Fascinating!

[cladking]

Either you have a serious reading comprehension problem or you are intentionally being obtuse. Where did I use the term "identical"? I gave "galaxies" as one example. Did I say I thought galaxies were identical?

This is simple. You are refusing to see that things must be defined in our language and all definitions are flexible. It's not just two identical snowflakes that don't exist but a hard and fast definition between what is sleet and what is snow. There are probably referents for "galaxy-like" clusters somewhere in the universe and if there aren't we can just say all galaxies are by definition spirals and create them.

Modern language is a construct that doesn't reflect reality or the laws of nature but rather our beliefs. It is created by our beliefs and our beliefs are created by language. Despite there being no two identical galaxies every school child knows that two galaxies plus two galaxies equals four galaxies. And one two unicorns plus two unicorns make four unicorns.

Apparently, that is nothing more than your unsupported opinion.

No. It is much more true that I am simply defining our perception and language as analog. If you think about it then it should make sense to you and this would be especially true if you understood what I mean by "digital reality". This is the way ancient people perceived it and more importantly it's how the brain operates when programmed with a digital language.

More obfuscation out of desperation? Can't you stick to the topic we were discussing - multiple universes.

Since no two identical things exist it follows there can be no other universe and no other reality that bears any semblance to our own. This is just nonsense generated by math.

By the same as yet unknown process that our universe came to be.

Good try. So you would have us believe that there is a different God for each universe and that since we don't know where mass came from there must be an infinite supply somewhere!!!

Let me check my storage space for that.

I cannot "quantify the equations that make up" a figment of your imagination. There are millions of Christians, I would need to make up millions of equations. Therein is one of the big differences between your mythics and science: e=mc^^2 works across the board.

Or you could simply admit your near perfect ignorance. You have no equations for the fundamental sources no matter how you count them.

 

[tas8831]

507c. effervescent, proceeding from leg and tail of the Great (One) who is in splendour.
508a. N. is come to his watercourses, which are in the land of the flood, in Mḥ.t-wr.t,
508b. to the places of satisfaction, with green fields, which are in the horizon,
509a. that N. may make green the herbs in both lands of the horizon,
509b. (and) that N. may bring the green to the great eye which is in the midst of the field.

The effervescent water comes from the eye of horus in the midst of the field.

1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;

The flood is tossed high in the air (81' 3" to be exact).

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris.

There is only one way to say this; Egyptologists' reading comprehension is nearly nonexistent. The Pyramid Texts says one single thing and they see the opposite.

The geyser was "atum" and was known as "osiris/ n". The scientific term was "D3.t" (duat).

The lengths the zealous will go to to try to rescue ancient myths and gibberish. Sad.

 

[tas8831]

"Adam" was the first homo sapiens

Evidence?

but he was a mutation with a speech center closely tied to higher brain functions.

"He" was a mutation? Please explain.

Also, explain your folk neuroanatomy/neurophysiology.

 

[tas8831]

Consciousness is what keeps things alive

No, it really isn't.

Do not hesitate to use field-specific terminology - I have a couple decades of university-level teaching and research experience in cell biology, anatomy and physiology, genetics and evolutionary biology.
It is so cool how confident you are on this subject solely by using a layman's level of argument.

I merely speak in tautologies so it's easier to see my premises. I don't claim to know anything.

The latter sentence was my conclusion, the former is a mistake on your part.

I've believed most of these things for many years but I've been trying to redevelop ancient science and it has tweaked how I see this. It's hard for us to even imagine another way to express consciousness than we modern people have but then we modern people are the odd man out. All animals and ancient man have a different consciousness driven by different language and a different way to think. Animals don't see what they believe, they see what they understand. A bee might have a better feel for evolution than a biologist. [/quote]

So then no actual biology or anything, just a bunch of David Avocado Wolfe-style nonsense and empty assertions devoid of real rationale and definitely lacking any data/evidence in support.. Got it.

Explain why non-modern horses could not have reproduced with other non-modern horses.

I would assume (of course I can't know) that when a species is much different than its parents that they couldn't interbreed or they couldn't interbreed to create fertile offspring. This goes many times over when there are more iterations of the species between them.

Now you have introduced terms not previously in evidence - "much" different. You are strawmanning evolution/population genetics - is it on purpose, or because that is all you can muster?

Show me the genetics that dictates this.

I have no great depth of knowledge on this subject as you apparently do.

I get by. But as you admit to ignorance of this, why pontificate?

But even you don't know if the various ancestors of horses could interbreed.

No, but I did not make a claim one way or the other - YOU did.
I DO know that the 'barriers' perceived by non-scientists are often not the barriers they believe them to be.
There are, for example, several species of mammal that maintain polymorphic karyotypes in their populations, yet get along famously.

I chose 'horses" because a previous poster did. I believe this applies to all those things we call "species" or "ancestors".

I don't.

 

[cladking]

The lengths the zealous will go to to try to rescue ancient myths and gibberish. Sad.

In other words it's perfectly logical to you that we know everything about ancient people because their writing looks like sun addled maniacs mustta written it! It simply doesn't matter what words mean in context because even writing we can't successfully deconstruct LOOKS like stinky footed nonsense. You don't need to know what a "Mḥ.t-wr.t" is because it feels like superstitious gobbledty gook. I just happen to know exactly what this device was because I solved every word in the PT while reverse engineering the pyramids. It is the device that built the great pyramids that they called a "god" because that's how their language worked. It was khenti-irty who snatched water out of the air with two eyes but you don't even know what the eyes were. Here they tell you exactly what it is but you can't see it because you believe in your models and science that refuses to even consider evidence. You have no problem with failing to test basic assumptions and don't understand everything is dependent on EVERY ASSUMPTION. You probably think metaphysics is magic and science works because it's some form of magic (just like math). And, of course, you think I'm superstitious because you don't understand. You think anything that looks like "religion" is necessarily wrong because we have all the answers.

You believe any problems with science will easily be straightened out down the road as more confirmation of every theory arises. It simply doesn't matter if science is now open to vote of peers and data are withheld from peers because science is necessarily always correct. It's just like magic.

So rather than ask how I can see water squirting up out of a hole in a field or why they said such an outrageous thing you have simply concluded I'm deluded because ancient people talked funny! Meanwhile every thing said by anyone who calls himself a scientist is automatically correct even when it conflicts with other expert beliefs.

WOW!!!

First off there was no such thing as "Adam" as we know him. It is my belief based on extensive albeit very shallow evidence that the Egyptians remembered him by the star "Sirius" and called him "S3.h"

All important scientists and metaphysicians including many kings and various heroes and inventors were remembered by specific stars. "Adam" was the first metaphysician but even the proto-humans among "whom" he lived were scientists. His parents had a simple language reflecting not stupidity or ignorance but rather the lack of close ties between their speech center and their higher brain functions. "Adam" was the first Homo sapien. He invented more complex language and taught it to the "apes" the best they could comprehend it. It was the exact same language his parents spoke and was merely an elaboration on it so of course they were able to pick up some of it. "Adam" merely was able to invent a metaphysics more complex than what had existed. It was this metaphysics (complex language) that gave rise to the human race 40,000 years ago and it became extinct at the "tower of babel" when the language had become too complex.


Nothing is what it appears to be which is how this very thread got started. There is mathematical and logical direct and causative relationship between all things in reality. We are blind to it because we see our beliefs instead. Our brains are programmed in a language from which some realities are nearly invisible. Our minds and the way we are trained don't usually allow individuals to see how these interrelations transpire or even that they exist. We are mostly specialists and see the world one equation or one process at a time.

 

[cladking]

Now you have introduced terms not previously in evidence - "much" different. You are strawmanning evolution/population genetics - is it on purpose, or because that is all you can muster?

You are ignoring my argument. I am saying all change in life from every perspective is "sudden". This means the successor to every species is sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" for most practical purposes. Barring mutation or bottlenecks there is almost no difference between parents and offspring.

No evidence exists that I am wrong yet I can show exactly where Darwin went wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are ignoring my argument. I am saying all change in life from every perspective is "sudden". This means the successor to every species is sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" for most practical purposes. Barring mutation or bottlenecks there is almost no difference between parents and offspring.

No evidence exists that I am wrong yet I can show exactly where Darwin went wrong.

All the evidence says that you are wrong. Mutational differences of between 50 and 200 are known to exist between human generations. There are plenty of differences between parents and offspring. Some of these could be the difference that gradually leads to a change in species.

 

[tas8831]

I wish there was a "BOOO-RRRR-INGG" smilie...

Nothing is what it appears to be which is how this very thread got started. There is mathematical and logical direct and causative relationship between all things in reality.

And yet you never show this - you simply write these meandering, overly verbose missives. Pretty transparent, really.

We are blind to it because we see our beliefs instead. Our brains are programmed in a language from which some realities are nearly invisible. Our minds and the way we are trained don't usually allow individuals to see how these interrelations transpire or even that they exist. We are mostly specialists and see the world one equation or one process at a time.

And some of us make scientific claims that we cannot even address, much less provide evidence for, and such folk cover up their ineptness with excessive verbiage.

 

[tas8831]

You are ignoring my argument.

If so, I feel justified in doing so for I see little reason to entertain an argument that is completely devoid of even tangential supporting evidence, and is in fact 'supported' by claims that are later retracted, minimized, or altered.

I am saying all change in life from every perspective is "sudden".

Good for you.
Where is your evidence?

This means the successor to every species is sudden.

This means that you are spectacularly ignorant of things like population genetics.

There is no such thing as "evolution" for most practical purposes. Barring mutation or bottlenecks there is almost no difference between parents and offspring.

And this is why your 'sudden' thing is nonsense.

No evidence exists that I am wrong

No evidence that you are correct. Mere assertions are not evidence. Your biological claims are hilariously absurd.

yet I can show exactly where Darwin went wrong.

1. Darwin was wrong on many things. His arguments are different from those employed today and the evidence he had access to is paltry compared to what we have today.

2. No you can't.

If all you can offer is wordy. meandering stories and not offer any actual evidence, you have nothing of substance.

 

[tas8831]

All the evidence says that you are wrong. Mutational differences of between 50 and 200 are known to exist between human generations. There are plenty of differences between parents and offspring. Some of these could be the difference that gradually leads to a change in species.

Waiting with giddy anticipation for the reply - a verbose story that merely re-states the same empty claims and not one iota of verifiable evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Weird that this was ignored:

cladking:
but he was a mutation with a speech center closely tied to higher brain functions.

"He" was a mutation? Please explain.

Also, explain your folk neuroanatomy/neurophysiology.

Wait - that isn't weird at all.

 

[cladking]

I wish there was a "BOOO-RRRR-INGG" smilie...

And yet you never show this - you simply write these meandering, overly verbose missives. Pretty transparent, really.

So I suppose your contention is the tides are unaffected by Alpha Centari, butterflies in China, Pluto (it's not even a planet ya' know), Mars, and the sun.

WOW!!! Where is that "boring button" when you really need it? What a drab, unimaginative, and unscientific world you must live in!

I can't even imagine a world where everything is known and you can't imagine anything else.

 

[cladking]

Weird that this was ignored:



Wait - that isn't weird at all.

I have no "folk neurophysiology" because there is no referent for the word in modern language until it is defined. Your request is nonsense so I ignored it.

If you would like an answer to what evidence supports my explanation for proto humans > homo sapiens > homo omnisciencis then there is ample evidence and to my knowledge all experiment supports it. Much of it is based on logic because we can't probe the brains of ancient "people".

According to anthropology humans arose 40,000 years ago. Proto humans had invented fire and stone use but these aren't really any more "human" than beaver dams or bee's waggle dance. Something changed and humans started acting like humans. They wore beads and did things we take as symbolism and abstraction. They weren't but this is what it appears to us.

It is logical that this sudden progress and change in behavior is related to language. Humans are a social species as were proto humans who died out. There are a highly limited number of possibilities for what gave rise to complex language. We could speculate that it was caused by a sudden increase in "intelligence" but just as we can't define gravity we can't define "intelligence" so we measure them instead. Perhaps it was we got smarter and have gotten smarter ever since but consider that the educational system has failed utterly yet we still get new technology and some new "science". If people are now dumber then how is progress continuing? If it takes intelligence to progress than how did beavers and bees do it? It's easier to just assume that the root of human success is language. We can observe the effects of language and hundreds of experiments are related to it. We can see the invention of the printing press leading to an explosion of knowledge. EVERYTHING we see says it's language that underlies not only our success but OUR VERY THOUGHTS. Hundreds of experiments support this.

There existed progress for 40,000 years as knowledge accumulated. We moved out of caves and built complex structures like pyramids. We invented agriculture and cities. We BELIEVE this was made possible by trial and error but no theory has ever arisen from trial and error in modern science. No experiment shows that if you just keep trying long enough and failing often enough that theory can arise and neither does complex knowledge. The light bulb wasn't invented by trial and error. It required centuries of science to create the theory and the dynamos that provided the power. The Wright brothers didn't stumble on the right wing design, they invented the wind tunnel instead. We didn't crash a thousand Saturn V's to get to the moon. Nonsense, you have a poor perspective and refuse to consider the evidence I present and the logic that ties it together. Experiment is "reality in the lab" and conclusion are the interpretations of that experiment that ties it to all experiment. You already skipped ahead to all the answers and never noticed that your experiments don't match the conclusions and your logic fails.

I'm not proposing anything that is all that "unusual". The strangest thing I'm proposing is that the ancients meant what they said literally and they were literally correct and literally agreed with the laws of nature. We simply can't see it through our beliefs. We deconstruct words from a language that can't be deconstructed.


Sure there are many things that agree with me and none that do not. Things like a second speech center that translates analog higher brain functions to the original speech center. Are you aware this second structure varies in location between individuals. Obviously it is acquired and if they ran testing on children under two they'd find it's not there. Babies babel because they are born with Ancient Language and must unlearn it and grow a second speech center.

I know you have all the real answers, who doesn't?

ALL EXPERIMENT, physical evidence, and logic agree with me. Pyramids were built with linear funiculars and we see what we believe while the builders experienced reality directly in accordance to scientific theory. You have no experiment and no evidence to contradict me so rather than cite same you'll tell me what scientists believe and their interpretation of data. You'll tell me consciousness is irrelevant to evolution and Darwin is the father of evolution. You'll tell me science can predict the movement of the pendulums while ignoring the fact that religious people with a pencil can as well.

Meanwhile you probably can't calculate the effect of a butterfly on the tides and nobody can calculate the effect next week. This probably means nothing at all to you because you know the tides are caused by the moon and there's only one equation and it's butterfly free.

 

[cladking]

Mutational differences of between 50 and 200 are known to exist between human generations.

I'm sorry but I can't parse this statement.

Are you suggesting there are differences caused by mutation between parents and off spring?

Most mutations are quite unimportant especially in the short run. Somebody has to survive the bottlenecks and such differences would improve the odds a new species arising from the constriction.

 

[ecco]

This is simple. You are refusing to see that things must be defined in our language and all definitions are flexible. ...

I guess I'll just have to repost:

Either you have a serious reading comprehension problem or you are intentionally being obtuse. Where did I use the term "identical"? I gave "galaxies" as one example. Did I say I thought galaxies were identical?

I never said anything about "identical". What I said was that there is nothing in nature for which there is just one (examples: planets; galaxies). If there is more than one galaxy and if there is more than one planet, thern there is ample reason to accept that there probably is more than one universe.

That you are even bringing language and definitions into the discussion is ludicrous.

Good try. So you would have us believe that there is a different God for each universe

There have been thousands of gods postulated just for this earth. Are you ignorant of that fact?

Or you could simply admit your near perfect ignorance. You have no equations for the fundamental sources no matter how you count them.

I don't need them. I don't really comprehend quantum entanglement. But there are enough scientists who have confirmed it to justify my belief in the concept. I'm surprised you accept Heliocentricity. (You do accept
Heliocentricity, don't you?)

 

[cladking]

I don't need them. I don't really comprehend quantum entanglement. But there are enough scientists who have confirmed it to justify my belief in the concept. I'm surprised you accept Heliocentricity. (You do accept
Heliocentricity, don't you?)

I suppose the world is round too!

All things are related. All things are interconnected. All things are causative of all other things.

You can define the world as flat if you don't mind some very cumbersome equations. You can define it in other shapes as well but logically it's best to keep it simple and in accordance with established definitions and axioms. Since we use euclidean geometry It's best to define the planet as generally spherical and the sun near the center of its orbit (remember the earth and sun orbit around each other).

The real problem here is that from our perspective we see "planets". With our language we define "planets" as objects that orbit the sun. Ancient people understood orbits welkl enough but they had no taxonomies like "planet". Their word for "planet" meant objects which don't revolve with the stars. Later versions of the word are translated as "wanderer" because they each had unique paths they took in the sky. But our use of "planet" has no real meaning because there are millions of objects that orbit the sun but we now define only eight of them lying in the same plane as being "planets". You can say there are eight planets but someone else might count 9, or 12, or 75. But every single "planet" no matter how you define them is still individual and still always changing. Earth continues to grow fatter with water and Mars gets more of its atmosphere blown into space.

If there's no such thing as a "planet" then it's really just a linguistic trick to say there is more than one planet.

There is one of everything that exists and none of everything that doesn't. This is a different perspective for seeing reality. It is a perspective that needs no taxonomies, no beliefs, and no conclusions. If you could think in such terms I believe you'd find that all your knowledge could be applied to your perceptions rather than seeing the world in terms of beliefs. I believe this is how all creation other than modern man deals with reality and survives.

I'm not suggesting your perspective is "wrong" or that science can't count planets. Rather I am saying that this perspective tends to cause people to lose sight of the meaning of experiment and theory. We color in the gaps between experiments and believe we have a complete understanding but never notice that experimental results have no meaning beyond the definitions and axioms that underlie them. Far far worse is we now allow peers to "color outside the lines" and invent new understanding that doesn't even exist. We allow peers to use their assumptions and belief to invent new science with no ties to experiment and no tie to reality. We are getting ever further from the truth and physics is still stuck in the 1920's.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm sorry but I can't parse this statement.

Are you suggesting there are differences caused by mutation between parents and off spring?

Most mutations are quite unimportant especially in the short run. Somebody has to survive the bottlenecks and such differences would improve the odds a new species arising from the constriction.

Not only am I suggesting it, it is backed up by the evidence.

You still do not understand bottlenecks. I do not know why you continue to use that term, knowing that. Bottlenecks are a reduction in genetic variation due to a near extinction event. A bottleneck would be a relatively sudden change that would require a long time to recover from and add genetic diversity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm sorry but I can't parse this statement.

Are you suggesting there are differences caused by mutation between parents and off spring?

Most mutations are quite unimportant especially in the short run. Somebody has to survive the bottlenecks and such differences would improve the odds a new species arising from the constriction.

There are a number of studies that have found that the differences due to mutation between parents and offspring are the result of between 50 and 200 mutations. These differences can be neutral detrimental or beneficial, but they are differences. Sometimes they can be fairly severe if they result in a genetic disease.

 

[cladking]

You still do not understand bottlenecks. I do not know why you continue to use that term, knowing that. Bottlenecks are a reduction in genetic variation due to a near extinction event. A bottleneck would be a relatively sudden change that would require a long time to recover from and add genetic diversity.

You are talking about artificially imposed bottlenecks and I am talking about natural ones. The bottlenecks that created large changes in species are created by selecting for behavior. If you select for specific genetic traits then you merely reduce diversity. Local bottlenecks increase diversity and global bottlenecks cause change in species.

 

[fantome profane]

The art of physics....

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=276668809933949

This just happens for no apparent reason....right?

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think somebody is pulling the strings.

The real question is how do those balls make that sound.