Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

we could add the 600,000 mph velocity around the galaxy.

From AI, which largely agrees with you. The numerical value varies with the estimate of the time it takes to orbit our galaxy's central supermassive black hole:

"The Sun travels around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at an average speed of approximately **828,000 kilometers per hour** (or about **514,000 miles per hour**). This orbital speed is often referred to as its "galactic orbital velocity." The Sun is located about **26,000 light-years** from the galactic center and takes approximately **230 million years** to complete one full orbit"

You've probably seen this, which, if one can remember the lyrics, can help one remember these values:

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second so it's reckoned
The sun that is the source of all our power

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour
In the galaxy we call the Milky Way

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side
It bulges in the middle, six thousand light years thick
But out by us, it's just a thousand light years wide

We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point
We go 'round every two hundred million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe

the earth spins at 1000 MPH

The lyrics above should say that the earth is rotating (about its axis) at 900 MPH, not revolving, although that value would not be at the equator. Revolving refers to earth's orbit around the sun, which they give as 19 MPS.

But that's not how we describe rotational speed. It's done in degrees (or radians) per unit time. The earth rotates about its axis 360 deg every 24 hours, and that's true at any latitude, but the 900-1000 MPH number refers to the rotational speed near the equator, which is a circle with a diameter of about 25,000 miles. Somebody standing there will move 25,000 miles in 24 hours, or about 1040 MPH, but at a higher latitude, where the circle traveled is say 12,500 miles, the velocity will be about half that.

The speed in MPS or MPH gets progressively slower as one approaches the poles, but not in degrees per unit time.

You have no evidence to support your belief there was no fundamental change in humans.

That was a response to, "Man existed before he developed writing." Yours is a good example of what I mean by a nonresponsive answer. I have already tried to illustrate this difference to you, but I'll try again

Here are some responsive answers. They may be incorrect, but they address what was written:

• Agreed. I miswrote.
• No, man did not exist before he developed writing. He began to exist that day.
• It all depends on what we mean by "man."

Here are some nonresponsive answers:

• What time is it?
• I like cheese.
• You have no evidence to support your belief there was no fundamental change in humans.
• John was may favorite Beatle.

how were the pyramids built?

That was in response to, "Gods enjoy the same ontological status as vampires and leprechauns" and is also a nonresponsive reply

Responsive possibilities. Again, maybe wrong, but they indicate that the responder understood what he responded to:

• Agreed. I miswrote.
• No they don't. Vampires and leprechauns are thought to live on earth, and gods live in the sky.
• What's a leprechaun?

Nonresponsive answers. They look like they were intended to answer another poster's question:

• You have no evidence to support your belief there was no fundamental change in humans
• How were the pyramids built?
• I like turtles:

I like how every believer took the acceleration of the expansion of the universe in stride.

Do you know how that was determined? That was some fascinating science. It alone justified the expense of Hubble mission. So did the deep field long-exposure photos of galaxies in what appeared to be empty space to the naked eye and ground-based telescopes.

Absolute distances to stars are measured three ways.:

[1] The distance to the closest celestial objects can be judged using parallax as the earth moves through space.

[2] Cepheid variables (regularly pulsating stars) are standard candles, meaning that their absolute magnitude is known by the period of their cycling between brighter and fainter, so we can use their apparent magnitude to judge their distances. This information can help us know how far the galaxy containing one is, but they're relatively faint and can't be seen in the very distant galaxies. If we use just those two means of determining absolute distance and combine them with red shift data, we can determine a rate for universal expansion (Hubble constant), but only for the relatively recent past - the last half of the age of the universe more or less.

[3] The third method utilizes a second standard candle that is much brighter than a Cepheid - a type 1A supernova. Hubble looked much deeper into space and thus into the past than ground-based telescopes had, and harvested data on these. What was discovered using these new standard candles and their apparent brightness coupled with redshift data was that the rate of expansion in the past was slower.

It should be noted that no experimentation was done there. The science is all observational and computational.

how many times have a told you that if you flip a coin a billion times that every outcome is equally likely?

You needn't bother. I'm quite adept at elementary probability.

Did you know that that statement is true for any number of coin flips, not just a billion? The proviso is that we are specifying the order of the individual heads and tails and not just their aggregate numbers (permutations rather than combinations).

Each of these permutations of the outcome of four coin flips is as likely as each other:

HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HHTT
HTHH
HTHT
HTTH
HTTT
THHH
THHT
THTH
THTT
TTHH
TTHT
TTTH
TTTT

Two heads and two tails is more likely than any other combination:

4H = 1 (HHHH)
3H/1T =4 (HHHT, HHTH, HTHH, THHH)
2H/2T = 6 (HHTT, HTHT, HTTH, THHT, THTH, TTHH)
1H/3T = 4 (TTTH, TTHT, THTT, HTTT)
4T =1 (TTTT)

Three of one and one of the other is a commoner combination than two of each or four of one

4/0 = 2 (HHHH, TTTT)
2/2 = 6 (HHTT, HTHT, HTTH, THHT, THTH, TTHH)
3/1 = 8 (HHHT, HHTH, HTHH, THHH, TTTH, TTHT, THTT, HTTT)

These numbers are useful in bridge. You're missing 4 spades that the opponents hold. They'll break 3-1 more often than 2-2 or 4-0, but if we are specifying which opponent has the one, they'll break 2-2 more often than 3-1 with the singleton to your left, for example.

You believe in miracles like defining fitness as the cause of gradual change makes it all pop into existence.

That's not the definition of fitness.

Every single thing we've learned since the ToB shows us the world is more complex than we had known. We've no dissected atoms into many pieces we don't even understand but we do know that all events start at the subatomic level and there are a finite number outcomes to every occurrence though this number is enormous. But you ignore this and ignore the butterfly that flaps its wings for unknown reasons and then you think you know everything because hurricanes form over warm water and are very windy. I'm astounded at the hubris

I don't know what you're trying to tell me here, but it doesn't seem to relate to anything I've written to you.

Too bad that you don't like plain English. Maybe you're saying that some things are too complex to describe completely or predict accurately. If so, those would have been better words to use.

I also don't know where hubris enters this. Are you referring to my claim that I can predict much of what will happen in my life before it happens - enough to make my life largely stable and predictable? No brag, just fact:

What supernatural way is in the Bible to explain why the expansion of the universe is accelerating?

The biblical writers knew nothing of universal expansion and so didn't try to explain it, but if they had, their answer would be that God did it.

Even a gold nugget will corrode away in tens of thousands of years.

Or as you would word it, suddenly. All change is sudden, right?

 

[cladking]

That was in response to, "Gods enjoy the same ontological status as vampires and leprechauns" and is also a nonresponsive reply

And how many times have I said that ancient people weren't like us. They didn't have any beliefs whatsoever of any sort. When they saw condensation they didn't say "Oh look the cold cup is wet on the outside". This is how you think. They knew for a fact that this situation was called "nehmetaway" and they named "her" as being visible on a cold vessel. She had many names but no definitions. One of her many names was "she who restores was was taken by evaporation" because warmth and moisture lost in evaporation were returned by her.

Nehmetaway was a "god" according to our highly confused understanding but in reality the condensation was palpable so nehmetaway was palpable. "Condensation" is just a word that can mean anything and can never be touched or put into a category of like things. The gods literally built the pyramids and those who were there watching them build literally said the gods built the pyramids. The pyramid thus literally become proof of the gods' literal existence. We don't have words to express any of this because homo omnisciencis doesn't think like they did. There are no number of "literal"s I can put in a sentence to recreate their consciousness. Even the word "literal" is an abstraction. We build models of reality and homo sapiens modeled all of reality in their brain and in their language. Did I ever mention there was a speciation event in 2000 BC that essentially explains all of history, the Bible, and the nature of change in species. They had a wired wernickes area but no brocas area. This made them look and act like animals and turned them into a force of nature. We are a product of our beliefs.

This isn't even a little complicated. Even figuring it all out wasn't that hard. But the gods were real and all of them to my knowledge are still real but they are virtually invisible to our species.

 

[cladking]

When they saw condensation they didn't say "Oh look the cold cup is wet on the outside". This is how you think. They knew for a fact that this situation was called "nehmetaway" and they named "her" as being visible on a cold vessel.

They each knew that if they didn't know nehmetaway existed they couldn't see cold cups were wet on the outside. If nehmetaway was not part of their model of reality then they didn't see that it was wet and if they noticed the anomaly anyway they didn't know the cause.

On the other hand we all know everything about condensation but most people don't have a clue about the nature of clouds, dew, or relative humidity. They don't understand partial pressure or even the most basic things about condensation and evaporation. These are things EVERY SINGLE caveman knew and they wrote about it on the walls of caves. They needed to know to survive because otherwise molds would overtake them and everything would go wrong. They knew that germs lived in moisture and needed to know how to prevent contagion.

We've tamed the planet, sneeze into the air currents and go to the doctor a lot. It's all good. If ancient people were a fraction as confused they'd have gone extinct and we, the crown of creation, would never have been born or arisen at the Tower of Babel.

 

[leroy]

The transition from fish to tetrapods was thought to occur during a period, but there were no fossils. Shubin predicted they might find one there, and lol a fishapod was found, confirming the theory yet again. Might be obvious to you in hindsight, butsome are still looking for a precambrian rabbit

Shubin predicted they might find one there,

Ok and based on what was the prediction made?

fishapod was found, confirming the theory yet again

(For context titaalik was found in the late Denovian)

Sure, but then after titaalik was found, fully formed tetrapod fossils where found in the mid Devonian, suggesting that there were already fully formed tetrapods before tiktaalik…………………..suggesting that the transition took place before the late Devonian (bofore tiktaalik,)

Once again I am just making a simple and uncontroversial point……………my point being that tiktaalik or any other intermediate between fish and tetrapod is expected to be found almost anywhere in the fossil record (between Silurian Period to modern ages)

It is not like tiktaalik is expected to be found in the late Devonian and just in the late denovian, but rather almost anywhere in the fossil record (therefore not a very good prediction in my opinion)

If you disagree, then please start you reply with “No Leroy you are wrong, tiktaalik is expected to be found in the late Devonian and only in the late Devonian because….” If you don’t do this I will assume that you agree

Might be obvious to you in hindsight, butsome are still looking for a precambrian rabbit

A rabbit I the Precambrian would indicate contamination , fraud or just a simple “I don’t know how to explain it”----------- it is stupid and naïve to think that a single fossil would destroy such a robust theory .

Out of place fossils are found all the time, and scientists recognize that this is not a big of a deal

 

[cladking]

If nehmetaway was not part of their model of reality then they didn't see that it was wet and if they noticed the anomaly anyway they didn't know the cause.

Baby homo sapiens were born without any knowledge of nehmetaway but by the time they were three they knew a few of her names and the principle of condensation was wired right into their model of reality and their actions which were all based on this model. By 14 or 15 they knew "everything" known by science about condensation but the knowledge was organized differently. It was organized such that it was always on the tip of their tongue and in their thoughts.

Homo omnisciencis each know everything despite the fact most have no clue and can't describe the process on the micro nor macro level. If they need to know such as to purify water then they will die.

 

[YoursTrue]

Believers ignore what they can't understand because they are fixated on their beliefs instead of why they believe it. Without knowing their own axioms, definitions, and assumptions they simply can't support or deny any argument that isn't framed in terms of what they believe. You can be sure they'll be all over anything when you misspeak or make an error of fact.

I wonder if it's always been true that religious arguments are usually stronger than scientific ones and I just couldn't see it because I had more beliefs in science in the past. Frankly I think the quality of posters here arguing the "religious" perspective is exceedingly high. While there are some good arguments from the science side it seems most are far more akin to lectures than argument.

Science is as science does. I certainly appreciate vaccines that have been put into action by scientists. The reduction of polio and smallpox certainly "proves" that the vaccines are effective. Nothing to prove the vast theory of evolution, however. Yessss, birds can produce species of different colors and beak sizes -- but, as I have said more than once, birds stay birds and monkeys stay monkeys. Nothing, in fact, to show that apes evolved from some Unknown Common Ancestor, which, according to the science, supposedly died out--disappeared--a long time ago.

 

[ppp]

but, as I have said more than once, birds stay birds and monkeys stay monkeys.

According to evolution, you're still a monkey. And a mammal. And a vertebrate. And an animal. And a eukaryote.

Assuming, of course, that you are a human.

 

[YoursTrue]

From AI, which largely agrees with you. The numerical value varies with the estimate of the time it takes to orbit our galaxy's central supermassive black hole:

"The Sun travels around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at an average speed of approximately **828,000 kilometers per hour** (or about **514,000 miles per hour**). This orbital speed is often referred to as its "galactic orbital velocity." The Sun is located about **26,000 light-years** from the galactic center and takes approximately **230 million years** to complete one full orbit"

You've probably seen this, which, if one can remember the lyrics, can help one remember these values:

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second so it's reckoned
The sun that is the source of all our power

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour
In the galaxy we call the Milky Way

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side
It bulges in the middle, six thousand light years thick
But out by us, it's just a thousand light years wide

We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point
We go 'round every two hundred million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe

The lyrics above should say that the earth is rotating (about its axis) at 900 MPH, not revolving, although that value would not be at the equator. Revolving refers to earth's orbit around the sun, which they give as 19 MPS.

But that's not how we describe rotational speed. It's done in degrees (or radians) per unit time. The earth rotates about its axis 360 deg every 24 hours, and that's true at any latitude, but the 900-1000 MPH number refers to the rotational speed near the equator, which is a circle with a diameter of about 25,000 miles. Somebody standing there will move 25,000 miles in 24 hours, or about 1040 MPH, but at a higher latitude, where the circle traveled is say 12,500 miles, the velocity will be about half that.

The speed in MPS or MPH gets progressively slower as one approaches the poles, but not in degrees per unit time.

That was a response to, "Man existed before he developed writing." Yours is a good example of what I mean by a nonresponsive answer. I have already tried to illustrate this difference to you, but I'll try again

Here are some responsive answers. They may be incorrect, but they address what was written:

• Agreed. I miswrote.
• No, man did not exist before he developed writing. He began to exist that day.
• It all depends on what we mean by "man."

Here are some nonresponsive answers:

• What time is it?
• I like cheese.
• You have no evidence to support your belief there was no fundamental change in humans.
• John was may favorite Beatle.

That was in response to, "Gods enjoy the same ontological status as vampires and leprechauns" and is also a nonresponsive reply

Responsive possibilities. Again, maybe wrong, but they indicate that the responder understood what he responded to:

• Agreed. I miswrote.
• No they don't. Vampires and leprechauns are thought to live on earth, and gods live in the sky.
• What's a leprechaun?

Nonresponsive answers. They look like they were intended to answer another poster's question:

• You have no evidence to support your belief there was no fundamental change in humans
• How were the pyramids built?
• I like turtles:

Do you know how that was determined? That was some fascinating science. It alone justified the expense of Hubble mission. So did the deep field long-exposure photos of galaxies in what appeared to be empty space to the naked eye and ground-based telescopes.

Absolute distances to stars are measured three ways.:

[1] The distance to the closest celestial objects can be judged using parallax as the earth moves through space.

[2] Cepheid variables (regularly pulsating stars) are standard candles, meaning that their absolute magnitude is known by the period of their cycling between brighter and fainter, so we can use their apparent magnitude to judge their distances. This information can help us know how far the galaxy containing one is, but they're relatively faint and can't be seen in the very distant galaxies. If we use just those two means of determining absolute distance and combine them with red shift data, we can determine a rate for universal expansion (Hubble constant), but only for the relatively recent past - the last half of the age of the universe more or less.

[3] The third method utilizes a second standard candle that is much brighter than a Cepheid - a type 1A supernova. Hubble looked much deeper into space and thus into the past than ground-based telescopes had, and harvested data on these. What was discovered using these new standard candles and their apparent brightness coupled with redshift data was that the rate of expansion in the past was slower.

It should be noted that no experimentation was done there. The science is all observational and computational.

You needn't bother. I'm quite adept at elementary probability.

Did you know that that statement is true for any number of coin flips, not just a billion? The proviso is that we are specifying the order of the individual heads and tails and not just their aggregate numbers (permutations rather than combinations).

Each of these permutations of the outcome of four coin flips is as likely as each other:

HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HHTT
HTHH
HTHT
HTTH
HTTT
THHH
THHT
THTH
THTT
TTHH
TTHT
TTTH
TTTT

Two heads and two tails is more likely than any other combination:

4H = 1 (HHHH)
3H/1T =4 (HHHT, HHTH, HTHH, THHH)
2H/2T = 6 (HHTT, HTHT, HTTH, THHT, THTH, TTHH)
1H/3T = 4 (TTTH, TTHT, THTT, HTTT)
4T =1 (TTTT)

Three of one and one of the other is a commoner combination than two of each or four of one

4/0 = 2 (HHHH, TTTT)
2/2 = 6 (HHTT, HTHT, HTTH, THHT, THTH, TTHH)
3/1 = 8 (HHHT, HHTH, HTHH, THHH, TTTH, TTHT, THTT, HTTT)

These numbers are useful in bridge. You're missing 4 spades that the opponents hold. They'll break 3-1 more often than 2-2 or 4-0, but if we are specifying which opponent has the one, they'll break 2-2 more often than 3-1 with the singleton to your left, for example.

That's not the definition of fitness.

I don't know what you're trying to tell me here, but it doesn't seem to relate to anything I've written to you.

Too bad that you don't like plain English. Maybe you're saying that some things are too complex to describe completely or predict accurately. If so, those would have been better words to use.

I also don't know where hubris enters this. Are you referring to my claim that I can predict much of what will happen in my life before it happens - enough to make my life largely stable and predictable? No brag, just fact:

The biblical writers knew nothing of universal expansion and so didn't try to explain it, but if they had, their answer would be that God did it.

Or as you would word it, suddenly. All change is sudden, right?

Evolution isn't a gold nugget.

 

[Valjean]

Off course bugs are animals.
Seriously, how you can remain this ignorant?

But she studied biology, and was an honor student.

 

[Valjean]

I don't even know what "evolutionary history" is.

It's not my contention that some species suddenly started acting human, it is anthropology's. While I have serious doubts about this field the fact is THEY are the experts so take it up with them.

If they are correct then the species that suddenly arose is logically homo sapiens.

All I can do is go with the evidence in a framework of expert opinion. I've never stuck electrodes in brains either so I have no first hand experience of speech centers. I am using human knowledge to create a new theory that explains more evidence more simply. This is very much the nature of real science, simpler answers to more questions.

Anthro. major here.
I don't know what you mean by "suddenly started acting human," nor am I aware of any 'sudden' arrival of H. sapiens.
Q: How sudden is "suddenly?"

Maybe @metis could clarify things.

 

[blü 2]

Evolution isn't a gold nugget.

Sure looks like one when it comes to explaining the origin of species. In that field it has not even one reputable rival.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From AI, which largely agrees with you. The numerical value varies with the estimate of the time it takes to orbit our galaxy's central supermassive black hole:

"The Sun travels around the center of the Milky Way galaxy at an average speed of approximately **828,000 kilometers per hour** (or about **514,000 miles per hour**). This orbital speed is often referred to as its "galactic orbital velocity." The Sun is located about **26,000 light-years** from the galactic center and takes approximately **230 million years** to complete one full orbit"

You've probably seen this, which, if one can remember the lyrics, can help one remember these values:

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second so it's reckoned
The sun that is the source of all our power

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour
In the galaxy we call the Milky Way

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side
It bulges in the middle, six thousand light years thick
But out by us, it's just a thousand light years wide

We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point
We go 'round every two hundred million years
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe

The lyrics above should say that the earth is rotating (about its axis) at 900 MPH, not revolving, although that value would not be at the equator. Revolving refers to earth's orbit around the sun, which they give as 19 MPS.

But that's not how we describe rotational speed. It's done in degrees (or radians) per unit time. The earth rotates about its axis 360 deg every 24 hours, and that's true at any latitude, but the 900-1000 MPH number refers to the rotational speed near the equator, which is a circle with a diameter of about 25,000 miles. Somebody standing there will move 25,000 miles in 24 hours, or about 1040 MPH, but at a higher latitude, where the circle traveled is say 12,500 miles, the velocity will be about half that.

The speed in MPS or MPH gets progressively slower as one approaches the poles, but not in degrees per unit time.

That was a response to, "Man existed before he developed writing." Yours is a good example of what I mean by a nonresponsive answer. I have already tried to illustrate this difference to you, but I'll try again

Here are some responsive answers. They may be incorrect, but they address what was written:

• Agreed. I miswrote.
• No, man did not exist before he developed writing. He began to exist that day.
• It all depends on what we mean by "man."

Here are some nonresponsive answers:

• What time is it?
• I like cheese.
• You have no evidence to support your belief there was no fundamental change in humans.
• John was may favorite Beatle.

That was in response to, "Gods enjoy the same ontological status as vampires and leprechauns" and is also a nonresponsive reply

Responsive possibilities. Again, maybe wrong, but they indicate that the responder understood what he responded to:

• Agreed. I miswrote.
• No they don't. Vampires and leprechauns are thought to live on earth, and gods live in the sky.
• What's a leprechaun?

Nonresponsive answers. They look like they were intended to answer another poster's question:

• You have no evidence to support your belief there was no fundamental change in humans
• How were the pyramids built?
• I like turtles:

Do you know how that was determined? That was some fascinating science. It alone justified the expense of Hubble mission. So did the deep field long-exposure photos of galaxies in what appeared to be empty space to the naked eye and ground-based telescopes.

Absolute distances to stars are measured three ways.:

[1] The distance to the closest celestial objects can be judged using parallax as the earth moves through space.

[2] Cepheid variables (regularly pulsating stars) are standard candles, meaning that their absolute magnitude is known by the period of their cycling between brighter and fainter, so we can use their apparent magnitude to judge their distances. This information can help us know how far the galaxy containing one is, but they're relatively faint and can't be seen in the very distant galaxies. If we use just those two means of determining absolute distance and combine them with red shift data, we can determine a rate for universal expansion (Hubble constant), but only for the relatively recent past - the last half of the age of the universe more or less.

[3] The third method utilizes a second standard candle that is much brighter than a Cepheid - a type 1A supernova. Hubble looked much deeper into space and thus into the past than ground-based telescopes had, and harvested data on these. What was discovered using these new standard candles and their apparent brightness coupled with redshift data was that the rate of expansion in the past was slower.

It should be noted that no experimentation was done there. The science is all observational and computational.

You needn't bother. I'm quite adept at elementary probability.

Did you know that that statement is true for any number of coin flips, not just a billion? The proviso is that we are specifying the order of the individual heads and tails and not just their aggregate numbers (permutations rather than combinations).

Each of these permutations of the outcome of four coin flips is as likely as each other:

HHHH
HHHT
HHTH
HHTT
HTHH
HTHT
HTTH
HTTT
THHH
THHT
THTH
THTT
TTHH
TTHT
TTTH
TTTT

Two heads and two tails is more likely than any other combination:

4H = 1 (HHHH)
3H/1T =4 (HHHT, HHTH, HTHH, THHH)
2H/2T = 6 (HHTT, HTHT, HTTH, THHT, THTH, TTHH)
1H/3T = 4 (TTTH, TTHT, THTT, HTTT)
4T =1 (TTTT)

Three of one and one of the other is a commoner combination than two of each or four of one

4/0 = 2 (HHHH, TTTT)
2/2 = 6 (HHTT, HTHT, HTTH, THHT, THTH, TTHH)
3/1 = 8 (HHHT, HHTH, HTHH, THHH, TTTH, TTHT, THTT, HTTT)

These numbers are useful in bridge. You're missing 4 spades that the opponents hold. They'll break 3-1 more often than 2-2 or 4-0, but if we are specifying which opponent has the one, they'll break 2-2 more often than 3-1 with the singleton to your left, for example.

That's not the definition of fitness.

I don't know what you're trying to tell me here, but it doesn't seem to relate to anything I've written to you.

Too bad that you don't like plain English. Maybe you're saying that some things are too complex to describe completely or predict accurately. If so, those would have been better words to use.

I also don't know where hubris enters this. Are you referring to my claim that I can predict much of what will happen in my life before it happens - enough to make my life largely stable and predictable? No brag, just fact:

The biblical writers knew nothing of universal expansion and so didn't try to explain it, but if they had, their answer would be that God did it.

Or as you would word it, suddenly. All change is sudden, right?

All change is sudden where sudden equals any duration from nanoseconds to billions of years. I have provided the evidence 100's of millions of times. A beaver told me that the pyramids were built by aliens.

I have to admire your patience. Those posts just got more and more bizarre and useless with each new one.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure looks like one when it comes to explaining the origin of species. In that field it has not even one reputable rival.

Well, perhaps when corroded, the gold nugget takes longer than flesh to corrode but both probably go back to the soil in time. With different time qualities. Pushing into the soil and leeching into bones, etc.
Oh, yes, and evolution is not a gold nugget anyway.

 

[Valjean]

There are severe anomalies and almost no facts to support this contention. You don't know what Lucy or Eve were thinking. You merely believe they were like you because Charles Darwin said every individual is the same species as is parents. This is a stupid definition.

What Lucy was thinking has nothing to do with the fact that she existed, nor was she my species.
Offspring are the same species as their parents, but not necessarily their ancestors. Small changes accumulate.
Fossil evidence of H. sapiens, thus far, extends back ~300,000 years. An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens

You believe that it's impossible for science to be wrong and you say it in every single post. Indeed, if you posted nothing at all you'd still say it in every post because your quote says "science is reality". You simply ignore 500 years of history that shows that science is always wrong in the long run. I'm sure this works well for you but you should be prepared for the day that some of these dominoes collapse.

Science is an ongoing enterprise. It's always discovering new facts and relationships; always changing. It makes lots of wrong turns.
Science is not always right, but it's always the best interpretation of current evidence. Part of the scientific process is an ongoing effort to prove itself wrong.

How is science always wrong in the long run? What is this 500 years of history?
How are you interpreting "wrong?" What modality do you expect will replace it?

In the meantime you might try supporting your beliefs with logic and facts instead of derision and lectures and not forgetting it was a little boy who observed the king has no clothes.

You should take your own advice. What are your facts?

How many times do I have to tell you that I reject no experiment and the Bible is nothing but a data point? You are rejecting all data points in favor of doctrine and belief.

Science is not doctrinaire, and its beliefs are open to change.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh and @blü 2 I've been looking up stuff purported to be by scientists (some of them anyway) in the "phylogenic tree." And guess what? not only is it pure conjecture, but some scientists are questioning the legitimacy of it. Have a good time. https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/a-disputed-origin-for-eukaryotes.

 

[YoursTrue]

What Lucy was thinking has nothing to do with the fact that she existed, nor was she my species.
Offspring are the same species as their parents, but not necessarily their ancestors. Small changes accumulate.
Fossil evidence of H. sapiens, thus far, extends back ~300,000 years. An Evolutionary Timeline of Homo Sapiens

Science is an ongoing enterprise. It's always discovering new facts and relationships; always changing. It makes lots of wrong turns.
Science is not always right, but it's always the best interpretation of current evidence. Part of the scientific process is an ongoing effort to prove itself wrong.

How is science always wrong in the long run? What is this 500 years of history?
How are you interpreting "wrong?" What modality do you expect will replace it?

You should take your own advice. What are your facts?

The brain of Lucy is rather small. Her body is small. If you and scientists want to tell that whatever she was evolved after a long time to develop bigger brains and bodies, hey, go for it. There is nothing to really back it up showing the actual links beyond fossils and that doesn't really tell the real story. Maybe you think it does, I no longer do because -- while Lucy had the appearance of a small brained ape there is nothing to suggest it developed (morphed/evolved) to a larger brained body. And now I wonder -- did Lucy come from the "Unknown Common Ancestor" of the so-called ape family? Maybe you know what scientists say. I mean you and some are so convinced that Lucy was a forerunner in evolutionary terms to "homo sapiens."

 

[Valjean]

Thinkin' things over, I just had two revelations or better put for some, realizations. One is that remembrance can precede a physical reaction, and two is that monkeys do not read and write books. I haven't tested these things out though. Oh wait, I should have said baboons or gorillas, whichever is said to be "closer" by biological substance to humans. Give a monkey a brush, paint and an easel and it might paint a picture. But not give classes on it or write a book about it. Hmmm maybe evolutionists believe in time monkeys, lions, and dolphins will write books.

What do you consider writing to be significant indicator of? What selective pressure would lead to monkeys or other animals learning to write? Do you consider evolution to be progressive?

Baboons, by the way, are monkeys.

 

[Valjean]

I don't know what's wrong with people.

If I were a caveman and concerned about eating every day as every single caveman was I'd want to have a steady supply of food that could store itself alive until I was hungry since I lacked refrigeration. I could pull a darwin and wait until nature created a food species but that might take a million generations and I'd have my heart set on eating the next day too. Catching wild goats was difficult and keeping them impossible. What to do what to do.

Maybe making them tamer by imposition of an artificial bottleneck would work just like it did with Fido! Let them eat grass and tin cans every day and we might even get some milk for the baby homo sapien out of the deal. Does this make sense only if you have the fetching up of a caveman?

We know they invented agriculture and recent studies show how they invented agriculture. What is exactly the problem here? Why do my beliefs make me stupid and theirs make them justified in lecture after lecture. One might ask Who died and left scientists as the source of all reality.
...Such an awesome responsibility.

I'm not following. What does cultural diversification have to do with new species or towers of Babel?

 

[cladking]

Anthro. major here.
I don't know what you mean by "suddenly started acting human," nor am I aware of any 'sudden' arrival of H. sapiens.
Q: How sudden is "suddenly?"

Maybe @metis could clarify things.

I always liked physics but from childhood I was interested in understanding the nature of thinking.

There was no art, jewelry, cave paintings and the kind of things we usually think of as uniquely human until they arose suddenly 40,000 years ago. There are other estimates of when this occurred and I'm not familiar enough with the data and competing theories to have an opinion. I believe the event marks the first humans whom were created by complex language. There's simply not enough data but my guess is the transformation from proto-humans to homo sapiens was mostly complete after less than 500 years. There simply wasn't enough travel among early people to spread the ability to use complex language quickly. The transformation from homo sapien to homo omnisciencis took much longer because they tried to drag it out as long as possible. It began about 3300 BC and was mostly complete at the ToB but a few homo sapiens called "Nephilim" survived as late as 1400 BC. These individuals may have been quite old.

I believe most changes in species occurs much more rapidly and usually is mostly done after only three generations. It is human knowledge that is much of what makes us different. Most early homo sapiens would not want a barely verbal mate. Homo sapiens in turn didn't want to use confused language. Our species never really had such options. I doubt more than several thousand homo sapiens chose to use confused language and metamorphose into omnisciencis. Most individuals spoke the language they heard and most who switched to pidgin languages were very poor in Ancient Language. This was not a happy transition and was taken when there was no choice. The Tower of Babel was traumatic not only to the commonwealth but to the commonweal as well. It was a horrible event that resulted in significant population decrease through murder and suicide and eventually through starvation. It marked the loss of science and most ability to create technology of any sort. Only existing technology that could be passed down father to son like agriculture could survive. Everything was lost from medicine to astronomy and chemistry. What had existed was corrupted, confused, and conflated into things like astrology and alchemy. Even the most basic fundamental knowledge possessed by many other species like tides and simple physics were totally lost. Germs were forgotten. Everything that survived, and little did, survived in a superstitious form.

Mankind survived and grew in population because usurpers harnessed the power of the ancient technology that did survive. Some of this eventually became religion but it was the military and other leaders who caused the most damage. The meek plow and sow while the powerful reap every profit and destroy for more power.

We still have a lot in common with homo sapiens but it's the differences that matter most. A simple recognition of these differences would make them far less pronounced.

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you consider writing to be significant indicator of?

The age of humans. It took time to develop writing, I am sure of that. But not that much time. And I'm not talking about 20 years, but time.

What selective pressure would lead to monkeys or other animals learning to write? Do you consider evolution to be progressive?

Hmm, good question. Do you? If you do think evolution is is progressive, progressive in what way? Remember, it's by chance...kind of.

Baboons, by the way, are monkeys.

ok, thay're monkeys Not moths I suppose. I looked up some info about the so-called "tree of life" scientists made up. And I see they're having some questions about it. Before I read about the questions by scientists I looked at the diagram of the "tree of life" evolutionary-style and found it -- absurd is the best word I can think of. Because -- it (1) is ridiculous and (2) it doesn't make sense, and (3) there is absolutely nothing to substantiate it.