Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[shunyadragon]

I'm not even sure what he believes. I suspect his ambiguity is very deliberate

Though the rejection of the sciences of evolution based on an ancient religious agenda by both @leroy and @cladking is very unambiguous.

 

[cladking]

We May Finally Know How the Pyramids Were Built​

Scientists have discovered new evidence that may explain how these iconic structures were built. www.discovery.com

This is as stupid as communicating with severely autistic. If this were an appropriate thread for it I could show this.

This was about the 10th time since I solved how they were really built that Egyptology came up with a new "solution" but it wasn't the stupidest. The stupidest was "wet sand".

I do not simply see what I believe, neither do other scientists.

It's very complex which is why animals can't do it. First you have to acquire language and build models of your beliefs.

First, humans had vocal cords over 300,000 years ago. Spoken languages evolved from primitive regional cultures as humans migrated out of Africa several times over periods of the tens of thousands of years. Based on the fossil evidence our immediate primate relatives like Neanderthals and primate ancestors also had the ability of speech. Isolated primitive Stone Age Cultures in Africa still have simple primitive spoken languages.

There is not a shred of evidence for this.

As far as written languages they did not "suddenly" appear and become diverse,. They evolved independently in different regions of the world including the Americas over a period of thousands of years from proto-writing which is thousands of years older than written languages,

There was the same writings in caves all over the world 40,000 years ago.

 

[cladking]

You should read this article: Code hidden in Stone Age art may be the root of human writing

These things build up over decades before anyone cares. The fact is I have already solved the meaning of much of this writing. They are not symbols or abstractions. They are representations of "gods" that are palpable and show how cavemen et al think.

In the cacophony of data and information it is difficult to see what's real and what is just more nonsense like ramps at Hatnub.

We are not who we think we are.

We are homo omnisciencis; hear us boast.

 

[cladking]

These things build up over decades before anyone cares. The fact is I have already solved the meaning of much of this writing. They are not symbols or abstractions. They are representations of "gods" that are palpable and show how cavemen et al think.

In the cacophony of data and information it is difficult to see what's real and what is just more nonsense like ramps at Hatnub.

We are not who we think we are.

We are homo omnisciencis; hear us boast.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution isn't a gold nugget.

Metaphorically, it is.

"A deepity involves saying something with two meanings—one trivially true, the other profound sounding but false or nonsensical."

You can't accept that it is known fact that we see what we believe.

That's already been refuted with a counterexample in a related current thread.

You: We can't see data that don't support our beliefs.

Me: I can. For example, if I believe that my car is parked in certain place and don't find it there, I don't fail to notice that. I'll bet that that's true for you, too.

You didn't comment on it then, so I'm guessing that you didn't see that along with not seeing the reference to Thales's work on eclipses being a counterexample to your claim that all science derives from experiment.

When about 5% of the population became illiterate around 3200 BC writing was invented for them.

That doesn't make sense even if you meant literate rather than illiterate. According to the commonest definition of literacy - the ability to read and write - literacy and writing would have arisen together.

One source defined literacy as, "the ability to read, write, speak and listen in a way that lets us communicate effectively and make sense of the world," but most definitions don't include speaking and listening to language.

Tuna is also in the yellow line

He showed you that you were wrong. You're a stickler for having others explicitly admit error. I didn't see your acknowledgement that you were wrong. Tuna are in class Actinopterygii, not Sarcopterygii.

by what objective criteria are whales not fish?

You should be able to answer that yourself. Did you intend the monophyletic or the paraphyletic meaning of fish? According to the former, whales, being descendants of fish, are also fish.

If we use the paraphyletic definition, then you can list for yourself what distinguishes a fish in the latter sense from a whale.

Or ask AI: "What are the anatomical differences between fish and whales?" The answer will tell you how a bluefin tuna and a blue whale differ in ways that make one a fish (paraphyletic definition) and the other a mammal. The major distinctions, as you probably already know, are cold- vs warm-bloodedness, eggs vs. live birth, and gills vs lungs.

I think that you've confused the thread regarding your purpose or principal message, which I assume is to somehow undermine evolutionary science in support of your creationist beliefs, but I don't see how your line of argument does that or anything else of value for you. You know or should know what it costs you.

What do you think the meta-message is when all of the creationists demonstrate a lack of understanding of the science, an inability to assimilate new information, an inability to refute arguments or address refutations to them, or even a memory for what has been written to them already?

What do you think that tells me about my choice to take the path you rejected and to have rejected the path you chose? I could have been more like you, or you could have been more like me. What should I conclude? Did I make a mistake or did you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

Coming late to the thread of course, but the simple answer is no, science cannot explain how ANYTHING started. It can make reasoned guesses. It can present possibilities, It can draw reasoned conclusions from the paleontological record how life on Earth has evolved over time. It can teach us a whole lot about ourselves, our world, our universe. And in spite of all that, I am 100% convinced that the scientists know only a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know.


So until science is able to create something from nothing, to create life from what is not alive, we are pretty much stuck with a Higher Power being the origin of everything and even then we have to contemplate a Being that had no beginning.

That is an amazing thing to contemplate.

 

[cladking]

"the ability to read, write, speak and listen in a way that lets us communicate effectively and make sense of the world,"

There was one language in the world and 5% of the people couldn't speak it, understand it, or compose sonnets in it. These individuals naturally knew what some words were and used them to try to communicate with each other and with the learned. Rules and definitions of the words evolved and these definitions were usually closely related to what that word represented in Ancient Language. Of course without proper language these people understood no science at all. Science couldn't be translated, words couldn't be translated, and sentences couldn't be translated. Educated people would hear word salad when they spoke and every listener who did speak the same language took a different meaning just like today.

This would be easier if you tried to take my meaning. I might be wrong about everything but I am not stupid, ignorant, or mad. I think differently than you do and I think different things because I started with different premises.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is as stupid as communicating with severely autistic. If this were an appropriate thread for it I could show this.

This was about the 10th time since I solved how they were really built that Egyptology came up with a new "solution" but it wasn't the stupidest. The stupidest was "wet sand".


It's very complex which is why animals can't do it. First you have to acquire language and build models of your beliefs.



There is not a shred of evidence for this.



There was the same writings in caves all over the world 40,000 years ago.

Well, the pyramids were built by humans but no explicit record of how it was done. Hmmm, imagine that. No explicit records. Just almost like today.
Most of the historical records about pyramid construction come from later Greek historians like Herodotus, who wrote hundreds of years after the pyramids were built. The Merer papyri were discovered near the Red Sea. These offer a glimpse into the operations of a pyramid construction crew and materials used. Not one of the records explain the precise methods used to lift and position these massive stones. Still wondering...

 

[YoursTrue]

Coming late to the thread of course, but the simple answer is no, science cannot explain how ANYTHING started. It can make reasoned guesses. It can present possibilities, It can draw reasoned conclusions from the paleontological record how life on Earth has evolved over time. It can teach us a whole lot about ourselves, our world, our universe. And in spite of all that, I am 100% convinced that the scientists know only a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know.


So until science is able to create something from nothing, to create life from what is not alive, we are pretty much stuck with a Higher Power being the origin of everything and even then we have to contemplate a Being that had no beginning.

That is an amazing thing to contemplate.

Agreed, it is mind-boggling to think about something (anything) that had no beginning. And that is where I leave it. And accept it. Because when I start thinking about it, I feel my brain getting upset.

 

[Pogo]

Coming late to the thread of course, but the simple answer is no, science cannot explain how ANYTHING started. It can make reasoned guesses. It can present possibilities, It can draw reasoned conclusions from the paleontological record how life on Earth has evolved over time. It can teach us a whole lot about ourselves, our world, our universe. And in spite of all that, I am 100% convinced that the scientists know only a teensy fraction of all the science there is to know.


So until science is able to create something from nothing, to create life from what is not alive, we are pretty much stuck with a Higher Power being the origin of everything and even then we have to contemplate a Being that had no beginning.

That is an amazing thing to contemplate.

Yes amazing, we don't know everything so I will go back to the answer that satisfied me when I believed in Santa, a magic man did it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes amazing, we don't know everything so I will go back to the answer that satisfied me when I believed in Santa, a magic man did it.

I believe in Heaven and I like to think when I go there I will be able to take all the questions I have for which there are no answers now. And I fully expect to find out how much of all this I/we got wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

First you typed your opinion i post #2,724 as if I wrote it.

Second your response is meaningless confusing gibberish Ramps at Hatnub???

If you have questions concerning the costruction of the pyramids be coherent. It is the subject of another thread I will start.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agreed, it is mind-boggling to think about something (anything) that had no beginning. And that is where I leave it. And accept it. Because when I start thinking about it, I feel my brain getting upset.

It's good to see you admit that your reasoning is based in no more or less then sheer intellectual laziness.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's good to see you admit that your reasoning is based in no more or less then sheer intellectual laziness.

No, typo. I simply left off the s, and should be clades of fish.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

until science is able to create something from nothing, to create life from what is not alive, we are pretty much stuck with a Higher Power being the origin of everything and even then we have to contemplate a Being that had no beginning.

Assuming that by higher power you mean more than the laws of physics, I think you mean that YOU'RE stuck with such an answer. I find no value in a god belief or in religion, nor in contemplating questions with no answers possible once I've realized that the question is unanswerable. Although such ideas might comfort some, none of that has any practical value to me.

This would be easier if you tried to take my meaning.

I can't. Your use of language is too chaotic. For whatever your reason, you prefer to use language anomalously. You make claims using words that don't allow one to know what you mean by them or why you're making the claim. All I can tell when you use words like sudden and metaphysics in sentences that seem outrageous is that it's not what I or most others mean.

This problem will never end for you if you can't learn to use plain language, and it seems that that isn't an option for you either because you can't or because you prefer the confusion.

I might be wrong about everything but I am not stupid, ignorant, or mad. I think differently than you do and I think different things because I started with different premises.

The differences in our thinking aren't limited to premises, but I agree that your thinking and mine are so radically different that I can't understand you at all. I don't know whether you understand me, because your comments aren't about mine. They aren't rebuttals. Often, you make no comment, and when you do reply, it's nonresponsive, chaotic, and tangential.

There is no real discussion occurring between us. You write words to me that don't address mine (nonresponsive) and which I can't understand, I refute what I can understand, and you don't acknowledge or demonstrate that you understood it, and often, that you even read it.

Your contribution is that this is endlessly interesting to me. I don't tire of responding to you. You might know that I am writing for the benefit of those who can understand my words. It is they who I am thinking of when composing responses. I think it's helpful to read explicitly in words ideas that one has but which have never been put into words - things that make one say, "Yeah! That!"

There are a few traditions in folklore and fiction where naming things has some effect, as with Beetlejuice or Rumpelstiltskin, where naming names transform reality. I'm not there, but I do think that words can frame one's ideas more clearly than the same ideas understood vaguely and implicitly (nonverbally).

Have you ever seen this? It hints at the magic of names: The Naming of Cats

 

[cladking]

If you have questions concerning the costruction of the pyramids be coherent. It is the subject of another thread I will start.

Great! Sounds like fun!

I have very few questions and a great number of answers. Egyptology only has "they mustta used ramps".

 

[YoursTrue]

@Foxfyre Now -- here's the thing -- thinking about what "scientists" have said, more or less, what about nothing? (I'm LOL at this point...) was 'nothing' there before something was there? (still laughing...nice talking with you...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Great! Sounds like fun!

I have very few questions and a great number of answers. Egyptology only has "they mustta used ramps".

Few, very few, written records about that. Maybe they were burned up in the great library fire that happened centuries ago...but then again--the song comes to mind with slightly different lyrics -- "Still Wondering...after All These Years...Yes...Still Wondering After All These Years..."

 

[YoursTrue]

@cladking -- OK, I checked w/my hubby who knows all those old songs -- I think it's "Still Crazy After All These Years..." (Paul Simon) Nice song.

 

[cladking]

Few, very few, written records about that. Maybe they were burned up in the great library fire that happened centuries ago...but then again--the song comes to mind with slightly different lyrics -- "Still Wondering...after All These Years...Yes...Still Wondering After All These Years..."

There may be millions of records but they are invisible to our species because we can see only what we believe. These records are so detailed they even describe the sights, sounds, and odors of pyramid construction. They described the equipment that whisked the stones to the top of the pyramid as making a lowing sound like a bovine as the coefficient of static friction is being overcome. The amount of detail and the physical evidence to support it is ubiquitous in ancient writing including the Bible and on the ground within each great pyramid complex. Egyptology describes all the infrastructure as "holy this" and "holy that" but the builders had no religious beliefs, no magic, and no ignorance that wasn't clearly visible to them. We are ignorant of virtually everything and believe we have every answer; homo omniscience.

We think they were stinky footed bumpkins but it is we who are.