Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[gnostic]

Yet science has no definition for consciousness

You keep saying that, except that’s not true.

The problem isn’t that there is one definition, there are many definitions, some in sciences, some in num of different philosophies, and still more in different religions.

Science do have not just a definition, but there are some explanations, but they are dependent on which sciences (Natural Sciences, Applied Sciences or Social Science) or their respective fields.

As I have never studied psychology (a branch in Social Science), so I prefer the explanation offered in biology (hence that falls into Natural Sciences category) that not only focused on human consciousness, but also of other animals that have nervous systems (eg nerves, brains, spinal cords, sensory organs (eg eyes, ears, noses) and nerves in tissues that give sense of touch (somatosensory system) & taste (gustatory system)) in their biology, so human and non-human animals.

For Applied Science category, that mainly revolved around medical science, that are mainly focused on humans, not only about human biology, but also to diagnose ailments or diseases, and treating them through medicine or through surgery. The main science in medicine would be neuroscience, like neurology.

The most simplest explanation to consciousness is that animals with some sensory perceptions (via sight, sound, touch, smell) are made aware of their surroundings or environment, and all of that are processed & controlled by their brains. Some animals do not even have central nervous system (brain & spinal cord), but still have nervous systems that be complex or primitive, and those few that don’t have brains (sponges, corals, jellyfish, starfishes, etc), are all invertebrate animals.

Then there are non-animal organisms, like plants, fungi, archaea & bacteria, all of them without any nerves…none of them are “conscious“.

You leave out a lot of organisms, if you only focus on consciousness. Consciousness are not relevant to these other living organisms…consciousness plays no part for plants.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No!

Yes.

Theory is state of the art. Theory is by definition what science knows.

Yes. And it could be wrong. It is open to being correct or even discarded if future potential evidence requires it.

But every scientist should know that theory will stand only until an experiment comes along to show it is wrong.

Yes. You have successfully repeated what I said, even though you pretended to disagree.

Saying it's just a theory is a cop out. I am saying gradual change caused by fitness isn't even a proper theory. Not only can theory be wrong but hypotheses to explain the nature of change can be wrong as well.

No, evolution definitely is a theory. A very solid theory. If not the most solid in all of science.

But you can't point out a single instance of me using a word that is inconsistent with the 1952 unabridged Funk and Wagnalls dictionary. You simply choose to parse my words wrong.

Many of us have already pointed out several times how you have twisted understandings of the terms "fit" and "selection" in context of evolutionary biology.
All you do in response is double and triple down on your mistakes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When I went to school, before I believed in the truth of God, I believed everything I was taught in science.

You might have believed it all, but based on the things you post you understood very little.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It was not a magical fruit. Maybe one day you'll understand that. Bye for now...

Ok.

It was imaginary fruit.

 

[cladking]

Many of us have already pointed out several times how you have twisted understandings of the terms "fit" and "selection" in context of evolutionary biology.

You merely don't want to admit "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are the exact same thing and you still haven't shown even one single instance where I used a word inconsistently with the dictionary definition. Not one! Nature selects the unfit for death and the fittest are selected for success. You can gussy up any word to make it more palatable but it still means there's no need to cry over the death of the meek and dispossessed since it's all for the best in the long run.

All individuals are equally fit and all individuals have an equal chance of being selected. It is irrelevant to change in species that individuals have different probabilities of success dependent on specific factors.

You are trying to hide behind words instead of addressing the argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You merely don't want to admit "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are the exact same thing and you still haven't shown even one single instance where I used a word inconsistently with the dictionary definition. Not one!

Dude.....
We have just exchanged a series of posts where we are schooling you on your nonsense of "mate selection" and how your own choice of words betrayed your mistakes. Additionally, it was also pointed out in the same context that you misapply the term "fit" in evolutionary context.

All you are doing now is demonstrating once again how you double / triple down on mistakes instead of correcting them.

Nature selects the unfit for death and the fittest are selected for success. You can gussy up any word to make it more palatable but it still means there's no need to cry over the death of the meek and dispossessed since it's all for the best in the long run.

All individuals are equally fit and all individuals have an equal chance of being selected.

And again.......

It is irrelevant to change in species that individuals have different probabilities of success dependent on specific factors.
You are trying to hide behind words instead of addressing the argument.

You don't have an argument. All you have are misrepresentations and fallacies.

 

[cladking]

You make sense on some things and not some things. I don't believe what you say about human language. I don't believe everything scientists say either. Have a good day.

You really shouldn't believe me.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything or to claim reality is exactly as I describe and no other interpretations are possible. I am merely trying to describe a picture of everything known that is not at odds with any experiment. This picture suggests that the Bible is right and that science is highly reductionistic and often open to interpretation.

This picture suggests something I've suspected all my life; humans aren't intelligent at least not as we define the term. It is complex language that allowed the invention of religion as well as modern science. It is complex language that created the human race and that each individual requires to be omniscient. It is complex language which we (homo omnisciencis) use to think. But language changed and the ability to think arose at the tower of babel.

Science, religion, and reality are not as we experience them if I am correct. We experience what we believe and reality is not consistent with our beliefs.

 

[cladking]

We have just exchanged a series of posts where we are schooling you on your nonsense of "mate selection" and how your own choice of words betrayed your mistakes. Additionally, it was also pointed out in the same context that you misapply the term "fit" in evolutionary context.

So SHOW ME exactly where I used the term "mate" or "selection" or "fit" improperly.

You're just talking here.

If I used a term inconsistently with your beliefs it does not mean it is inconsistent with language nor does it provide justification for you to parse it wrong.

 

[cladking]

If I used a term inconsistently with your beliefs it does not mean it is inconsistent with language nor does it provide justification for you to parse it wrong.

How many times have I told you I don't believe what you believe. If I don't believe in your understanding of "fit" it doesn't mean my clothes can't "fit".

My clothes fit just fine but the kings of the TofE might do well to make sure they are even wearing clothes at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We experience what we believe and reality is not consistent with our beliefs.

To that I always say: when reality doesn't agree with your beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So SHOW ME exactly where I used the term "mate" or "selection" or "fit" improperly.

You're just talking here.

Go back in this thread. It was only a few days ago. Have you already forgotten about it?
You having such short memory spans would off course explain why you consistently repeat your mistakes though.

Here's a hook for. Go back from that post for context and then forwards to see how you after just a few posts fall back again on the mistake that was already corrected (and not by just, I'll add...)

Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

So the biological path is selective naturally. I guess you think it includes deformities. The alternative is a creator God made them on purpose.

www.religiousforums.com

If I used a term inconsistently with your beliefs it does not mean it is inconsistent with language nor does it provide justification for you to parse it wrong.

It's not about using terminology inconsistently with "my beliefs".
It's about being consistently wrong about terminology in context of the very science you are hellbend on arguing against.

And because you are consistently wrong about terminology, you end up being consistently wrong about the theory itself.
If you insist on a wrong definition of the word "fit" for example, then whenever you talk about "fitness" in context of evolution, you will be misrepresenting what the theory actually says.

 

[cladking]

Here's a hook for. Go back from that post for context and then forwards to see how you after just a few posts fall back again on the mistake that was already corrected (and not by just, I'll add...)

So which word do you aver I used incorrectly, "mate", or "selection". Don't be shy. I really want to know. Show me the specific sentence and delineate exactly what was inconsistent with the dictionary.

I know you can't do it.

It's about being consistently wrong about terminology in context of the very science you are hellbend on arguing against.

When you're busy proving Christians are wrong about everything are you careful to use only terms from the Bible exactly as Christians use them?!!!

I have no beliefs in science and even if I did I am not constrained to use every word exactly like everyone else. Did I never mention that science doesn't exist through convention and that all ideas and all understanding of science is individual? Do you read my posts at all or just look for "bad" terminology?

I don't understand why people can't seem to understand such a simple concept as all their assumptions being wrong. If all Darwin's assumptions were wrong does his terminology still matter?

Why won't believers in science answer questions or respond on point and always break off into one semantical argument or another like the meaning of "metaphysics"?

If you insist on a wrong definition of the word "fit" for example...

There is no such thing as Fitness and still I have good Fitness with my clothes

 

[gnostic]

When you're busy proving Christians are wrong about everything are you careful to use only terms from the Bible exactly as Christians use them?!!!

I have no beliefs in science and even if I did I am not constrained to use every word exactly like everyone else. Did I never mention that science doesn't exist through convention and that all ideas and all understanding of science is individual? Do you read my posts at all or just look for "bad" terminology?

You used bad terminology all the times. You misused the terms that you clearly don’t understand, plus you make up your own definitions that no one but you'd use.

you are most definitely being dishonest with your choice in word usages.

Christian or not, @TagliatelliMonster isn't the only one saying that you have mishandled words, @Dan From Smithville have often pointed out the same problems that TagliatelliMonster see, and Dan is a Christian.

it is not so much Christian vs atheist problem - it is very much, a YOU problem.

Don’t single out atheists. When theists also see the same thing as atheists do, then the real issue everyone have (theists & atheists), it is you.

 

[YoursTrue]

You used bad terminology all the times. You misused the terms that you clearly don’t understand, plus you make up your own definitions that no one but you use.

you are most definitely being dishonest with your choice in word usages.

Christian or not, @TagliatelliMonster isn't the only one saying that you have mishandled words, @Dan From Smithville have often pointed out the same problems that TagliatelliMonster see, and Dan is a Christian.

it is not so much Christian vs atheist problem - it is very much, a YOU problem.

Don’t single out atheists. When theists also see the same thing as atheists do, then the real issue everyone have (theists & atheists), it is you.

Scientists themselves do not agree with all the terminology relating to exact understanding of word usage. It's interesting, but language as we now know it is imperfect. Oh, and same thing for those purporting to be Christian. One word means one thing to someone while that same word infers something else.

 

[Dimi95]

Scientists themselves do not agree with all the terminology relating to exact understanding of word usage.

This is false equivalnce fallacy.
All science is not the same.
Words are there to give meaning and we certainly can identify them by expleining them what they mean.Have you not heard about orign of words and something called "etymology".
Do you know how much of ancient texts is deciphered in the last 200 years? Probably not , right ? And do you think that is not of importance somehow?

What do you think that Historians do , they play ping-pong with stories?

It's interesting, but language as we now know it is imperfect.

What language ?
The DNA language ?
The human language ?
The language of the Universe ?
Or maybe another language ?

These are all active areas of study.
Neither of those who study it says that is imperfect or perfect , because they know how much every discovery helps.

Science is based on discovery since science itself was discovered and not invented.

I recommend reading Matthew 7:17-23.
And when you read it , think what will happen if people just shoot and nobodz saves them.
It's all about how you understand what you read and how much you can get out of it.

Oh, and same thing for those purporting to be Christian.

We are , we are not purporting anything.

One word means one thing to someone while that same word infers something else.

Yes , we see that we differ on many things like God for example.You belive in a God that does some magic tricks.
It is very clear that we do not belive the same.

I refuse to belive in a biology different from that of Evolution.
You don't , so what you say is just magic to me.
That is why the magic tricks if you wonder.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is false equivalnce fallacy.
All science is not the same.
Words are there to give meaning and we certainly can identify them by expleining them what they mean.Have you not heard about orign of words and something called "etymology".
Do you know how much of ancient texts is deciphered in the last 200 years? Probably not , right ? And do you think that is not of importance somehow?

What do you think that Historians do , they play ping-pong with stories?


What language ?
The DNA language ?
The human language ?
The language of the Universe ?
Or maybe another language ?

These are all active areas of study.
Neither of those who study it says that is imperfect or perfect , because they know how much every discovery helps.

Science is based on discovery since science itself was discovered and not invented.

I recommend reading Matthew 7:17-23.
And when you read it , think what will happen if people just shoot and nobodz saves them.
It's all about how you understand what you read and how much you can get out of it.



We are , we are not purporting anything.


Yes , we see that we differ on many things like God for example.You belive in a God that does some magic tricks.
It is very clear that we do not belive the same.

I refuse to belive in a biology different from that of Evolution.
You don't , so what you say is just magic to me.
That is why the magic tricks if you wonder.

I see biology as biology. For instance, although I haven't looked in a microscope to see how certain parts of the body go for and attach themselves to other parts -- I believe that. I do not see that as categorizing the theory of evolution, but rather biologic forces.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is false equivalnce fallacy.
All science is not the same.
Words are there to give meaning and we certainly can identify them by expleining them what they mean.Have you not heard about orign of words and something called "etymology".
Do you know how much of ancient texts is deciphered in the last 200 years? Probably not , right ? And do you think that is not of importance somehow?

What do you think that Historians do , they play ping-pong with stories?


What language ?
The DNA language ?
The human language ?
The language of the Universe ?
Or maybe another language ?

These are all active areas of study.
Neither of those who study it says that is imperfect or perfect , because they know how much every discovery helps.

Science is based on discovery since science itself was discovered and not invented.

I recommend reading Matthew 7:17-23.
And when you read it , think what will happen if people just shoot and nobodz saves them.
It's all about how you understand what you read and how much you can get out of it.



We are , we are not purporting anything.


Yes , we see that we differ on many things like God for example.You belive in a God that does some magic tricks.
It is very clear that we do not belive the same.

I refuse to belive in a biology different from that of Evolution.
You don't , so what you say is just magic to me.
That is why the magic tricks if you wonder.

I was wondering whether it was bait and switch. No claims were made about the use of terminology by scientists or any other group. To mention it is irrelevant when the post is about the specific tactics employed to degrade discussion and debate. And then of course, the veiled ad hominem attack. My mother always advised me to consider the source.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You used bad terminology all the times. You misused the terms that you clearly don’t understand, plus you make up your own definitions that no one but you use.

you are most definitely being dishonest with your choice in word usages.

Christian or not, @TagliatelliMonster isn't the only one saying that you have mishandled words, @Dan From Smithville have often pointed out the same problems that TagliatelliMonster see, and Dan is a Christian.

it is not so much Christian vs atheist problem - it is very much, a YOU problem.

Don’t single out atheists. When theists also see the same thing as atheists do, then the real issue everyone have (theists & atheists), it is you.

Nailed it.

 

[John53]

I was wondering whether it was bait and switch. No claims were made about the use of terminology by scientists or any other group. To mention it is irrelevant when the post is about the specific tactics employed to degrade discussion and debate. And then of course, the veiled ad hominem attack. My mother always advised me to consider the source.

It wasn't very "veiled". Even I spotted it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It wasn't very "veiled". Even I spotted it.

It's sad. I don't think it is good witness, but I no longer expect it to be.