Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it really happened it didn't happen all at once but rather in numerous steps with each new species less fish like and more like a mammal or reptile.

Correct. You know, like.... gradually. Good job.

No... ...I am saying no individual can engage in highly complex activity without understanding through theory.

Uhu.
There is absolutely no reason why one should have an understanding of evolution theory to grow crops or domesticate livestock.

Just as it requires science to create a beehive or a beaver dam it required science for human to create agriculture.

What on earth are you on about?
I don't remember bees or beavers have any notion of science.

This is getting more bizar with every post you make.

How do you know what early farmers spoke?

What are you on about now?
You seem to be having much trouble focussing.

I was talking about the ancestral language of spanish. And for that matter - Italian, portugese and french also.
You know... the roman languages. All these languages derive from latin. You didn't know this?

Extrapolation right?

No.

We just project everything we know about the stinky footed bumpkins who wrote history starting 1200 years after the invention of writing and that's sufficient. We know language evolves so this is sufficient proof it has always evolved and no amount of evidence can affect this equation. It doesn't matter that the same symbols are found in caves all over the world because people mustta spoken proto Latin anyway.

And the bare vague claims just keep piling on and on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you think ancient people suddenly invented agriculture all over the world?

They didn't.

It's a development that happened gradually over several thousand years.
And while agriculture developed independently in several parts of the world, this wasn't at the same time at all.

You can call it "sudden" in a geological timescale, but not when measured against human lifespan.

How would it even be possible to suddenly invent agriculture even in one single place if "Evolution" takes millions and millions of years and only the fit survive rather than the timid?

Your question makes zero sense.
Farming is not a genetic trait.

You know I've long believed that human success is principally the result of complex language and that cleverness, the opposable thumb, walking upright, and our inventions have all greased the path. I'm beginning to reevaluate these beliefs. Specifically where early homo omnisciencis were apparently far more clever than other animals I'm beginning to suspect we are not. We might be far down from being number one even and we may be dropping fast as animals observe our technology and modern materials.

Now there's some Evolution for you. We have created a world where cleverness is punished and weaknesses (characteristic that are less pronounced) are rewarded. Soon enough a Handicapper General (...so it goes) will be appointed and only the weak can thrive or be free. We are adapting to this new world but we probably have evolved a might as well.


They invented agriculture and cities very suddenly. You don't know why or how, I do. The answer shows Darwin is wrong about everything and even a termite can understand this.

This is a great example of GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
When you start with nonsense assumptions, only more nonsense follows

 

[metis]

Without experiment "Evolution" remains an hypothesis but it is my contention that there are better fit explanations for the physical evidence and experiment and these explanations are closer to ancient "beliefs" and the Bible than to Darwin et al.

"Evolution" is just plain old common sense: all material things appear to change over time and life forms are material things.

 

[metis]

believers in evolution will give the sequence

In science, there's no such thing as "believers in evolution" as either one accepts that change happens, or they don't.

 

[metis]

I said what was said: no ape has the brain to invent a God; it is too complex a concept for a brain that is not even aware of itself. I am talking about the concept of a God, not about whatever that doctor call "spiritual experiences" in animals.

How do you supposedly know that? Please answer the question instead of deflecting.

 

[cladking]

Correct. You know, like.... gradually. Good job.

"Steps" are not gradual. Each new step is a new species. Think "punctuated equilibrium" if that helps.

There is absolutely no reason why one should have an understanding of evolution theory to grow crops or domesticate livestock.

They had no understanding of "Evolution" whether it exists or not. They understood "Change in Species" that says life changes as a result of behavior at bottlenecks.

That they succeeded is prima facie evidence they were correct.

What on earth are you on about?
I don't remember bees or beavers have any notion of science.

You are defining science wrong because you don't understand metaphysics.

Bees and beavers have no "notions". They do not experience their own thought.

This is getting more bizar with every post you make.

Perhaps you're beginning to read my posts.

From your perspective they have always been highly bizarre.

I was talking about the ancestral language of spanish. And for that matter - Italian, portugese and french also.
You know... the roman languages. All these languages derive from latin. You didn't know this?

...and you believe Latin derives from proto-Latin because you can't imagine language like a waggle dance.

 

[cladking]

It's a development that happened gradually over several thousand years.
And while agriculture developed independently in several parts of the world, this wasn't at the same time at all.

It began slowly after the ice age but most of the progress appears to have been in the middle of the 9th millennium BC ~10500 years ago.

Farming is not a genetic trait.

Sure it is. It's a genetic trait of cattle, goats, wheat, etc etc.

Ever try farming a wild deer? Skunks? Black bears?

It's impossible.

This is a great example of GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.
When you start with nonsense assumptions, only more nonsense follows

You see this because you believe genius powers science, there is continuous progress, and the fit survive.

Everything you believe is wrong and everything you know is built upon your beliefs. Your models depend on false assumptions.

Reality is far more complex than anyone can imagine and human knowledge far more limited.

 

[cladking]

"Evolution" is just plain old common sense: all material things appear to change over time and life forms are material things.

Yes!!! I agree!!! It is just common sense but this common sense is the result of an analog mind observing a digital reality. We are not logical because language is not logical and because all logic is digital. All other life forms have digital existence and observe reality directly.

Darwin's "common sense" was based on erroneous assumptions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes!!! I agree!!! It is just common sense but this common sense is the result of an analog mind observing a digital reality. We are not logical because language is not logical and because all logic is digital. All other life forms have digital existence and observe reality directly.

Darwin's "common sense" was based on erroneous assumptions.

Please excuse --yet-- I guess it takes me time to understand everything others may be saying -- so do you or do you not believe in the theory of evolution?

 

[metis]

Yes!!! I agree!!! It is just common sense but this common sense is the result of an analog mind observing a digital reality. We are not logical because language is not logical

The above is illogical in and of itself. Maybe rethink and make the logical corrections.

Darwin's "common sense" was based on erroneous assumptions.

No. What he put forth were "hypotheses". not assumptions.

BTW, we know a hellofa lot more about evolutionary science than he ever did because we have well over a century of research to go on.

 

[YoursTrue]

How do you supposedly know that? Please answer the question instead of deflecting.

So you think it's possible that gorillas & chimpanzees think about and relate circumstances about -- God? Why not in some people's minds, if some say the virgin Mary never had any other children besides Jesus and others say Jesus was talking from birth on. Anything goes, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

In science, there's no such thing as "believers in evolution" as either one accepts that change happens, or they don't.

You can align yourself with your language--I no longer BELIEVE that humans are animals OR apes. So I guess you can say the Pope is an animal, too, right? and an ape. I do not agree. The Pope is a human, not an animal, even if he says he is, I do not agree.

 

[metis]

So you think it's possible that gorillas & chimpanzees think about and relate circumstances about -- God?

I have no idea as I'm not a gorilla or chimp. However, I did notice a very hairy guy at church last Sunday?

Why not in some people's minds, if some say the virgin Mary never had any other children besides Jesus and others say Jesus was talking from birth on. Anything goes, right?

We cannot be sure for another reason though as the Koine Greek word for "brother" is the same as it is for "male cousin".

 

[metis]

You can align yourself with your language--I no longer BELIEVE that humans are animals OR apes. So I guess you can say the Pope is an animal, too, right? and am apes. I do not agree. The Pope is a human, not an animal, even if he says he is, I do not agree.

We are dealing with science on this, not common English usage, and in science we have our own lingo. If you don't like being referred to as an "ape", then maybe don't call yourself and others an "ape".

As for me, I'm "The Naked Ape" as Anthropologist Desmond Morris calls us, although I do have clothes on right now.

 

[YoursTrue]

We are dealing with science on this, not common English usage, and in science we have our own lingo. If you don't like being referred to as an "ape", then maybe don't call yourself and others an "ape".

As for me, I'm "The Naked Ape" as Anthropologist Desmond Morris calls us, although I do have clothes on right now.

As it is said, different strokes for different folks, or -- different cultures have different ideas about things from other cultures. I used to work for a publishing firm (a big respected one) and I know they will publish what's going to sell, the editors are not authorities on the subject matter.

 

[YoursTrue]

We are dealing with science on this, not common English usage, and in science we have our own lingo. If you don't like being referred to as an "ape", then maybe don't call yourself and others an "ape".

As for me, I'm "The Naked Ape" as Anthropologist Desmond Morris calls us, although I do have clothes on right now.

For someone with a reasonable mind, fossils do not demonstrate the theory is true. That is correct. They do not show the little incremental changes leading up to a different organism, wording aside, meaning there is no record of any fish mutating as it is supposed by scientists to another 'species.'

 

[metis]

As it is said, different strokes for different folks, or -- different cultures have different ideas about things from other cultures. I used to work for a publishing firm (a big respected one) and I know they will publish what's going to sell, the editors are not authorities on the subject matter.

As an anthropologist, we don't concentrate on what "sells"-- we simply concentrate on doing the research and reporting it to anyone interested after subjecting it to peer review first.

 

[metis]

For someone with a reasonable mind, fossils do not demonstrate the theory is true. That is correct. They do not show the little incremental changes leading up to a different organism, wording aside, meaning there is no record of any fish mutating as it is supposed by scientists to another 'species.'

In general, they do, especially as in so many cases there's simply no viable and/or logical alternative.

Life forms change over time-- period-- the end.

 

[gnostic]

I know the theory goes way beyond the "fish thing." Starting from -- the primordial soup which they still can't figure out to humans. As if it all came about by natural means by mutations.

It’s more from selective pressures and adaptions - hence Natural Selection than Mutations. Often, when i read your posts in this thread or other threads, that you don’t seem to understand the differences between the two.

They are two different mechanisms, but sometimes they do occur concurrently.

But there are few things that distinguish between the 2 evolutionary mechanisms.

With Natural Selection, the changes occur when there are selective pressures, like the environment have changed dramatically, that the species must adapt to such changed conditions in the environment that the organisms inhabited. So the driving force for evolutionary changes is the environment itself.

So for Natural Selection. Those with physical traits that are more adapted to the environment, should reproduce more successfully and in greater numbers, than those have not adapted.

Mutations, on the other hand, don’t require selective pressures for mutations to occur.

 

[gnostic]

I wonder which one of those four great apes in the last pic, they believe were the parents of the first human.

Those pictures are all current or extant species from the “great apes” or family Hominidae.

Humans didn’t evolve from any of those.

Although humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestry, based on DNA results, it doesn’t mean that the chimpanzees are our ancestors, hence we didn’t evolve from the chimpanzees. The shared ancestors are of much earlier extinct ancestor species.

The genus Homo and genus Pan diverge at some points about 6 or 7 million years ago, based on the DNA tests of humans and chimpanzees. That’s the DNA evidence, not the fossil evidence.

Palaeontologists have not yet found the fossils of the last common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans, yet, but the closest “possible“ evidence they have so far, is the Sahelanthropus tchadensis, an earlier species of the Hominidae that flourished during the Miocene epoch, about 7 million years ago.

You are not fooling anyone with those pics.

Sharing a common ancestor, doesn’t mean that humans were descendants of the chimpanzees.

The immediate ancestors of the Homo sapiens were another Homo species - the Homo heidelbergensis.

So the Homo heidelbergensis were the last common ancestor of the Homo sapiens, the Neanderthals and the Denisovans.

The Homo heidelbergensis most likely evolved from Homo erectus, and so on.