Pogo
Well-Known Member
It expresses a coherent thought so given the source I would say no.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution, maybe someone can explain?
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
leroy
Well-Known Member
From Wikipedia
Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages
What part of this definition says/ implies that one can't jump branches ?
Yes biologist would agree on that fish is not a clade but rather a generic term ...... biologist don't have your sick pathological behavior of disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing
cladking
Well-Known Member
I need research papers to know about 1940's computers!!!!
Now you're disputing that people before 2000 BC had a very similar brain structure to our own! If you can't believe it you could just entertain the notion. A lot of communication has always been little more than entertaining the other guy's notions. The objective is supposed to be to understand what he's saying BEFORE you reject it out of hand. You're not supposed to parse the words wrong (metaphysics is the basis of science) nor are you supposed to dismiss it before you understand it. Then for communicative purposes you clearly state where you disagree and ask for any necessary elaboration.
When speaking to believers it often seems we have to carry on both sides of a discussion. Who or what is this "homo omnisciencis" you speak of,...
It is the current human race.
Everybody's. On the basis of every single thing I know and everything I can see from the shoulders of giants and every experiment ever performed. This includes everything I've ever read from the Homeric Hymns to the "Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" as well as a chapter or two of "Origin of Species". You name it there's a big chunk of human nature and how it has changed visible in it.
We exist therefore we think. Groups of similar individuals are known as "species" therefore I am homo omnisciencis, hear me boast. What else could we be called? Circularly reasoning man!!! As Popeye would say "I yam what I yam".
What you don't seem to get is words don't matter. They are just symbols and abstractions. I still exist even if you don't validate me or append labels and names to me. My reality depends neither from a word as you believe nor from Descartes thoughts. You could call us "toes forward" or "man that digs in the earth" because it doesn't matter. But science has ritual and tradition so we have Latin names for "species" and it is quite apparent from extensive evidence we are not the same species that invented agriculture without Darwin or any of his beliefs. Therefore I have used tradition, ritual, and our most prevalent and unique characteristics to name us. This is what scientists have always done or at least attempted. If we really are a new species as I aver what would you call us? Homo sapiens 2.0? It has no cache and doesn't differentiate us from the wise men who were able to invent time keeping and cities while surviving without pharmacies and concrete plants. They were a remarkable species. It's a shame that knowledge of them and an understanding of their language was lost at Tower of Babel 1.0
Agreed. The ways people process information is endlessly fascinating to me. The issue of why they believe false and unfalsifiable claims - they often have no means to distinguish between these and correct ideas - isn't as interesting to me as why many posters won't engage in a constructive discussion of their posting habits.
We often get to a point in many of these discussions where the posting can be understood either as some kind of cognitive blindness or trolling (malice) depending on how much the poster is actually aware of. When one tries to probe further, it inevitable is a dead end ignored by the other party, and I can't understand it whichever of those two possibilities is the case.
Someone trolling might be interested in the questions only to spread more confusion while toying with others, but he doesn't ignore the invitation to explore the matter.
And somebody with a kind of blindness ought to be interested in why others see things in them about which they are unaware if those others are correct.
But neither of these happen. The issue is uniformly disregarded. There is no comment that indicates that the words were read or understood. Now THAT's an enigma.
The following from another post on another thread last August summarizes this nicely. The poster to whom this was addressed has a habit of changing the agnostic atheist's claim to that of the atheist who claims that gods don't exist. I have tried to engage him on why he does that several times, but instead of accepting or declining my offer, he declines to acknowledge seeing my words:
"Your posting has been a rich source of material to analyze. You refuse to cooperate when I ask you to discuss what makes you so hostile to atheists and why you continually change "I neither claim that gods do or don't exist" to "You believes God doesn't exist". I asked you several times each whether you were aware of any of these things to try to decide whether it was due to a cognitive defect - some kind of blindness - which would elicit empathy, or a form of trolling, which would do the opposite, or a third option if there was one, but you declines to answer or acknowledge seeing the questions, which helps me decide what the correct answer is.
I shared those tentative conclusions with you for any corrections or objections you might have, but your response was the same - crickets. Since you elect to have no input there, you've had none, and I've stopped asking you - until now. I will ask again below.
This is the kind of thing that I called endlessly fascinating to me. I really can't explain that behavior. When I imagine myself on the other end of such questions, I can't imagine ignoring it. My responses would express concern for why anybody thought such things about and an effort to explain myself. Even if the answer were something I wanted to conceal, I would still respond with something like, "I prefer to not discuss that." I can't imagine any scenario in which I would do what you've done.
But you're far from alone. I've been through this with about a dozen other RF posters with questions like, "What are you hoping to accomplish here with creationist apologetics? Are you hoping to convince the scientifically literate of anything? Are you performing for an imagined audience of one to martyr yourself and curry favor?"
But nobody responds. Never. Not even once. How mysterious that is to me."
Maybe one day, one poster will actually engage me in this arena, and so I keep making the offer, but I accept the very real likelihood that this is what I will continue to see ad infinitum here on RF. So alien to my own way of processing information and understanding the world, I haven't even got a hypothesis to account for that.
As you just read, I haven't lost interest, just most hope of ever getting an answer. I still have a glimmer of hope there.
You: "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."
He: "More foolish intentional ignorance of science"
You: "I missed the experiment where it was proven that nothing in the Bible could be real."
You missed the logical proposition that an idea doesn't need to be disproved to not be believed. Nothing in scripture can be said to be factual without external, empiric confirmation.
That was a response to, "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 just read the following:
He: "Many of us have already answered this question"
You: "No you haven't. Stop making things up"
You're also an enigma of the variety I've been discussing. How are we to understand you repeatedly having this experience with multiple posters and you not even considering the possibility that, assuming that you are not trolling - and I do; I don't think that about you - that you are blind to these answers and can never figure that out even with prompting and encouragement. Why aren't you curious that YOU might be the problem and have difficulty seeing that? THAT's the compelling mystery for me. Why not? If it were trolling or fear of being shown wrong, I would expect different answers from you that the ones we see above - more deceptive in the first case and more defensive in the latter.
So what then? What missing piece makes this make sense?
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ohh ok watch this video
The video explains it..... I won't tell where or how and I won't explain it
See I can also use dishonest tactics
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok at what minute does the video answers my question? Can you answer? No because you are just making things up
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well yes all words and definitions are arbitrary and invented
You keep amazing me..... Your unwillingness to admit simple and obvious mistakes is very telling
Even if I was ambiguous (I wasn't) why did you decide to make the worst possible interpretation of my words ? Why not just asking?
So this is how your mind works (by your own admission)
1 leroy made an ambiguous claim
2 I assume the worst possible interpretation without asking for clarification
3 I refute my interpretation of Leroy s claim without really knowing if he is really making that claim
Really don't you see anything wrong with that ?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I have, but no matter. Whatever floats your ego. If you're actually interested, watch the video.
In any case, there's no way I can provide you with a better answer then the scientist himself.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That definition doesn't say that. Evolution says that.
And the definition is that it includes "some but not all of its descendant lineages".
Take both together and it follows that the descendant lineages that aren't included.... aren't included.
The above is a picture coming from a site that reflects science's answer to "what is a fish?"
What is a fish?
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes, you sure can use dishonest tactics.
You're posting a full documentary dealing with worms in general.
The video I posted dealt with only one specific thing and it was the exact thing you were asking for.
In the video I posted, there is no need for you to go hunt for the answer to your question. The video IS the answer to your question and it literally starts with explaining WHY he went to search for the fossil of that age.
Whereas the one you posted..... doesn't.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
From 0:15 to 1:23 specifically concerning age.
The 10 minutes that follow that, he walks us though how they pinpointed possible locations to go hunt for the fossil, how they went about it and what kind of fossil they were looking for.
The last 5 minutes talks about finding the fossil and how it matched their expectations.
Enjoy.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
See, you are doing it again.......
No, definitions in this context are not arbitrary nor invented.
They are derived from evidence.
It's not arbitrary or invented definition which defines what a dino is.
Evidence defines what a dino is.
Evidence defines the criteria. The "definition" is a non-arbitrary, non-invented summary of that evidence.
There was no reason to ask, because logically I assumed that you weren't just posting meaningless state-the-obvious webfillers.
But now you are making me doubt again, with your statement above where you once again repeat that the DEFINITION is "arbitrary and invented", whereas before you claimed you were merely talking about the word used as the label to identify the animals: "dino".
The label is arbitrary. The definition is not.
And also, off course, because you have a history of saying such things.
It's only ambiguous in retrospect.
I didn't consider it ambiguous at the time.
And as said, you have me doubting your sincerity again with your opening statement here saying that "definitions are arbitrary and invented".
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Fish is a word, when used in the context of evolution as it is in this science and religion context to say that an organism can become a fish is mistaken and confusing at best and indicative of a lack of understanding.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
TBH, I think there's a good chance that the "confusing" part is being exploited deliberately. Like other instances where ambiguity is being used as if it is some kind of tactic to always make it look as having an out and / or an opportunity to always be able to disagree with whatever is being said.
Trying to create some kind of "heads I win, tails you lose" type of dishonest situation
Pogo
Well-Known Member
The part that you should know from before you start to assign things to phylogenies, the concept behind it called evolution.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Along the lines of evolution is just a conjecture since we don't have complete information and so the WAG I want to believe is still just as possible.
There are accepted definitions of consciousness as previously cited, which are generally accepted eith the consideration that over time more research and discoveries will increase our knowledge.
You persist in "inventing" your definitions based on a personal metaphysical foggy perspective without science.
So does science from a more objective perspective without metaphysical and religious attachments.
The 1940's perspective is no longer considered the current view of science.
The bold above has been a problem for the history of humanity, and an increasing problem in the last 5000 years,
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The value of dreams has to due with the way the brain is set up; higher to lower potential. This has pathways that are optimize to get rid of the random. Life is very organized with random removed as much as possible.
Neuron expend 90% of their metabolic energy pumping and exchanging ions. Sodium ions concentrates on the outside of the neuron membrane, while potassium ions concentration on the inside of the membrane. This segregation and concentration of ions lowers ionic entropy relative to a solution of both ions, which prefer to merge and blend. The analogy is bland salt an sugar in a glass of water with the neuron separating these back into two separate piles at the bottom of the glass. It will not happen spontaneously. It needs work with the neutron lots of energy to do it.
The 2D law says that entropy has to increase, yet, the ionic entropy of the neuron is lowering, thereby setting up an entropic potential against the 2nd law. Although the 2nd law says entropy has to increase, we can lower entropy, but that takes energy. The rest neuron is at the top a free energy hill, with minimal entropy. Firing a way to lower this extra entropic potential and increased entropy; blend ions.
The neurons, when they fire increase the ionic entropy, favoring the 2nd law. Ultimately, all neurons have to fire due to the 2nd law. Dreams are connected to the cascade of these ionic currents, all heading toward higher entropy. This goes to the thalamus, which is the more wired and complex part of the brain; maximum entropy.
This is not random, but has a sense of direction. Dreams are useful in therapy and can tell things about repression and other psychological problems of the patient. Repression is like a damming of our psychic energy; neural energy. This dam means rest neurons; staying at low entropy, that are not firing enough to stay conscious. Dreams are a reflection of these blockages, being drained of their 2nd law potential, while triggering memory; firing. They output can tell you thing; blockages, based on the natural flow of the 2nd law.
Animals do dream, but they do not self reflect on their dreams; analyze. They may see the dream, but they will react in their sleep, more like they do in reality. This allows a way to train their brain, while sleeping, to reflect possible ways to work around their environmental repressions; bottlenecks in reality.
We just got a new kitten. She is about 8 weeks old; Abyssinian. She will stand down the old cats if they get too rough. She already appears to be watching training films in her head, and is acting them out, chasing invisible prey; projection effect. This is the type of effect than have when they dream. Nobody taught her, since she is so young, yet she is playing in a way, as through she is interacting, with an actual external prey, but it is all being projected; play. When you explore the unconscious mind this type of stuff is very common and give good data which can make you realize there is someone else in there; inner self.
It is very possible, in terms of evolution, new animal behavior may initially be conscious in their dreams and when acted upon; projection, for practice, it can be then be applied to the new reality situations, that the will encounter; selective advantage. Others, can observed can copy them directly, from their senses. The current model, based on DNA, does not do justice to the brain and consciousness, since the best data of the brain, is on the inside.
Even many religions, dreams and visions are part to their faith. These would reflect the internal dynamics, where their times repress aspects of human nature, and the inner self and brain, attempt to trigger this stalled memory in favor of the 2nd law. They have collective dreams and visions for the whole tribe. In the animal sense, this could give then give an entire herd a special selective advantage.
leroy
Well-Known Member
well .......I gave you the option to quote cladking´s question and your alleged answer why wont you do that?...........do you see how and why form my point if view it´s suspicious?
i´ll say it´s false
Don´t worry I can explain it……………. Very often in this forum I get things that I belive are ambiguous answers, strawman or some other type of fallacy or some type of “non-answer”
The reason I challenge my interlocutors to quote (copy paste) my actual question and their actual answer is to show that the answer is a strawman or some other type of fallacy or some type of “non-answer”……………… if my opnent doesn’t quote my actual question and his answer it would be very easy for them to simply claim that I am refuting a straw man or taking his words out of context
Within our discussions I remember a conversation where I challenge to develop and explain a an alternative hypothesis and explain why that hypothesis is better than the resurrection.
Your “answer” was a list of hypothesis (just one sentence) obviously I dismissed them as “non answer” because you were asked to develop and expalin a hypothesis (not just mention it)……………….I challenged you to quote your answer so that I can show you that you where not asked to make a list of alternative hypothesis……………
So in response to your question, it is not that I don’t´see the alleged answer………… the truth is that I saw the alleged answer, saw flaws in that answer but before addressing the flaws I whant to make sure that it really is your answer (hence I ask you to quote the answer)……otherwise you would simply dismiss my rebuttal by saying “no that was not my answer”
leroy
Well-Known Member
Agree so if the descendents of humans evolve in to something that we would call a fish this new specie would be part of the fish paraphyletic group, there is nothing in the definition of paraphyletic group that prevents this.
This new specie and tuna fish for example would:
1 share a common ancestor
2 some but not all their descendants would be fish
yes and the site simply expalines what I did............fish is not a clade.......and you know it, You just what to disagree for the sake of disagreeing