only means we have to see reality.

An animal can't see a table at all. Tables are invisible to your dog. They see a flat surface often holding object dear to their master. When you yell at them to "get off the table" this isn't what their brain perceives. They hear "off of surface holding objects". It's not the dog which is confused it is its master.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Alternate translation due to my senior memory but I think equivalent.

It is difficult to say given all the conflicting claims and contradiction that exists within the same post or paragraph where a claim is made. Reading it was often a surreal experience. Things that are and aren't at the same time and what they are is dribbling down the canvas.

Milk, milk, milk.

Seven wattage metaphysical fitness contagion slips past the dresser of dogs to milk the mean of jump.

Pardon me if I did not parse your words as you intended or perhaps I'm insulting you because I did. We cannot say with any confidence, since definition and meaning are vague and fluid to the point of creating chaos and leaving only "blame the victim". That may be the metaphysics that is constantly referenced and never revealed. Blame the victim metaphysics.

Anyway, corpuscle callosum to you and yours on this cavernous, metabolic holiday adventure of minimal and maximal gratitude of magnitude. Iron talks daily to minions galaxy afraid timber dust.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.".

rather a different statement.

But straw men are much easier to attack than the actual facts of the matter. Easier for those unfamiliar deniers to attack what isn't than to learn what is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh yes, how could I have forgotten the consciousness of the beavers raising fish to feed themselves. I'm sure it was all explained on some Egyptian rocks if only we had the ability to speak the ancient language and why raising a load across an inclined plane is not an example of a true ramp.

What I cannot understand is if all these Ancient Beavers were so Ancient Metaphysically wise beyond Ancient Words, why is it that none of them looked at the great impoundments and mighty dams and asked the one question that should have been there from the beginning. Do any of us even eat fish?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You said that we are a product of consciousness.

We are no products.

We are living creatures.

The evidence indicates a different alignment. Consciousness is the product of some living things and not the other way round.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's the point.
You can't even figure out the other side.

I am not afraid to be corrected , if i am wronf i would like to be corrected.

You ignored many of my answers, and now you complain when you are answered by your own standards.

I really liked you , but you f**** up everyrhing when you said we are a product.

I mean , you were the one to suggest humbleness from the begining.


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

That's how it is done in Science.



Brother , i am serious now.

What you are discussing about the pyramids is probably wrong.
Not just you , but anyone that writes there in that discussion.

It may be that we will find city under the pyramids and more evidence how they were build from the ground.

From what we have now , Pogo said it as best as it gets.
I think he said it , he may correct me if i am wrong.
Only we can take wild guesses.

I don't know how the pyramids were build.

Neither of the theories is logical to me, and i have consulted someone who worked on the Rosseta Stone to tell his opinion.

He says that nobody should make wild guesses to be relevant because there is not enough evidence at first so that a proper scientific theory can be made.
I will see him next time i go in my homeland and i will ask him for more details.
That's what i have for now.
I am not an expert on that , neither i claim such thing.

But i trust him more then you , not because i know him , but because of the work he has done.

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.

We don't know.

People are working years and years on the field trying to solve it.

I accept that 'we don't know' , untill there is more convincing evidence.



Well i do.
I try my best.

I give my best to find common sense with you , but you refuse to cooperate.

Only seeing half the conversation makes commenting a little difficult, but the one thing that I notice is your first line. It is an expression of what I have found. There is no understanding of science present in what we respond to and no indication that those being responded to even care what is said to them. This seems to be shared by so many of those that deny science for religious reasons or for the conflict it presents to personal and empty claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your version of what you believe Natural Selection is, is a strawman/comic version, that has nothing to do with speciation at all. You have redefined the word “species”, that NO ONE WOULD USE, EXCEPT YOU.

Speciation is not when parent(s) reproduce offspring of completely different species.

That’s now how biology, or any other science work.

You don’t even understand what speciation or species is, so it rather comical that you actually believe you understand the Natural Selection evolution.

And btw, stop using the word “fittest”, as “fittest” is not evolutionary mechanism. The actual mechanism in the Theory of Evolution is “Natural Selection”, not “Survival of the fittest”.

“Survival of the fittest” is often misunderstood phrase, that majority of biologists don’t use today. This is the 21st century, but you are stuck with this 19th century phrase that was originally intended for (outdated) sociology theory, and coined by the British sociologist Herbert Spencer.

That is a common trait among those denying science. They believe whatever they claim they know is the pinnacle of scientific understanding. Then the entire tenure here is showing us that there is no evidence to support that personal claim. In fact, what I have seen is very little knowledge held up by an extensive use of logical fallacies and disregard of others.

 

[Valjean]

!!!!!!!!!!

Do you believe only the fittest species survive?

If you understood evolution you wouldn't be asking this question.
"Good enough" species survive.
Q: How are you using "fittest?"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Logic and Common Sense, Two more words with alternate meanings though I argue that common sense is a worthless description of the value of any conclusion in that it is so often wrong.

I'm not a fan of the phrase common sense either. It isn't all that common and often not that sensible. What I take it to mean in these conversations is as a synonym of reason or common knowledge when used in the context of supporting science. What those denying science and created their own world view mean, is difficult to determine, since it could mean one thing at one time and a dozen other things at different times. That is the problem and the consequence of the global semantic Olympics that are staged in the conversations so regularly as attempts to argue by those supporting denial.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Many , not few.

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

Like never , maybe?

I'm fairly confident that all this claimed knowledge is second hand and likely from the very Egyptologists that are so often belittled and dismissed. As well as from more unusual, less reliable and often questionable sources.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

It was a popular phrase a long time ago and we have learned and moved on. All it is now is an old, disused, blind alley for attacks against science. The entire cabal of Darwin haters seem to hope to achieve contemporary victory over science by beating on a man long dead and no longer central to the science.

At this rate, it will be another 150 years before they begin to attack what we know now and the people that currently research it. And probably they will still be torturing Darwin then too.

 

[cladking]

If you understood evolution you wouldn't be asking this question.
"Good enough" species survive.
Q: How are you using "fittest?"

He said it! I questioned it.

"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"

If it's not about individuals then it must be about species.

 

[cladking]

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.

Darwin said that it was an apt description of what he was talking about.

Why do we still even have this conversation after you were shown to be wrong hundreds and hundreds and half a dozen threads ago? How many times for how many years did I correct you et al about this?

Is it possible to just drop it?