Fascinating!

[tas8831]

All anecdotal and experimental evidence says species arise from behavior rather than fitness.

Then it will be exceedingly easy for you to link to 5-10 examples of this experimental evidence and not just write another slightly off-topic meandering missive.

Any bets on whether the reply will be just more editorializing and not a single bit of evidence supporting his assertion?

 

[tas8831]

The thing that is wrong is your concept of species. Until you truly understand what "species" means, you can't get anything else right.

Or fitness...

 

[tas8831]

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.

Aren't you an expert geneticist? You sure present your argument-, er, um... assertions as if you are.

Do you not understand basic genetics? Do you really not know what a mutation is in science?

Being self-taught and all, it seems to me that the honest, logical thing to do would be to, at the very least, double-check what you assert when several people with actual, relevant education and/or experience in these areas call you out.

Oh - also, you said bible Adam was a 'mutation' - what did you mean? You never did explain even though I asked you to 3 or 4 times.

thanks!

 

[tas8831]

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.

I'm guessing he thinks "mutation" means what it used to in the 1950s 'monster movies' he learned all of his ]genetics from....

 

[cladking]

Oh - also, you said bible Adam was a 'mutation' - what did you mean? You never did explain even though I asked you to 3 or 4 times.

I believe based on evidence and logic that "adam" is the way in which the first "human" is remembered. This human sprang from proto-humans ~40,000 years ago who were identical to us in every way except that they lacked the capacity for complex language. This ability was given to "adam" through a mutation that tied his speech center to his higher brain functions. His immediate progeny used the star "S3h" as a mnemonic to remember him whose name was likely "S3h". This is a star in Orion's belt. His chief promoter "Sothis" is remembered by a star as well and we call "eve". It is complex language which gave rise to the human race. It was not intelligence, opposable thumbs, fire, or walking upright that created the species. This original complex language was merely an elaboration on the existing language so it was metaphysical in nature just like all natural languages. These languages are a reflection of the wiring of the brain so are intimately tied to logic (real logic not semantics).

This species fathered by Adam died out when Ancient Language became too complex for the average man giving rise to a new species Homo Omnisciencis who models beliefs instead of reality.

 

[cladking]

"Artificial bottlenecks are "man-made". We use various parameters to determine what the off-springs might be like.

Natural bottlenecks are generally determined by the behavior of individuals. Specific behavior is bred out rather than specific genes or unfit individuals."

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about, since population bottlenecks have very clear affects on genotypes/genomes and leave 'signatures' in genomes (you must, surely, know all about this, right?).

When we impose bottlenecks on species as "experimentation" or to create new species we tend to usually be selecting individuals based on physical characteristics.

Most of the massive changes in species imposed by mother nature selects not for physical characteristics but for BEHAVIOR.

Since most individuals of a species engage in similar behavior then when most individuals are killed it will typically be a common behavior (BY DEFINITION). The oddballs that survive tend to be just that; oddballs.
You can't understand Change in Species until you understand that there are no species in reality; only individuals and every individual has a consciousness. The consciousness of individuals within a species tend to be quite similar giving rise to a shared metaphysical language. Consciousness is central to Change in Species because consciousness is central to behavior. I'm sorry "evolution" is so complex but I'm not the one who tried to simplify it so much that it is distorted and unrealistic.

The problem with Look and See Science is that things have been distorted through just such simplification. They are at the mercy of perspectives and opinions becvause some things "feel right" and some don't. People want to believe in things like "superstition makes people wise and capable" or that "only the fit survive". We want to believe we are the crown of creation and only we are intelligent and free of superstition but all this is just wrong. Even to the degree some of it is true it is only true from some perspectives and in a left handed sort of way.[/quote][/quote]

 

[ecco]

I believe based on evidence and logic that "adam" is the way in which the first "human" is remembered. This human sprang from proto-humans ~40,000 years ago who were identical to us in every way except that they lacked the capacity for complex language. This ability was given to "adam" through a mutation that tied his speech center to his higher brain functions. His immediate progeny used the star "S3h" as a mnemonic to remember him whose name was likely "S3h". This is a star in Orion's belt. His chief promoter "Sothis" is remembered by a star as well and we call "eve". It is complex language which gave rise to the human race. It was not intelligence, opposable thumbs, fire, or walking upright that created the species. This original complex language was merely an elaboration on the existing language so it was metaphysical in nature just like all natural languages. These languages are a reflection of the wiring of the brain so are intimately tied to logic (real logic not semantics).

This species fathered by Adam died out when Ancient Language became too complex for the average man giving rise to a new species Homo Omnisciencis who models beliefs instead of reality.

The above wouldn't make it as even B-Grade science fiction. Even B-Grade science fiction contains some aspects of believability.

 

[tas8831]

I believe based on evidence and logic that "adam" is the way in which the first "human" is remembered

WHAT "EVIDENCE"?

And why did you ignore my question -

Do you know what mutation means?

 

[tas8831]

"Artificial bottlenecks are "man-made". We use various parameters to determine what the off-springs might be like.

Irrelevant to my question, and I think you know this and are just dodging to hide the fact that you do not understand even basic genetics or evolutionary biology.

Natural bottlenecks are generally determined by the behavior of individuals. Specific behavior is bred out rather than specific genes or unfit individuals."

You can keep writing that all you want to - it will still be wrong.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about, since population bottlenecks have very clear affects on genotypes/genomes and leave 'signatures' in genomes (you must, surely, know all about this, right?)

.When we impose bottlenecks on species as "experimentation" or to create new species we tend to usually be selecting individuals based on physical characteristics.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about,

Most of the massive changes in species imposed by mother nature selects not for physical characteristics but for BEHAVIOR.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about,

Since most individuals of a species engage in similar behavior then when most individuals are killed it will typically be a common behavior (BY DEFINITION). The oddballs that survive tend to be just that; oddballs.
You can't understand Change in Species until you understand that there are no species in reality; only individuals and every individual has a consciousness. The consciousness of individuals within a species tend to be quite similar giving rise to a shared metaphysical language. Consciousness is central to Change in Species because consciousness is central to behavior. I'm sorry "evolution" is so complex but I'm not the one who tried to simplify it so much that it is distorted and unrealistic.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about,

The problem with Look and See Science is that things have been distorted through just such simplification. They are at the mercy of perspectives and opinions becvause some things "feel right" and some don't. People want to believe in things like "superstition makes people wise and capable" or that "only the fit survive". We want to believe we are the crown of creation and only we are intelligent and free of superstition but all this is just wrong. Even to the degree some of it is true it is only true from some perspectives and in a left handed sort of way.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about,


The problem with "make it up out of thin air, aka cladking, science" is that you end up looking like a fool for pretending that your claims have merit yet can never answer simple, straightforward questions and can never provide evidence despite pretending to be able to.

I get it - you are 100% ignorant of genetics and evolution but really really want to pretend that your ego-driven fantasies are real to help prop up your ancient beliefs.

Too bad.

If you had evidence, you would present it.

If you understood basic genetics, you answer my original question.

You are not fooling anyone.



Oh - did you realize that you are misrepresenting "survival of the fittest" yet? Or is that fantasy too ingrained for you?

 

[cladking]

Oh - did you realize that you are misrepresenting "survival of the fittest" yet? Or is that fantasy too ingrained for you?

I assume you are aware that genes are the pattern for making individuals and their behavior. They also make up the way the brain/ body is wired which gives rise to metaphysical language/ consciousness/ etc.

I'm aware "survival of the fittest" was invented to poke fun at Darwin.

It still works.

 

[tas8831]

I assume you are aware that genes are the pattern for making individuals and their behavior. They also make up the way the brain/ body is wired which gives rise to metaphysical language/ consciousness/ etc.

It is so precious when a person writes things like this, pretending to know.

Yes, I DO know this. This is why I know that perturbations in those genes or their control regions via mutation can result in new phenotypes - I assume you are aware of this but reject it because Graham Hancock said not to believe it?


And this addresses my question how?

I'm aware "survival of the fittest" was invented to poke fun at Darwin.

You cannot even get your ignorance right. No, it wasn't - that phrase appeared in a Herbert Spencer essay.

So I will take it that you either do not care to know what the phrase actually means, or that you do know and are just being dishonest about it.

Which do you prefer?

It still works.

To make you look ignorant and deceptive, yes, it does.

Weird how you ignored the rest of my post wherein I show that you avoid answering simple questions - to avoid embarrassment? You tell us all, please:

"Artificial bottlenecks are "man-made". We use various parameters to determine what the off-springs might be like.

Irrelevant to my question, and I think you know this and are just dodging to hide the fact that you do not understand even basic genetics or evolutionary biology.

Natural bottlenecks are generally determined by the behavior of individuals. Specific behavior is bred out rather than specific genes or unfit individuals."

You can keep writing that all you want to - it will still be wrong.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about, since population bottlenecks have very clear affects on genotypes/genomes and leave 'signatures' in genomes (you must, surely, know all about this, right?)

.When we impose bottlenecks on species as "experimentation" or to create new species we tend to usually be selecting individuals based on physical characteristics.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about,

Most of the massive changes in species imposed by mother nature selects not for physical characteristics but for BEHAVIOR.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about,

Since most individuals of a species engage in similar behavior then when most individuals are killed it will typically be a common behavior (BY DEFINITION). The oddballs that survive tend to be just that; oddballs.
You can't understand Change in Species until you understand that there are no species in reality; only individuals and every individual has a consciousness. The consciousness of individuals within a species tend to be quite similar giving rise to a shared metaphysical language. Consciousness is central to Change in Species because consciousness is central to behavior. I'm sorry "evolution" is so complex but I'm not the one who tried to simplify it so much that it is distorted and unrealistic.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about,

The problem with Look and See Science is that things have been distorted through just such simplification. They are at the mercy of perspectives and opinions becvause some things "feel right" and some don't. People want to believe in things like "superstition makes people wise and capable" or that "only the fit survive". We want to believe we are the crown of creation and only we are intelligent and free of superstition but all this is just wrong. Even to the degree some of it is true it is only true from some perspectives and in a left handed sort of way.

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about,


The problem with "make it up out of thin air, aka cladking, science" is that you end up looking like a fool for pretending that your claims have merit yet can never answer simple, straightforward questions and can never provide evidence despite pretending to be able to.

I get it - you are 100% ignorant of genetics and evolution but really really want to pretend that your ego-driven fantasies are real to help prop up your ancient beliefs.

Too bad.

If you had evidence, you would present it.

If you understood basic genetics, you answer my original question.

You are not fooling anyone.

 

[tas8831]

So weird that the other expert on all science has not yet picked a single sentence from THIS POST to respond off-topic to.... almost like.... avoidance....

 

[tas8831]

I believe based on evidence and logic that "adam" is the way in which the first "human" is remembered.

WHAT "EVIDENCE"?

And why did you ignore my question -

Do you know what mutation means?

 

[tas8831]

Good times...

To think that he actually believes that what he wrote addresses this:

"Please demonstrate how it is that you understand precisely what goes on in non-human animal brains in terms of how they model their reality."
​

Does he not know what 'demonstrate' means, or is he just.... him?

This is remarkably simple.

Logically there is an explanation for human history and why it started 1200 years after the invention of writing. Logically if human Ancient Language had no words whatsoever for "belief" or "thought" it means they didn't have the concepts of belief and thought. You can't get simpler than this.

Then throw in the fact that termites invented agriculture and airconditioned cities and they obviously lack the concept of "belief" as well. I merely extrapolated what I already know to account for more observation.

We think we are intelligent but the reality is we are merely conscious. Language is the mode in which we think and governs the perspective of consciousness and the way we think. It's not intelligence that sets humans apart from termites; it is our confused language and different way of thinking.

 

[tas8831]

The world's leading yet unknown expert on all things never could answer ANY of my questions, or support ANY of his claims with anything other than additional, compounded assertions and opinions.

"grow a broccas area"



No, I am still imagining an egotist thinking that because he merely has an idea about something that it must be true.

I know how this stuff works - that is why when I see someone like you pontificate on a subject with totally dopey nonsense, I ask simple questions to see if folks like you are legit..

You see, you had claimed:



Right? I mean, that is what you wrote.

So in response to YOUR implicit claim that 'natural' and 'artificial' bottlenecks are somehow different in their effects, I asked:

"And genetically, what would be the difference?"​

and your amazing, on topic reply was:

​

No mention of genetics at all. Which is what I had very obviously, very specifically, asked about, since population bottlenecks have very clear affects on genotypes/genomes and leave 'signatures' in genomes (you must, surely, know all about this, right?).



You cannot seem to grasp the simplicity of my question - all I asked was how a 'natural' and 'artificial' bottleneck differ genetically, as you were trying to make a distinction. In your layman parlance, an artificial bottleneck might be due to selective breeding, or maybe loss of habitat do to deforestation. A 'natural' one might be due to a natural disaster, or the founder effect.

But that is just setting up the biological 'conundrum.' The response to it, regardless of the cause, genetically, is....? Well, you tell me.



What is a "missing link"? And why are you implying that there should be, but we don't see them?


WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS?????

Your just-so stories are NOT NOT NOT evidence for anything.



What is SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST according to you?



My goodness, why have you not written up this paradigm-changing grand master plan of biology for publication in a prestigious journal?

Oh, whats that?

These journals do not accept repeated assertions as evidence?
These journals do not accept mere assertions that counter established, evidence-supported science as falsifications?

Oh...

 

[paarsurrey]

Order never happens without intelligent direction according to my observations. Who created the laws governing what you call " natural" ? What is "natural" exactly? What happened to the law of cause and effect? You can ignore it when it suits?

I understand nature as whatever Allah(G-d) has created and set the rules/principles/processes of its working, please. Right?
Jesus created nothing as he had no such powers rather Jesus himself was created naturally as son of Mary, please. Right?

Regards

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The art of physics....

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

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

Do you have a link to youtube?

 

[Polymath257]

Do you have a link to youtube?

If I click on the window, it takes me to a Facebook post with the video.

What gets me is that this is a simple demonstration of how complex and beautiful behavior can come from very simply laws. The simple fact that different pendulum lengths lead to different frequencies and the relatively simple math of such frequencies explains all of this.

But this is one very common error people make: they think that if it *looks* complicated, it must have a complicated explanation. In fact, many complicated things are derived from very simple rules.

 

[cladking]

"Please demonstrate how it is that you understand precisely what goes on in non-human animal brains in terms of how they model their reality."

I've asked you before to take things like this to the Ancient Reality thread. It is off topic here.

Reality is composed of many simple forces and processes that combine in infinitely complex ways. More accurately They combined in a very large number of ways. Until we understand all of these forces and processes we can mistake one for another.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I click on the window, it takes me to a Facebook post with the video.

I know. But in Belgium, facebook is blocked unless you are logged in with an account.

This is so because belgium slapped them with a privacy lawsuit a few years ago in which they complained about how facebook follows everybody, including those who aren't even member and thus who never agreed to the eula. Court ordered facebook to take action and this was their response: "ok then we block it all if you're not logged in", as a sort of "screw you" answer, thinking that will only generate more members / active users.

Anyhow, I don't have facebook. So long story short: I can't watch the video, but it sounds interesting.