Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[Dan From Smithville]

It is normally nothing but an elaboration.

I think it demonstrates much more than that.

 

[cladking]

The evidence of observation and experiment refute all your claims about evolution. And yet you continue to repeat the same claims like mantras.

You just got done handwaving the fact that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then use another dictionary. They still use "basis of science" as the first definition of "metaphysics".

A claim that I have no doubt you will have no trouble providing the evidence to support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just got done handwaving the fact that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

You have never done anything to demonstrate these claims. You have not done anything to explain evidence that refutes these claims. You just handwave all comments away, rinse and repeat.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just got done handwaving the fact that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

I did not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is normally nothing but an elaboration.

I disagree. I believe it is much more than that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Until China renames "Peking" it is still the capital of China. It's gone through more different names in my lifetime than I can count but they still call it "Peking" just like me. To each his own.

I'm aware of some of the words that have been redefined and try to be very clear when I use them. I would never have drums of kerosene stenciled with the word "inflammable" for instance. Young people would think this means it doesn't burn and they might burn down the plant.

I don't approve of change in language for the sake of change. Rationalization or simplification would be OK but most change I've observed is a nonsensical random walk. I believe only in good communication so good English and standards are the best means of achieving it. Trying to understand the other person's beliefs and premises are paramount.

When the topic is a discussion of science in English where that science has a well-defined and a widely recognized vocabulary, what you say here is just meaningless handwaving and a nonsense appeal.

Why is it that there are so many participants to these evolution threads from various parts of the world that all understand the vocabulary being used and you don't?

I think you change the definitions to something secret and personal so that you can feel you have a dog in this fight and are way more knowledgeable with your uninformed views than those with informed views.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Until China renames "Peking" it is still the capital of China. It's gone through more different names in my lifetime than I can count but they still call it "Peking" just like me. To each his own.

I'm aware of some of the words that have been redefined and try to be very clear when I use them. I would never have drums of kerosene stenciled with the word "inflammable" for instance. Young people would think this means it doesn't burn and they might burn down the plant.

I don't approve of change in language for the sake of change. Rationalization or simplification would be OK but most change I've observed is a nonsensical random walk. I believe only in good communication so good English and standards are the best means of achieving it. Trying to understand the other person's beliefs and premises are paramount.

Sigh!!!

I don't see any attempt being made to be clear. I don't see any attempt to recognize what others tell you and have supported.

No one is arguing about changing language. What is being recognized is that you change the language to other meanings without telling others about those changes or justifying them.

Do you consider that to be honest and ethical?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just got done handwaving the fact that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

Demonstrate that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

1. Show me that the species prior to the bottleneck is a different species than the one after the bottleneck.

2. Show me that wiping out 90% of a population and those lost individuals and genetic diversity that can never be accessed again is the same as breeding two individuals for a particular trait with all the individuals from their population along with their variation still available to access again are the same.

3. Demonstrate that all change in all living things is sudden and explain all the instances where it doesn't at all appear to be sudden.

4. Demonstrate something, anything. Just once. Good grief!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just got done handwaving the fact that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

Or you could just run away and return again with the same shpeil you have consistently presented since you came here.

The choice is all yours. According to you, you have the consciousness to support personal survival against all odds. Show some of that here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or you could just run away and return again with the same shpeil you have consistently presented since you came here.

The choice is all yours. According to you, you have the consciousness to support personal survival against all odds. Show some of that here.

In a discussion of science, it is typical and rational and expected to provide evidence for the claims being made.

I know, weird right!

I didn't make the rules. That's just how it is.

In order to survive rationally in the debate and discussion that is how it goes.

 

[George-ananda]

When we're dead we're not alive.

I don't understand that. As a Christian don't you believe in life after death?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For example what you quoted IS an argument;

"Where I can point at observation of species arising suddenly at bottlenecks you just keep SAYING you have experiment to show they arise gradually by survival of the fittest."

I've fleshed out this argument many times and it was ignored or handwaved. So a sentence will have to suffice this time.

I have been rereading what I used as an example and find that my position and reasoning for using it as an example stands.

What you have provided in that specific case and generally is a series of assertions without evidence and, as here, against the evidence available.

You don't seem to make arguments. Just empty assertions. People are addressing those, however, and on point.

You haven't provided observations that speciation occurs at bottlenecks. You just repeat the assertion. Admittedly, you have explained to some extent how you have come to believe that it does. But as has been pointed out, that method is flawed and has no basis beyond the trivial similarity with one aspect of artificial selection and breeding.

Participants here that accept the theory of evolution have provided many examples of observation from natural systems, natural experiment and controlled experiments in support of the theory. I would have thought that by now you would have gleaned something from those examples. Clearly, the evidence indicates otherwise.

I recognize that you have an interest in science and that you may have read a few general works on science, but that is not the same as having knowledge of specific subjects and it does not mean that others are compelled to accept your empty claims as fact.

Take that interest and apply it to learning the facts rather than making them up out of what you believe things to be or want them to be.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just got done handwaving the fact that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

We can probably agree that physicists would be knowledgeable in physics. Chemists with chemistry. Geologists with geology. Biologists with biology.

If you do agree, then why do you ignore what those disciplines have learned for us?

Why do you ignore them? Why do you try and rewrite biology to fit your personal and undemonstrated conceptions?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just got done handwaving the fact that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

Is the uninformed view equal to informed understanding?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just got done handwaving the fact that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

Are logical fallacies a sound basis to draw conclusions?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just got done handwaving the fact that all observed change in species is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

You have used reference to paradigms and paradigm shifts like a baton to beat on the views of others, but I don't know that you understand paradigm shifts or the various paradigms of science that have existed since Darwin. If you do understand this, why beat on a paradigm that is no longer relevant and 150 years out of date to try and convince people to ignore current understanding and jump on your paradigm?

A paradigm or a shift in paradigms does not change the facts. It changes understanding. There seems to be no understanding with your paradigm and you refuse even to attempt to demonstrate that it does offer understanding. That should be a clue to you that you are on the wrong track and what you think you know is misconceived belief and not fact.

 

[cladking]

I don't. If I change the meaning of a word in the middle of a discussion, I destroyed that discussion and made it meaningless. I see it is a tactic to obscure the failings of ignorance and the inability to support a position.

You are diverting from the fact that you don't provide support for your claims and now tell us that you change the meaning of words in the middle of a discussion. This seems to be a personal service to oneself when one is cornered and can't respond meaningfully. An escape mechanism to maintain a facade of knowledge that doesn't in fact exist.

Just as I said you don't notice that word meanings change within a sentence;

""The last sentence the litterbug wanted to hear from the judge was "ten to life." as his sentence."

When the topic is a discussion of science in English where that science has a well-defined and a widely recognized vocabulary, what you say here is just meaningless handwaving and a nonsense appeal.

Even in science words have many meanings.

I have been rereading what I used as an example and find that my position and reasoning for using it as an example stands.

What you have provided in that specific case and generally is a series of assertions without evidence and, as here, against the evidence available.

You don't seem to make arguments. Just empty assertions. People are addressing those, however, and on point.

You haven't provided observations that speciation occurs at bottlenecks. You just repeat the assertion. Admittedly, you have explained to some extent how you have come to believe that it does. But as has been pointed out, that method is flawed and has no basis beyond the trivial similarity with one aspect of artificial selection and breeding.

Participants here that accept the theory of evolution have provided many examples of observation from natural systems, natural experiment and controlled experiments in support of the theory. I would have thought that by now you would have gleaned something from those examples. Clearly, the evidence indicates otherwise.

Thank you very much. We might be able to use this as a platform to begin to disagree.

I recognize that you have an interest in science and that you may have read a few general works on science, but that is not the same as having knowledge of specific subjects and it does not mean that others are compelled to accept your empty claims as fact.

I've been interested in and have studied science since I was very very small. But my primary interests were always the nature of thought and machine intelligence. As a young man I decided that generalism and metaphysics were the only way to tackle such issues. Now I believe I have made some (limited) headway. I have no idea how I got so far afield that I sometimes can't communicate with reasonable people and have better communication with religious people than scientists. I believe the next few decades will see a reevaluation of definitions and axioms leading to a reinterpretation of experiment all through science. The days of a mechanical universe ended long ago and we never held a proper funeral.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just as I said you don't notice that word meanings change within a sentence;

You are wrong. What you do is change the word meanings without warning or reason. That is not logical, rational or useful to anyone. Not even you I would say, but I don't think you understand that.

""The last sentence the litterbug wanted to hear from the judge was "ten to life." as his sentence."

I'm interested in contrived nonsense.

Even in science words have many meanings.

Exactly, yet you have shown a disregard of those meanings. Even denial of them in favor of your personal secret meanings that are useless and unproductive to a discussion.

Thank you very much. We might be able to use this as a platform to begin to disagree.

There has been no platform for anyone to agree with you. You have seen to that.

I've been interested in and have studied science since I was very very small.

I think you mean you have read about it. I see little evidence of the reading on it and none of study and understanding.

The evidence I see is that you are more informed than everyone on the subjects of science and many others. You deliver claims as if they are the revealed truth of the ultimate expert. Yet you can't explain, support or answer questions and requests regarding those claims. Just nonsense nonresponses.

But my primary interests were always the nature of thought and machine intelligence.

You don't believe in intelligence. You've said so many times. So you think machines possess something you don't believe exists. More contrarian nonsense.

I'll be honest with you regarding anything philosophical or scientific, I would not look to you as a source of understanding or knowledge. I can't see how anyone would.

As a young man I decided that generalism and metaphysics were the only way to tackle such issues. Now I believe I have made some (limited) headway. I have no idea how I got so far afield that I sometimes can't communicate with reasonable people and have better communication with religious people than scientists. I believe the next few decades will see a reevaluation of definitions and axioms leading to a reinterpretation of experiment all through science. The days of a mechanical universe ended long ago and we never held a proper funeral.

I don't know either, but you may want to consult some experts to see if there is something that can be done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just as I said you don't notice that word meanings change within a sentence;

""The last sentence the litterbug wanted to hear from the judge was "ten to life." as his sentence."



Even in science words have many meanings.



Thank you very much. We might be able to use this as a platform to begin to disagree.



I've been interested in and have studied science since I was very very small. But my primary interests were always the nature of thought and machine intelligence. As a young man I decided that generalism and metaphysics were the only way to tackle such issues. Now I believe I have made some (limited) headway. I have no idea how I got so far afield that I sometimes can't communicate with reasonable people and have better communication with religious people than scientists. I believe the next few decades will see a reevaluation of definitions and axioms leading to a reinterpretation of experiment all through science. The days of a mechanical universe ended long ago and we never held a proper funeral.

If a person is intentionally and secretly changing the meaning of words over the course of a sentence, I can only conclude that they are doing so to promote false information, false belief and to set themselves up as some sort of expert without the expertise.

If we are talking about a specific subject using recognized and defined terms to describe conditions and convey information, the meanings of the words should not need to change and where they are used differently, the rational, honest party would identify the change and explain why it is necessary.

None of that happens in conversations from you.

I am not the only observer that has come to this conclusion. Certainly, we, relative strangers from many and diverse backgrounds, could be part of concerted conspiracy to keep you down and suppress your revealed truths. But is that very likely or even rational to assume?