Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[leroy]

@leroy - This discussion should seem familiar to you. You may recall the two of us having this same discussion wherein you kept telling me that I had never answered something you posted, I repeated my answer two or three times as I have with cladking here also to no avail, and then finally told you that I wouldn't post it again. I told you that you would either need to scroll through the thread or use the RF Search function, which I explained how to use to you in detail including screenshots. To the best of my knowledge, you did neither, but you did have some accusations of character defects on my part. You said that I was lying trying to save face.

I am not following the conversation, but talking for myself………… no you didn’t answer my question…… I might grant that you think that you answered, but you didn’t answer it

The reason for why I ask you to quote (copy paste) your alleged answer, was so that I can show that your alleged answer was not really an answer.

But if you are interested please feel free to quote @cladking s question/request and your answer and I´ll provide my opinion on weather if you answered or not

 

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense. Homo sapiens didn't even act human until 40,000 years ago. Then they started writing the same "symbols" in caves all over the world and wearing jewelry and making art. You are simply wrong. If the earlier species were human they'd have acted human.

The same symbols everywhere is a huge clue to what changed. Adam whose wernickes area was closely linked to higher brain functions through mutation was born. He was the first man. The mutation was exceedingly "adaptive" so spread like wildfire (suddenly) through the population creating the human race. This race went extinct at the tower of babel because the language became too complex for not only dimwits but virtually everybody. The language was officially changed to the many many pidgin language creating confusion and decision by committee. Most people still think committees of Peers sit around and take votes on the configuration of reality if they believe in reality at all. Reality exists independently of Darwin's and everyone else's beliefs. Scientific opinion is irrelevant to reality and mother nature. Only people care what expert opinion is but most experts can tell opinion from fact.

Tower of babel 2.0 is at hand because people don't understand metaphysics and even many scientists don't study it.

We may well be doomed. There is no pidgin language to operate industry and keep the internet going.

More foolish intentional ignorance of science.

 

[YoursTrue]

You apparently believe in ancient Biblical mythology. There, of course, no evidence anything remotely resembling the Tower of Babel ever took place.

since you bring this up, how do you feel about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Do you think that's true, even though the Pope says evolution is how things happened? Could then Mary be also said without question to be a virgin in perpetuity despite it said that she gave birth to Jesus?

 

[YoursTrue]

More foolish intentional ignorance of science.

Do you agree that "Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs are considered the earliest true writing systems, both having gradually evolved from proto-writing between 3400 and 3100 BCE. The Proto-Elamite script is also believed to have been in use during this period."?

 

[Pogo]

You don’t understand the context of the conversation, all that I am saying is that based on how taxonomy currently works , there is nothing that prevents a non-fish evolving in to a fish……………….this is because “fish” is not a clade, but rather a generic term used to describe organism that we *subjectively* decided that are fish.

There is nothing in taxonomy (nor in evolution by natural selection) that presents a mammal to evolve “fish like traits” to a point that we could label it as “fish”

This is not modern taxonomy, modern taxonomy says that if you have a clade you call fish, you cant move out of it and you can't move into it because it is a question of ancestry.
you are trying to claim modern taxonomy and then not use it.

Clade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the same is true with some fish.



starwman

all i am saying is that

you refuse to acknowledge the difference between the historical use of a word and its current definition by saying it is all semantics, meanings actually change dismissing it as semantics is only demonstrating that you also don't understand what semantics is.

Semantics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1 fish is a generic term, fish is just what we decided*subjectively* to call fish

2 any animal could evolve traits that we could call “fish traits” and call that animal a fish

so nothing controvertial

No it is not, it is also not taxonomy, it is a five year old's understanding of it.
That the word fish has historical meanings like your five year old's understanding is irrelevant in a scientific discussion.

 

[cladking]

More foolish intentional ignorance of science.

I'm sorry but I missed the experiment where it was proven that nothing in the Bible could be real.

Mebbe that came out of some committee of Peers. Ya' know Dawkins et al?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't either. As I've explained my posting is for other reasons. You'll see what I mean in the rest of this thread. You can probably tell who my target audience is.

I'm curious about why people go with what they believe over evidence and reason regarding science, but to be honest I don't think the particular case stems from ideological dogma and I'm not qualified to address where I do think it comes from. And I've lost interest in knowing the basis for the sort of belief-based thinking and action I see here.

How many times will there be posts claiming to have listed, broken down and demonstrated Darwin's assumption for the theory of evolution being wrong a multitude of times when that never happened? Not even once.

Another example is taxonomy. It is used here as if genuine taxonomy is just make up a name and repeat it over and over despite valid information demonstrating that there is no such nomenclature as Homo omniscience or Homo circularis whatever and it describes nothing and explains nothing. It is amusing to read regularly that taxonomy is rejected and not considered and then see attempts to use it.

I find that the model of a claim followed by a contradictory statement supporting or following what the claim rejects is fairly common and amusing. But not enough for me to continue caring. You responded about one of those instances today regarding a claim of never recanting and then recanting. Again, very amusing.

I could probably write a book on the nonsense offered as fact or as knowledgeable and rational conclusion that we've all encountered. But when the interest is in discussing science with those that actually are informed and interested, the distraction of nonsense wears one thin when it is so prevalent.

Still, I'm interested in what you learn and your comments regarding it. You seem be better suited to observe and comment than I am.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry but I missed the experiment where it was proven that nothing in the Bible could be real.

Mebbe that came out of some committee of Peers. Ya' know Dawkins et al?

There is simply no evidence that the Tower of Babel ever existed.

The sciences of Geology, Paleontology, and archeology have demonstrated that the Creation narrative and Noah's Flood as described in the Bible never happened. Example:: experiments such as geologic cores around the world clearly document to such Noah flood ever took place. Even our geologic knowledge of the Levant shows no such evidence for a regional flood.

There completely lacks supporting evidence for much of the ancient history in the Pentateuch, because it was compiled after 600 BCE, based on traditional mythology and more ancient texts going back to the Sumerian texts.

Dawkins' scientific work had nothing to do with the ancient mythology of the Bible.

When someone makes the claim as you are doing it is up you to provide the evidence to support the claim. You have not presented any verifiable evidence to support your claims. What objective evidence can you provide that would demonstrate that the Tower of Babel ever existed.

The sciences of evolution are based on such objective verifiable evidence confirmed and supported by 95% of the scientists and the major academic institutions in the related fields in the world.

You have not met that standard,

 

[blü 2]

I seriously doubt the structure of the brain has much or anything to do with what we believe. This is what I mean by "infinitely malleable".

How do you think we get to understand our environment and indeed anything factual if not through our evolved senses and evolved processes and reactions to sensory input?

The structure of the brain of an animal is wholly determinative of the model of reality that it creates through learning and experience.

But that model is honed by evolution towards surviving long enough to breed successfully. Indeed the thing about humans is that they act in a breeding manner 24/7 rather than simply in particular seasons of the year.

It is not relevant because it occurs only in homo omnisciencis.

You've yet to tell me what imaginary thing you intend to denote when you say 'homo omnisciencis'.

Our species is virtually irrelevant to any discussion of consciousness because we don't experience it and we are like sleep walkers. Our consciousness is is rewired by confused language so we experience thought instead.

I can see you're speaking for yourself here. You're certainly not speaking for me, or as far as I can tell, for your other colloquists here.

 

[cladking]

I can see you're speaking for yourself here. You're certainly not speaking for me, or as far as I can tell, for your other colloquists here.

Are you saying you don't think?

What evidence do you have that our consciousness is like a dog's. As I remember you've yet to invent a scientific definition for consciousness.

How in the world can you know I'm wrong when you can't know the reality because you lack even a definition?

How do you think we get to understand our environment and indeed anything factual if not through our evolved senses and evolved processes and reactions to sensory input?

I'm referring to how the brain operates. Think of it like a 1940's era computer that had a single structure but any time they wanted to change the program they just rewired it. The structure of our brain is almost identical to the brain of homo sapiens and each individual today has his own programming such that we each act in very different ways. Ancient people all had the same structure and the same programming. They were not in the least malleable. If you tried to make a little change it would be impossible and if you forced one you would break it. Today people can get used to killing their neighbors and everyone like them. They each have their individual reasons and methods for murder and they each feel perfectly comfortable hacking off their neighbors' arms and legs to save a bullet. As long as their neighbor isn't fit or is the wrong religion it's plenty sufficient that they must die at your convenience.

It was impossible to coerce homo sapiens to do anything contrary to their knowledge, experience, and natures. But homo omnisciencis only needs a little reeducation or propaganda to see the light. You name it, we'll believe it and then we'll act on those beliefs. We are highly malleable. We can each recreate our own brains through will power alone. Just knowing that placebos exist can make one capable of turning off the worst pain through free will. Across the board we can come to believe any sort of nonsense from "freudian dreaming" to "survival of the fittest". We have control only of those things we are conscious of but like a frog on a hot plate we never notice gradual changes. We go along to get along. We buy stocks when they are high and sell them low. We are like sleep walking cattle and the only way to break out is to think for ourselves rather than allowing quislings or fools to tell us what's what.

There's a lot of good in almost everybody and we all make sense all the time and we try to do what's right. Many of us are extremely competent. But we all must guard ourselves from groupthink. And try to remember nobody at all has the inside track on knowing reality. Peers can only have opinion and when they venture outside experiment their opinion can be even more wrong than the maids at the grindstone.

 

[blü 2]

I'm referring to how the brain operates. Think of it like a 1940's era computer that had a single structure but any time they wanted to change the program they just rewired it. The structure of our brain is almost identical to the brain of homo sapiens and each individual today has his own programming such that we each act in very different ways.

What research papers are you relying on when you assert this? I can't recall ever having come across claims of that kind.

Ancient people all had the same structure and the same programming. They were not in the least malleable. If you tried to make a little change it would be impossible and if you forced one you would break it.

You're pulling my leg, I trust ─ there's not the slightest evidence to support what you appear to be saying. And what does your third sentence in the quote above even mean?

It was impossible to coerce homo sapiens to do anything contrary to their knowledge, experience, and natures. But homo omnisciencis only needs a little reeducation or propaganda to see the light.

Who or what is this "homo omnisciencis" you speak of, and on the basis of whose research do you assert its existence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Posting random videos is a lazy debate tactic………….I am not interested

It's not a debate.

You asked a question about the how and why of the tiktaalik prediction. Who better to answer it, then the scientist in question himself in a video that literally addresses that exact question?

Many of us have already answered this question on this forum using our own words. Clearly that wasn't enough.
So if the scientist himself isn't enough either, then that just goes to show that I am justified in my reasoning that it is not worth the trouble to spend any spec of energy on it trying to explain it all over again.

If you were actually interested, you'ld watch the video.
But I expect you aren't actually interested. You only want to argue till we are blue in the face.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is nothing in taxonomy (nor in evolution by natural selection) that presents a mammal to evolve “fish like traits” to a point that we could label it as “fish”

Except for the fact that species don't jump branches and the branch of tetrapods is not part of the paraphyletic group "fish", meaning no desendends of tetrapods will return to being "fish".


/yawn

all i am saying is that

1 fish is a generic term, fish is just what we decided*subjectively* to call fish

2 any animal could evolve traits that we could call “fish traits” and call that animal a fish

so nothing controvertial

No biologist agrees with you

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And an answer was given “worms”

Explain. Just saying "worms" isn't going to cut it. Explain how worms are a proper example of your claim.
Don't forget to post evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wow!!!

What were people doing for 3.8 billion years. They mustta had no ambition at all. Good thing we came around to make the crown of creation.

Is this a serious statement?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

what part of my comment was ambigous? (my original comment)


What part of that commet even remotely suggests that I am claiming that birds didn’t evolved from dinosaurs, or that they belong to different clades, or that birds are not dinosaurs, or that the science used to classify clades is not good or any of you accusations?

Really, why don’t you simply admit that you simply answered my comment without even reading?

The way you worded it makes it sound as if the definition of dino's is a matter of arbitrary subjective opinion which was "invented" for the purpose of including birds, as if someone could just as well "invent" a definition of human to include crabs and lions.

Nothing in your post suggests that this definition development was initiated by necessity of evidence and that the inclusion of birds was a result of that, not a goal.
Even after having clarified that all you were talking about was merely the semantics of the word "dinosaur" as a label, still how you worded it continues to be ambiguous and unclear.


But why are we still talking about it?
You've clarified what you supposedly meant. We've moved on already.
Is this insistence on continuing that pointless conversation all about how your ego can't stomach the idea that you weren't clear and that several people misunderstood you in the same way, indicating that you were in fact unclear / ambiguous in your writing?

I've been misunderstood in the past also due to having used ambiguous wording or whatever. It's no big deal. You clarify your position and move on. Not sure why you insist on going back to it instead of simply acknowledging that you were misunderstood, even if you think you were clear. You can think so. I could think so in the past also. But the fact is that people misunderstood it. So whatever the cause, clearly there was miscommunication. Move on.

In the words of Frozen's Elza: Let it go, let it goooooo,....

 

[Pogo]

Explain. Just saying "worms" isn't going to cut it. Explain how worms are a proper example of your claim.
Don't forget to post evidence.

And which interpretation of the claim, as I already posted for him, worms go back and forth from aquatic to terrestrial while still being worms.

Our phylogeny also provides a robust framework for investigating several questions about earthworm evolution. At several points in the phylogeny, earthworms have transitioned from terrestrial to aquatic habitats and vice versa. Most species in Clitellata (the group that includes earthworms) are aquatic, so earthworm genomes may retain ancestral genes that enable transitions between habitats. Alternatively, certain features may have been reinvented at each habitat transition. We have begun to explore this question, and hope to investigate other aspects of earthworm gene and genome evolution in our future work.

 

[leroy]

This is not modern taxonomy, modern taxonomy says that if you have a clade you call fish, you cant move out of it and you can't move into it because it is a question of ancestry.

Again fish is not a clade . Therefore being a fish has nothing to do with evolutionary nor with ancestry

 

[leroy]

It's not a debate.

You asked a question about the how and why of the tiktaalik prediction. Who better to answer it, then the scientist in question himself in a video that literally addresses that exact question?

Many of us have already answered this question on this forum using our own words. Clearly that wasn't enough.
So if the scientist himself isn't enough either, then that just goes to show that I am justified in my reasoning that it is not worth the trouble to spend any spec of energy on it trying to explain it all over again.

If you were actually interested, you'ld watch the video.
But I expect you aren't actually interested. You only want to argue till we are blue in the face.

Many of us have already answered this question

No you haven't. Stop making things up

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Homo omniscience and Homo circularis rationatio are not recognized descriptions depicting any known species. Based on the evidence and a knowledge of taxonomy, it is a personal pseudoscience deployed as an attempt to backfill ignorance and lack of understanding and force the evidence to fit a personal contrived view. Further, I think it is done to dehumanize and marginalize the opposition to that personal pseudoscience that has no real basis and cannot stand on its own.

The fact that it is a taxonomy offered concurrently with claims rejecting taxonomy is sort of icing on the cake of nonsense. Such contradictions are not at all unusual and no longer unexpected.

Taxonomy is a science and the nomenclature and taxonomies arise from a careful study of the evidence and are not derived from the arbitrary whims of taxonomists. Using it as it is seen on these threads appears to be out of ignorance of the field and its contributions by someone that doesn't seem interested in learning. Rather the appearance is one of generating "facts" without effort based on a poorly informed or uninformed "thought experiments". The conclusions arising from those "thought experiments" offered as definitive without need of support.

Taxonomist don't make up names to suit themselves while denigrating others in some madcap attempt to marginalize these others and force their personal opinions into being. This seems to be the understanding and reasoning that forms the basis for this pseudo-taxonomy.

On this evidence, it can be ignored as just another effort to rationalize a series of flawed personal opinions offered as if they are factual and derived from a position of omniscience.