Aye, to avoid the bullies I prefer.
-
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!
Fascinating!
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
No. Once again, something that is demonstrated is not an assumption. The environment is the agent of natural selection.
Recognized and the flaws of this contention have been explained. While selection of behavior could lead to speciation, it is not the only way that speciation occurs. Natural selection, selects any variation that results in an increase in fitness.
No it is not.
You do not understand science nor the history of science. It is that simple. You are substituting contrived fiction in place of facts and understanding.
No it is not. Variation acted on by natural selection in the form of the environment is what drives speciation and any evolutionary change. Random events can impact it, but are not driving it. Selection is nonrandom.
Disease is an environmental factor. Weakness is a response to the environment. Elimination of members of a population through disease and weakness is natural selection that would result in a population that is less susceptible to disease and more capable of responding to the environment. Continued selection over time could lead to speciation.
Consciousness is not a general requirement for survival. I am certain at this time you have a novel definition of consciousness that has a much wider application to the point of fitting over living things that do not show consciousness. Redefining words until they have no value is not the pursuit of knowledge. It is a mechanism of preconception.
Survival of the fittest is an old and poorly worded statement that does not reflect the realities of natural selection and evolution. Biologists have moved away from the use of it. Evolution has been demonstrated in the lab and in the field.
Wise are you. Great thinker are you. You speak words that are as bacon to the mind.
I do not agree. The evidence says otherwise. The evidence shows that some things concerning life are sudden, some are drawn out and some are incredibly drawn out. It could take whatever time it takes. I will go with the evidence.
The formation of the Grand Canyon. The formation of the Hawaiian islands. Plate tectonics. The formation of the scablands of Oregon and Washington state. Glaciation. My way with the ladies. I could go on.
By you. Not by knowledgeable and rational scientists and those educated in science or those that are naturally intelligent and sensible. There is no special attribute consigned to information that arises from controlled and contrived experiments. No big juju giving them special magic power or anything like that. No reason to do as you suggest at all.
I would say that a theory that explains the observations of experiments and natural experiments while providing a platform for meaningful prediction is sound science.
cladking
Well-Known Member
The Grand Canyon, Hawaiian Islands, and scablands are NOT LIVING THINGS AND NEVER WERE.
All change at all levels of LIFE are sudden.
You are merely asserting something occurs gradually because you BELIEVE in evolution.
Maybe you don't pay any attention to the wide array of many types of experiments which show we see only our beliefs and experience only our beliefs. They write songs about it and children play chinese telephone.
We are our beliefs. I can often be charitable and call scientific "beliefs" "models" but this is mere semantics. Models are beliefs derived from experiment (ideally) but they are still beliefs and not reality itself. All of our understanding is founded in such belief so we don't even notice we never see reality directly and never take the same meaning from an utterance as anyone else. A dozen people will read this paragraph and ponder it and no two will take the same meaning. Experience teaches me very very few even taking a meaning that approaches the literal and intended meaning. People will read things into it that I don't intend. It's worse with my words because they are so unexpected people need to fill in far more blanks. But the intended meaning is always literal except when it's obviously hyperbolic and some other turn of phrase. I try not to be enigmatic because the message is far too unusual for such a tactic.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I would agree but must point out that "evolution" does not make any predictions from the macroevolutionary perspective.
The problem is it's not the only possible interpretation of experiment and my theory explains far more evidence than does "survival of the fittest". "Evolution" leaves our ancestors at the mercy of sabre toothed tigers and mass starvation from changes in migration routes or loss of rain at critical times. Bottlenecks much more neatly explains the invention of agriculture and ALL experiment and human knowledge (to my knowledge).
You did not specify that the examples had to be of living things. You merely requested "Why don't you show something that is gradual?" and I did. So asked and answered. Buyers remorse is not an acceptable rebuttal.
Then it should be no problem for you to supply numerous demonstrations of this and explain how birth to death by old age is a sudden event experienced as one exits the womb.
I do not believe in evolution like I believe in God, based on faith. I accept or reject the conclusions of science based on the evidence and not on religious belief or as some do by belief in unsupported conspiracy theories. My assertion is based on the evidence of examples of change to both living and non-living things that occur over long periods of time. Some day, the Great Pyramid will be a pile of sand.
Nothing to do with science. Sorry.
This is just a belief that you cannot substantiate with evidence. It amounts to living in the Matrix or some similar notion. One wonders why anyone would bother to do anything with what to me is akin to nihilism.
I will give you some credit for the claim about our beliefs being a significant portion of our consciousness, but beliefs can be replaced by recognition of evidence showing a particular belief is incorrect. Science is a method to do just that.
Mainstream religions in Christendom, ie., the clergy, support the conflicts of their respective countries, killing their brothers in opposing countries. (They've ignored Jesus' teaching. John 13:34-35.) So....yep.
Tiktaalik.
Why do you keep going back to this claim? I have explained to you the origin and position of "survival of the fittest". It was recognized for its poor description with serious limitations, was barely part of the original formulation of the theory and is not a part of the modern theory.
I disagree. Your theory is based on unsupported speculation and erroneous notions.
Reality does that. Evolution is just the process that occurs from merciless nature.
Bottlenecks do not explain the development of agriculture. Population bottlenecks are near extinction events that impact genetic diversity by reducing it. There is no way to use them to explain the development of agriculture. And I say development, since there is no evidence that Og decided to start growing plants and raising cows one day, and boom, agriculture.
Experiment can be used as a metaphorical description of life, as in life is one big experiment, but that is not what I see as the core meaning you are driving at. Early human culture was driven by nature, superstition and trial and error. There may be some instances of creativity that mirror scientific activity, but these were not organized, codified and communicated to any extent that they became models for further advancements in creativity until science began developing over the last few thousand years and really took off about 400 years ago.
cladking
Well-Known Member
You're taking this too literally. Obviously beavers are aquatic and even a beaver that doesn't like water is still aquatic. But to suppose that some beavers spend more time out of the water is hardly much of a stretch. Perhaps some beavers prefer looking for new streams or enjoy a food that isn't found near water. There are myriad behaviors and as many causes as there are INDIVIDUALS (even more really).
Read my words. There are more than a single science. I don't know how many are possible but I know two that exist. One that is modern and based on observation > experiment and another used by animals that is based on observation > logic. This latter one works because all animals and ancient man used a logical language based on the wiring of the brain.
Study any anthropology? They say, the evidence shows, that humans did not engage in what they call "symbolic" behavior until 40,000 years ago. They are misinterpreting ritual and emotion for symbolism but otherwise that's how old humans are. We sprang into existence with a mutation in an individual we confusedly call "Adam". The ancients who understood his real nature called him "S3h".
There was no modern science of any sort until 1200 AD. There was ancient science from 40,000 BC until babel (2000 BC)
There was no science at all of any sort from 2000 BC until 1200 AD.
Humans coasted on the fumes of ancient science (call it agriculture, masonry, carpentry or what have you).
Well... ...yeah. It's taken me many many years to get to this level of knowledge (ignorance if you prefer).
Observation is a fancy term for Look and See Science without experiment or the ability to make prediction.
I've observed beavers enough to even see them away from the water.
NO!!! Absolutely not.
This is all modern hubris and beliefs arising from our confused language. The reality is there wasn't even a word for "belief" or ANY of its synonyms in Ancient Language. It had no word for "thought" either. It didn't even have taxonomic words. AL broke Zipf's law and modern linguists failed to note ANY of this because we all see only we believe and expect.
They are wrong in Biblical proportions.
I've certainly seen this argument before.
But really it's nonsense if you think about it. Are we to believe ancient people used genius to invent agriculture but termites just stumbled on it by blind luck?
It's far more logical to suppose that in both cases it was simple science. The difference between your belief in "trial and error" and my belief in ancient science isn't only that mine is more logical but that I have a great deal of evidence to support it. Indeed, I maintain that no experiment contradicts my interpretation but great amounts of physical evidence contradicts myriad interpretations based on observation and belief. Modern beliefs simply aren't up to the task of explaining much of anything such as missing links and the absence of words to express belief in AL. Modern beliefs don't explain the nature of human life, life itself, consciousness, or change in species.
You say you are a metaphysician, and you are clearly making an effort to encompass, being, knowing, creating, and so forth, and I cannot say one way or the other, about whether you are onto something or not. It is not something that can be tested. What I see in all this is that you are applying your metaphysics where it has no sound application, valid reason for application nor validated methodology to determine the success of a fit.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I do neither semantics nor word games. I usually don't even respond to point this out.
First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is.
First is a mother and then there is life at conception. Then there is no life after one lifetime.
An acorn comes into existence over a season, lies dormant in the winter and then turns into a sapling in the spring. Life wasn't and then it was. An egg began the life of the first chicken.
Everything is perspective and from the wrong perspective things can be invisible.
Each of these transitions is very sudden. All changes to life on all levels is sudden. So is speciation.
Yes! All life is conscious and nothing that isn't alive is conscious. There are levels, types, and sorts of consciousness but all life is conscious and all life is individual. There is no such thing as "species" and there is no such thing as "biologists". All thought and all ability to survive is individual and it's based on consciousness, not fitness. Random events do not drive evolution indirectly through "adaptability" but rather directly by eradicating behaviors.
First there is a mountain then there is no mountain then there is.
First is a mother and then there is life at conception. Then there is no life after one lifetime.
An acorn comes into existence over a season, lies dormant in the winter and then turns into a sapling in the spring. Life wasn't and then it was. An egg began the life of the first chicken.
Everything is perspective and from the wrong perspective things can be invisible.
Each of these transitions is very sudden. All changes to life on all levels is sudden. So is speciation.
Yes! All life is conscious and nothing that isn't alive is conscious. There are levels, types, and sorts of consciousness but all life is conscious and all life is individual. There is no such thing as "species" and there is no such thing as "biologists". All thought and all ability to survive is individual and it's based on consciousness, not fitness. Random events do not drive evolution indirectly through "adaptability" but rather directly by eradicating behaviors.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
I probably shouldn't reply but fools rush in...
There are many possible tests and experiments but to some extent I believe they are largely irrelevant. What I'm talking about has far more to do with perspective than anything else. From this other perspective different experiments will become visible and the results will tend to better support this new interpretation. Some of the best "experiments" that can be done now is really just basic testing that archaeologists are afraid to do. I believe showing the existence of ancient science will mostly be sufficient to establish a new paradigm from which SOME things are more easily seen.
At this time I merely have a theory (ancient "theory", modern "series of hypotheses") that explains a great deal of evidence and makes uncanny predictions. Egyptology has withheld scientific data for four years because it obviously is in total agreement with my predictions. They have even announced that no data will be released until it agrees with modern Look and See Science (not in these exact words, of course).
Perhaps it's people who try to fuse atheistic science and Christianity who have the problem?
Why does Genesis have to be an allegory?....because men of science, (who can't prove a thing they say about macro-evolution) claim that it has to be impossible? Why? Because they cannot test for a Creator....but strangely they have no test for macro-evolution either.
Those who would ditch the Bible account in favor of a more popular version of events, so that way they can straddle two opposing views....with no real decision necessary, and supposedly saving face with both camps? Is that the way God works....or does he require a decision?
What if it was a simple case of Christendom misinterpreting the Genesis account? What if the Bible didn't say that God created the heavens and the earth 6,000 years ago? What if the "days" were thousands or ever millions of years in length? That would make the earth and the first forms of life very ancient. It would also make creation itself a slow and deliberate process over millenniums of unknown time. It would give the Creator plenty of time to fashion his creation to his satisfaction, tweaking things as he went, so that the final result met with his satisfaction.
God is a Creator, an artisan, not a magician. He is also not constrained by earth time.
And what if the seventh day has not yet ended? Every "day" in the Genesis account, ended with a declaration of God's satisfaction with his allotted progress thus far....but there is no declaration for the seventh day having concluded the same way. Did God mess that up? Can God ever be unsuccessful in his purpose? (Isaiah 55:11)
A closer study of Genesis ch1 will reveal many things that most people never see. These are the things that those who bother to investigate, will discover.
You know, I have often been accused of suffering 'cognitive dissonance' by many who were actually manifesting symptoms of this 'disorder' just as clearly themselves. Some of them blinded by their own science degrees. I guess time will tell who was u suffering the real blindness.
It's not a blindness of the eyes, but as Paul said, a blinding of the mind. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) It has a cause that most in the scientific world cannot acknowledge. But I can see this entity at work everywhere in the world.....can you? Or does your church treat him as mere allegory too?
Last edited:
Perhaps, but a good model should use as much real world data as can be provided. What you are adding here fits the alternative model I provided, more and more. However, variation does not result from behavior and behavior is not the sole target of natural selection. Behavior is not the sole trait of an organism.
I have read your words. There is only one science that I am aware and only one that I know can be demonstrated to exist. There is no evidence that animals use logic, though there is evidence that some animals express fairly high levels of intelligence.
I do not know of this logical language hard wired into the brain, but if such existed, it would easily be explained by natural selection and evolution.
I have read accounts of human cultural artifacts, burials and other, similar evidence that dates to 50,000 years ago. I am aware of cultural evidence that is over 300,000 years old and attributed to Homo habilis. The continent of Africa is littered with discarded stone tools and implements, some of which are millions of years old. Both H. habilis and the African tool makers may not be considered human. That would depend on whether the definition is unique to H. sapiens or has wider application.
That is your opinion. I do not agree with it, but I am not closed to changing it based on evidence and reasoning.
Recent fossil evidence puts the origin of H. sapiens at or near 300,000 years ago. Prior to this evidence, the oldest evidence was nearer 175,000 years old.
We evolved from mutations arising in an ape-like ancestral population driven by environmental change that drove our ancestors out of the trees.
Wow!. We moved right out of the arena of rational thought didn't we.
The origins of the development can be placed as far back as ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese and other cultures.
There is no evidence of this.
That would require some serious support and explanation of what you mean.
You are applying science to describe activities and practices that are not the result of science, but developed in increments over time, largely by trial and error and often still containing many elements of belief that had no significant benefit for inclusion.
You may have spent a lot of time on gaining this knowledge, but you may want to spend some time reviewing and refining it based on evidence, sound theory and logic.
Observation is a key activity of science and how data is accumulated. You should be aware that when conducting experiments, observations of what is occurring is the activity that provides us with data to analyze and draw conclusions from.
Conclusions that have lead to major advancements in medicine have come out of observations in natural experiments.
It is the beavers I see away from water that interest me the most. But yes, beavers are not obligated to constant contact with water.
Sorry. The evidence says otherwise.
This is all modern hubris and beliefs arising from our confused language. The reality is there wasn't even a word for "belief" or ANY of its synonyms in Ancient Language. It had no word for "thought" either. It didn't even have taxonomic words. AL broke Zipf's law and modern linguists failed to note ANY of this because we all see only we believe and expect.[/QUOTE]You are entitled to your opinion, but I do not agree with it or find any application for it in my evaluations and conclusions.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion.
You are attributing human qualities and explanations to the evolution of a behavioral trait in an insect that has no evidence that it arose by conscious thought.
No. It is not logical to assume that. There are many inconsistencies between human agriculture and the behavior of some insects. The similarities are on the gross level and one clearly illustrates the application of intelligence and consciousness.
It is odd that you have not brought any of this great deal of evidence to bear in support of your claims. All I see is someone that has come up with some speculation. Is so in love with it, that he has made it real even though there is no physical evidence to warrant that.
This is incorrect.
I do not know what a belief in AL is, but I feel confident that if it is a physical phenomenon, science can, at least, point us in a profitable direction to learn something.
So, your years of research boil down to gap arguments. There are no current explanations, so whatever you believe fills in those gaps.
I will give you credit, you took longer than most to start making allusions to character.
All I see is speculation on assumptions and beliefs that have no support of logic or evidence. This reads like a horoscope. It could mean anything and be applied to anything with whatever result you desire as the outcome.
Now this is starting to sound like a conspiracy theory run amok.
I do not see that we will get much further, with your empty claims, speculation and lack of evidence, but it has been interesting.
There is no such thing as atheistic science. There is just science. It is the same for atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Spanish, Canadians, Australians, Africans, the Dutch, boy scouts, Republicans, etc., etc., etc.Perhaps it's people who try to fuse atheistic science and Christianity who have the problem?
When the evidence of reality conflicts with the claims of ancient men, the logical and reasonable person will use the gifts of intellect that God has given them to come to rational conclusions. Science is not part of some fusion, but the tool to identify and explain the evidence leading to rational conclusions. To do otherwise, is to lie to oneself. No problem.
Why do the claims of Genesis conflict with the evidence of the natural world? What difference does it make to a belief in God? How is a human demand it is all infallible recounting of actual events, not deification?
The accounts of science are not accepted because they are popular. That is a creationist falsehood. They are accepted based on logic, reason and evidence. False witness is a sin.
I find it interesting that so far, you have chosen your words carefully, to paint a very poor picture of me. How is vilifying me support of your claims against science and support for the Bible? There is no reason to do it, other than mean spirited anger and dislike. Doing it flies in the face of all your denials about how opposition to your personal belief does not bother you. If it did not bother you, all you would say to me, is that is an interesting view, but I reject it based on my belief.
I was right when I said that you could not respond to me in any way that was not nasty overtly or covertly no matter how I delivered my position. It does not appear to be in your nature to respond to these discussions without malice unless it is with a cohort.
I do not know the mind of God and cannot comment knowledgeably on what He chooses to do. I will leave it to others that claim to know God's mind.
I do not know. But I also do not pretend to know.
For one thing, there are two accounts of Genesis and biblical scholars have determined it is from two different sources. Likely two different versions of the original oral tradition, copied and combined into one written story.
Yes. I suppose time will tell. Though I have enough evidence for coming to my own conclusions now.
I could expound on this, but why bother. You are not interested. This is just another of your veiled hti pieces. I wonder why you feel compelled to take the stance that you do when talking to others. You seem so at odds with your own claims. I wish you peace. I may respond to your posts in the future at my discretion, but I do not think a lengthy back and forth will be very profitable. Have a good day.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I do hope you realize I was referring to myself as the fool (for responding to the point at all).
It has often proven a very bad tactical move for me to respond to anything at all that is personal or that requires an idea that isn't the direct topic of the given thread.
I most certainly do not believe you are a fool for making such observations or believing (modelling) what you do.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I believe animals can't help using logic because their brains are wired by it. The exact same natural logic as is quantified to create math creates the brain.
Logic worked well for humans but it was expressed in language and as knowledge and science became more complex, language did as well. Human language, Ancient Language, became so complex few individuals could be fluent and lack of fluency not only put individuals at extreme disadvantage but impeded further progress.
Yes, exactly my theory. It is a perfectly natural language used by all animals or is at least species specific.
My theory as it applies to original humans is highly speculative and is based principally in logic.
Each change likely had unique causations.
I could be wrong about "adam and eve" or most anything else. But ancient people used stars as mnemonics to remember important people. The two most prominent stars are logically the first important people and the attributes assigned these individuals are consistent with our understanding of adam and eve. It's also logical that the two most prominent stars would be the most likely to be remembered. I don't know but it's logical and I believe there is a cheat sheet that will tell us everything we need top know about history starting 40 (or 50) thousand years ago. This cheat sheet is barely out of our reach right now.
This is sound advice but it is far out of my wheelhouse. As time goes by it gets further out.
This is NOT opinion. It is fact. I've read every single word that survives from Ancient Language hundreds of times and there are no words for "belief" or "thought" and it breaks a bevy of linguistic laws. It is also a fact that Egyptologists never noticed it. No opinion is involved.
Most of my "work" in evolution was just thinking about it. It largely formed as an unimportant adjunct to thinking about thought and other activities and thinking which take up most of my time. I stumbled on the rediscovery of ancient science ten years ago and it reinforced and made some tweaks to my existing beliefs. I did not know until then that there was another kind of science and it was very very similar to the kind I've used since a young age. From my perspective metaphysics was a very natural thing to attend to since it was apparent from my "generalism" and intuitive processes.
Most of my argument about evolution, in my opinion, boils down to logic. Of course, "logic" to modern humans is largely a reflection of perspective but since individuals can understand their own thoughts there can also be a mathematical "precision" to logic. Of course I can be wrong but in my opinion the only logical explanation for such evidence as exists is that there is no such thing as intelligence and humans succeed principally from standing on shoulders. It really all makes perfect sense but we are used to seeing the world from somewhere else.
My apologies. I stand corrected.
It is understandably difficult to deal with subjects outside of ones area of interest or expertise.
Well, thank you. It has been interesting reading your thoughts on these things too.