Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

It's simple. All you have to do is to know everything just like many atheists and most believers in science.

Sounds more like a description of what I get from your posts. You talk about things as if they are fact, but you offer nothing to support that they even exist. When challenged, you don't dissect, you diverge, deflect, ramble and disappear.

No. "We" don't do anything. Individuals do everything. All knowledge, all ideas, and all understanding is individual.

Another mantra?

There is no "scientific method" set in stone.

There is a basic scientific method, but specific methodology within that framework varies with the discipline. You don't run physics experiments in ecology study.

Many people believe "Peer review" is the 7th step but the fact is there are no set number of steps and the opinion of peers and Peers is irrelevant to science and its understanding. Some people are methodical in inventing hypotheses but most use intuition or insight. Some people use induction and some deduction. Some people remember the definitions and axioms when they interpret experiment but many do not. Some people don't even want to believe Darwin had beliefs and prejudices. They don't want to believe that his axioms and definitions determined his conclusions or affected them in any way.

Yes. Yes. The conspiracy of these mythical, invisible peers. I get the idea that you hate peers from some more personal reason that you won't reveal.

You want to believe you know everything. I know I know nothing.

You don't act like it. I get the impression from your posts that you know everything and are more informed than any living being in the universe.

But I can recognize a good pattern when it bites me on the nose.

Not from what I've seen.

This is what I do; seek patterns.

You may seek them. I haven't seen any evidence you have found one.

As a metaphysician and generalist all I care about are patterns as disclosed by deduction and experiment.

I don't believe you.

Everyone is doing what he thinks is right and makes sense all the time. Everyone acts on his beliefs and lives in accordance with what he thinks is right. It's not so much that some "Godless" people use this as an excuse to to wrong so much as it is that when science is wrong it leads the whole world astray. Of COURSE everyone is an individual so when the whole world goes astray it's many individuals (most of whom believe in science or who purchase science as a weapon) who lead us astray.

I have no idea what to make of this. It looks like more rambling with no real point.

Science has become dangerous and has been since Darwin invented Survival of the Fittest.

Wow! You don't think Darwin new anything yet he is the devil so powerful he is destroying the world. Science hasn't become more dangerous. There is always danger in the misuse of knowledge. There is always danger from those that claim to know everything and don't really know much.

Now with modern technology and materials it gets more dangerous. Perhaps plastic will kill us all soon enough. You do know that longevity is crashing right. This is not symptomatic of a robust and healthy science and economy. It is symptomatic of rot at every level. I predicted in 1994 that it would crash because that is when our leaders announced there were too many people (deplorables) in flyover country. Of course it's not widely understood why longevity is crashing and there are numerous obvious causes like a healthcare system in shambles and an educational system that has been dysfunctional since the late-'40's. We even have food intentionally contaminated with all manner of chemicals and biological agents as well as products intentionally designed to fail after a few years. But thew rich get richer and live longer so it's all good. If you don't want to die young you should just pick yourself up by the bootstraps and become a billionaire. Get off your fanny and go get a job dispensing pink slime at a fast food restaurant. Anyone can do it if he just rents the right congresscritter. Don't worry be happy.

And you blame Darwin for all of this no doubt. All because he is from the 19th Century and got it right.

Why do you think the world is imploding?

Is it? If it is, it is due to a lot of factors including those who want to force their beliefs on other instead of actual scholarship, study, science, ethics, and morality. Demanding that people replace knowledge with belief is a step that many are taking that will be self-fulfilling if you ask me.

There are fewer religious people than ever and they have less input than ever before.

That is not true. The numbers show declines in a lot of religion, especially fundamentalist religions.

The world is being run by purchased science so things should be improving.

That is your opinion. And if history serves, one that will never see the light of support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have never said any prevailing paradigm today can not be correct. Darwin could be exactly right for all I know.

And yet, you claim he is all wrong. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

But, again, I believe he ids wrong because of bad assumptions

And of course, you never list them or show how they are wrong. One would suspect that you really don't know and are just saying what you are saying to be saying it.

and I believe all experiment and observation are consistent wit an entirely different paradigm.

Which you are welcome to demonstrate. But so far, after all these years and numerous internet platforms you never have.

Just because I might be wrong is not an argument or evidence that I am wrong.

The lack of any substantial evidence, willingness to listen to and consider the knowledge of others, failure to recognize your own ignorance, empty assertions without support and so on and so on and so on are evidence that you are wrong.

Observation plays a crucial role in science.

I agree, but so what?

That's why I reduce modern science to "Observation > Experiment" instead of just "Experiment".

That is a recent change I suspect has come about because you have been told it so often you just gave in without any real understanding of what that means. Remember the old threads and posts still exist and can be searched.

BUT the observer should be aware he sees what he expects instead of what exists and that he always reasons in circles.

I don't agree. Just saying it doesn't make it so. You have never provided anything to lead to an agreement with this claim. That is the way you seem to want things.

These things are shown in experiment and ALL EXPERIMENT applies to all reality and all OBSERVERS all the time.

A mantra without meaning or support.

People are going to have to get used to a lot of new ideas if we are ever going to get passed the Unified Field Theorem. The observer is part of reality and sees the reality he expects.

I don't think you understand that scientists have been aware of the roll of observer and it is not some new truth you are revealing to us stinky-footed bumpkins that you feel everyone else is.

Consciousness matters and it's a highly complex world.

Random statements tell us nothing. Consciousness matters in what context. It isn't a requirement for evolution for instance and seems to be the product of evolution.

I believe some of these ideas are natural to all other species.

People believe all sorts of things. That doesn't make them true. You don't believe in species, but you talk about speciation and have been describing it just as it is in the theory of evolution. You claim everything in biology is sudden, and then redefine the term to cover multiple different spans of time. It has almost become a truism that during any interaction with you, you will contradict in one post what you have been claiming in previous posts as all fact.

We are the odd man out because we use symbolic, analog, and abstract language. We simply don't think like any other kind of consciousness.

This is meaningless to me. It is just another meaningless mantra that informs nothing.

 

[cladking]

Sorry but I could not reach you by mail here, so I am giving a link to what I consider a most fascinating article about -- giraffes -- hope you enjoy it. The Giraffe’s Short Neck: Why Evolutionary Thought Needs a Holistic Foundation — The Nature Institute

Thank you! Very interesting.

I believe there is a far simpler explanation that doesn't involve survival of the fittest, gradual change and is more in keeping with the fossil evidence. Something happened that simply killed animals with shorter necks but this wasn't caused by chance or "fitness" but rather by consciousness. Perhaps there was some strange food that was preferred by a small percentage of the animals and when other food became poisonous or contaminated or very scarce those which ate the unusual food survived and created a new species because consciousness, experience, reality, and genetics all go hand in hand in all species except homo omnisciencis. One might be tempted to suppose this food might be higher up so long necks prevailed but there is likely little correlation. Perhaps Giraffes had a proclivity for long necks even before they had long necks because they roamed a continent where CO2 lakes, vents, and geysers were very very common. When you're in low lying land or there is a river of CO2 flowing under your feet you need to tiptoe and hurry out. This is what people around Lake Kivu say TODAY and it is what was written by the ancient Egyptians 5000 years ago. There are an infinite number of ways that consciousness could have led to longer necks during population bottlenecks.

People want to believe in survival of the fittest but in reality all individuals are equally fit and all individuals (other than humans) are conscious. We are more like sleep walkers. We are conscious but on a different level and type than others.

 

[cladking]

I'm not caught up. Later.

I'll reactivate my PM.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not interested.

There doesn't seem much point in being interested in explaining to someone that isn't interested in the explanation and seems to feel they know all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Biological fitness is a measure of the reproductive success of a phenotype or genotype. It has nothing to do with physical vigor or weakness, individual moral views, or philosophical equality. It does not cause evolution. It isn't mutation. If the genotype provides a survival benefit that results in the production of offspring that puts those genes into wider expression in the population, while other phenotypes become less common, then the first has greater fitness than the latter.

Natural selection is the environment interacting with the population.

The environment is the living and non-living components that make up the world around us and includes the living organisms too. Living things interact with their environments. They eat food. Drink water. Run from predators or attack prey. Move around. Encounter diseases and other mortality factors. Because of the genetic variation in a population, not all members respond to their environments equally. As a result some die before reproducing, some reproduce, but not that much for many reasons including competition with other members of the population, predation, disease. Not all members respond to the environment in the same way. For instance, not all members of the population are equally susceptible to disease or susceptible to all diseases encounter. Otherwise, the entire population would be wiped out with the first cold. These are real differences that can be measured that result in changes in the population over time. Gradually. Not suddenly.

I'm trying to simplify this as much as I can, but I've come to find that it apparently cannot be made simple enough.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only thing I consider "good science" is experiment and hypotheses borne out by experiment.

I don't find your opinions about science to be at all useful and don't recognize your expertise in rendering one.

I'm not much of a fan of any paradigms even my own.

You say this, but it is your own that you constantly promote by claim as if you are revealing special knowledge that only you have.

I believe Darwin's paradigm could not be more wrong.

Again, your opinion hasn't been shown to have a rational basis using any evidence. A big so what for what you believe about Darwin or the success of his work. On a scale from uninformed to informed, I would put you very near the end describing uninformed when it comes to topics of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok, name some and I'll tell you what I think of them.

Sorry, I messed up a bit on that question.

Humans evolved from uh...fish...so it is said. Do fish die? Do humans die? How about plants that supposedly evolved? Do they die also? My last question to you is: is death a natural part of life?

Please, another "So what?" argument. Don't you get tired of being refuted by a simple "So what?"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you! Very interesting.

I believe there is a far simpler explanation that doesn't involve survival of the fittest, gradual change and is more in keeping with the fossil evidence.

What is that explanation. Why have you not published and picked up you Nobel? I personally think you would revel in all the attention.

Something happened that simply killed animals with shorter necks but this wasn't caused by chance or "fitness" but rather by consciousness.

Aliens?

Perhaps there was some strange food that was preferred by a small percentage of the animals and when other food became poisonous or contaminated or very scarce those which ate the unusual food survived and created a new species because consciousness, experience, reality, and genetics all go hand in hand in all species except homo omnisciencis.

Homo omnisciencis is not a recognized taxon and doesn't describe any known organism. There is no such known species of Homo. Seems made up.

One might be tempted to suppose this food might be higher up so long necks prevailed but there is likely little correlation.

Incoherent speculation with no apparent reason offered to make any sense of this.

Perhaps Giraffes had a proclivity for long necks even before they had long necks because they roamed a continent where CO2 lakes, vents, and geysers were very very common.

They wanted to have long necks and decided to grow them that way. You know how frivolous giraffes can be.

When you're in low lying land or there is a river of CO2 flowing under your feet you need to tiptoe and hurry out.

Yes, because clouds of CO2 are all over Africa wiping out anything in their path. What about beta radiation escaping from the Rift Valley?

This is what people around Lake Kivu say TODAY and it is what was written by the ancient Egyptians 5000 years ago. There are an infinite number of ways that consciousness could have led to longer necks during population bottlenecks.

Including that it didn't.

Bottlenecks are not speciation events. You've been told this many times, but ignore valid correction to your misunderstanding all the same.

A population bottleneck is the radical reduction in numbers of a population that is often accompanied by a reduction in the genetic variation of the population. The members of the population are the same species as they were when they encountered the bottleneck event. The bottleneck event is what caused the bottleneck. Environmental disasters such as massive volcanism or meteor impacts are examples. It could also include disease or the loss of a significant resource.

People want to believe in survival of the fittest but in reality all individuals are equally fit

They are not. This has been explained to you.

and all individuals (other than humans) are conscious.

This has not been supported with evidence and much evidence refutes the claim. Sorry to have to inform you once again.

We are more like sleep walkers.

You might feel you are, but not everyone is.

We are conscious but on a different level and type than others.

Then stop declaring and demonstrate that our consciousness is this different type and show what the types are with evidence and reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you! Very interesting.

I believe there is a far simpler explanation that doesn't involve survival of the fittest, gradual change and is more in keeping with the fossil evidence. Something happened that simply killed animals with shorter necks but this wasn't caused by chance or "fitness" but rather by consciousness. Perhaps there was some strange food that was preferred by a small percentage of the animals and when other food became poisonous or contaminated or very scarce those which ate the unusual food survived and created a new species because consciousness, experience, reality, and genetics all go hand in hand in all species except homo omnisciencis. One might be tempted to suppose this food might be higher up so long necks prevailed but there is likely little correlation. Perhaps Giraffes had a proclivity for long necks even before they had long necks because they roamed a continent where CO2 lakes, vents, and geysers were very very common. When you're in low lying land or there is a river of CO2 flowing under your feet you need to tiptoe and hurry out. This is what people around Lake Kivu say TODAY and it is what was written by the ancient Egyptians 5000 years ago. There are an infinite number of ways that consciousness could have led to longer necks during population bottlenecks.

People want to believe in survival of the fittest but in reality all individuals are equally fit and all individuals (other than humans) are conscious. We are more like sleep walkers. We are conscious but on a different level and type than others.

I just realized you have another one of your persistent contradictions.

Previously, you were saying that people want simple, easy answers. You declared that the answers are much more complicated.

Now you are selling the idea that you have a simple answer that everyone is looking for.

I personally see no reason that you have any answers, but which is the state of actual answers? Simple? Complex? Complimple?

 

[YoursTrue]

Sounds more like a description of what I get from your posts. You talk about things as if they are fact, but you offer nothing to support that they even exist. When challenged, you don't dissect, you diverge, deflect, ramble and disappear.

Another mantra?

There is a basic scientific method, but specific methodology within that framework varies with the discipline. You don't run physics experiments in ecology study.

Yes. Yes. The conspiracy of these mythical, invisible peers. I get the idea that you hate peers from some more personal reason that you won't reveal.

You don't act like it. I get the impression from your posts that you know everything and are more informed than any living being in the universe.

Not from what I've seen.

You may seek them. I haven't seen any evidence you have found one.

I don't believe you.

I have no idea what to make of this. It looks like more rambling with no real point.

Wow! You don't think Darwin new anything yet he is the devil so powerful he is destroying the world. Science hasn't become more dangerous. There is always danger in the misuse of knowledge. There is always danger from those that claim to know everything and don't really know much.

And you blame Darwin for all of this no doubt. All because he is from the 19th Century and got it right.

Is it? If it is, it is due to a lot of factors including those who want to force their beliefs on other instead of actual scholarship, study, science, ethics, and morality. Demanding that people replace knowledge with belief is a step that many are taking that will be self-fulfilling if you ask me.

That is not true. The numbers show declines in a lot of religion, especially fundamentalist religions.

That is your opinion. And if history serves, one that will never see the light of support.

To use the word 'we' in a debate is likely setting barriers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, I messed up a bit on that question.

Please, another "So what?" argument. Don't you get tired of being refuted by a simple "So what?"

Not really. Because I don't find it refutes the point. For instance, a recent news report related that marmosets and some other animals call each other by name. According to scientific studies. Fascinating! And you may say "so what" to what I am about to again say, which is: only humans have invented telescopes, printing presses, built laboratories, colleges, and so forth. And monkeys, eels, fishes, dolphins have fabulous qualities. But--only humans have invented air conditioners, built automobiles, and written history, whether accurate or inaccurate. Oh, I also want to mention that humans have also built nuclear bombs, napalm bombs to kill others and blast them to death. I don't want to leave that out.
Oh yes -- not to forget -- gorillas remain gorillas, salmon remain salmon insofar as I know about -- worms remain worms...

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you! Very interesting.

I believe there is a far simpler explanation that doesn't involve survival of the fittest, gradual change and is more in keeping with the fossil evidence. Something happened that simply killed animals with shorter necks but this wasn't caused by chance or "fitness" but rather by consciousness. Perhaps there was some strange food that was preferred by a small percentage of the animals and when other food became poisonous or contaminated or very scarce those which ate the unusual food survived and created a new species because consciousness, experience, reality, and genetics all go hand in hand in all species except homo omnisciencis. One might be tempted to suppose this food might be higher up so long necks prevailed but there is likely little correlation. Perhaps Giraffes had a proclivity for long necks even before they had long necks because they roamed a continent where CO2 lakes, vents, and geysers were very very common. When you're in low lying land or there is a river of CO2 flowing under your feet you need to tiptoe and hurry out. This is what people around Lake Kivu say TODAY and it is what was written by the ancient Egyptians 5000 years ago. There are an infinite number of ways that consciousness could have led to longer necks during population bottlenecks.

People want to believe in survival of the fittest but in reality all individuals are equally fit and all individuals (other than humans) are conscious. We are more like sleep walkers. We are conscious but on a different level and type than others.

Yes, I found the article about giraffes and reviewing and comparing common scientific thought realistically about their long necks and legs fascinating, and as honest as one can get in reference to comparing accepted teachings. Given social restraints and complexities.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am most curious how one who goes on about no video cameras will go about supporting their claim.

Interestingly enough there was a scientific study recently with internal camera of sort revealing how eels escaped from the stomach of a fish. Fabulous scientific study with truly fascinating findings. (Nothing about natural selection, though. But it's an idea -- scientists might figure how to attach a camera to a population of whatever's and as generations go by, if you think the human "civilization" (I use the word civilization reservedly) will last long enough to keep track -- you know like maybe millions of years, well maybe after that long enough while, or who knows, maybe shorter while, some new "species" will evolve...or not evolve.

 

[John53]

Not really. Because I don't find it refutes the point. For instance, a recent news report related that marmosets and some other animals call each other by name. According to scientific studies. Fascinating! And you may say "so what" to what I am about to again say, which is: only humans have invented telescopes, printing presses, built laboratories, colleges, and so forth. And monkeys, eels, fishes, dolphins have fabulous qualities. But--only humans have invented air conditioners, built automobiles, and written history, whether accurate or inaccurate. Oh, I also want to mention that humans have also built nuclear bombs, napalm bombs to kill others and blast them to death. I don't want to leave that out.
Oh yes -- not to forget -- gorillas remain gorillas, salmon remain salmon insofar as I know about -- worms remain worms...

You do realise they are fairly recent inventions. So what does that say about humans previous to those inventions?

Please notice the question mark at the end of the sentence above (?). It means I'm asking you a question and would like an answer to the question and not a random response.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you think are the reasons to believe in your God. I can probably name some that you do not think about.

And no, no one has ever said that evolution leads to death. Where did you get that idea from? Evolution is simply a fact. Just as gravity is a fact. I guess in the same way you could claim "gravity leads to death". Actually the opposite is true of both of them. Without gravity the Earth itself would not exist. And without evolution life itself would go extinct eventually. Even if you started with a planet as full of life as right now.

Why do you say you made a mistake of sorts in your first two sentences by mentioning that? I have reason to believe in the God I have come to love and worship. One is that He promises those who love Him everlasting life. As Jesus told his followers to pray for God's kingdom. Another is the history that helps to realize who He is. Also, I found from my study of the scriptures that there is no eternal torture (or the temporary punishment or cleansing in what is called Purgatory for the "short term") as wrongly reflected in some religious interpretations of the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do realise they are fairly recent inventions. So what does that say about humans previous to those inventions?

Please notice the question mark at the end of the sentence above (?). It means I'm asking you a question and would like an answer to the question and not a random response.

I don't think you really want an answer, because you are so sure that humans lived far longer than the biblical account. However, I will answer you as best I can so you understand my reasoning on the matter: yes, they are recent inventions, and yes it takes time to develop new methods. For instance, written documents were engraved in stone or written on parchment or animal skins. And going back to humans vs. gorillas or monkeys, gorillas still have not written anything about their history, train doctors, or invent airplanes. So -- while gorillas are fascinating creatures and have ability humans do not have, humans alone have the capacity to pass on their history and distinct knowledge which can yes, accumulate.

 

[John53]

I don't think you really want an answer, because you are so sure that humans lived far longer than the biblical account. However, I will answer you as best I can so you understand my reasoning on the matter: yes, they are recent inventions, and yes it takes time to develop new methods. For instance, written documents were engraved in stone or written on parchment or animal skins. And going back to humans vs. gorillas or monkeys, gorillas still have not written anything about their history, train doctors, or invent airplanes. So -- while gorillas are fascinating creatures and have ability humans do not have, humans alone have the capacity to pass on their history and distinct knowledge which can yes, accumulate.

I do want an answer so I can understand your reasoning but like usual I got a random response.

My question was... what does that say about humans previous to those inventions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not really. Because I don't find it refutes the point. For instance, a recent news report related that marmosets and some other animals call each other by name. According to scientific studies. Fascinating! And you may say "so what" to what I am about to again say, which is: only humans have invented telescopes, printing presses, built laboratories, colleges, and so forth. And monkeys, eels, fishes, dolphins have fabulous qualities. But--only humans have invented air conditioners, built automobiles, and written history, whether accurate or inaccurate. Oh, I also want to mention that humans have also built nuclear bombs, napalm bombs to kill others and blast them to death. I don't want to leave that out.
Oh yes -- not to forget -- gorillas remain gorillas, salmon remain salmon insofar as I know about -- worms remain worms...

Sorry, it is such a silly pointless argument that it is refuted by a "So what?" When you cannot answer that question your claim is automatically refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you say you made a mistake of sorts in your first two sentences by mentioning that? I have reason to believe in the God I have come to love and worship. One is that He promises those who love Him everlasting life. As Jesus told his followers to pray for God's kingdom. Another is the history that helps to realize who He is. Also, I found from my study of the scriptures that there is no eternal torture (or the temporary punishment or cleansing in what is called Purgatory for the "short term") as wrongly reflected in some religious interpretations of the Bible.

You do not appear to have a valid reason to believe in God. You have never been able to post one.