Irony of the evolutionary belief

[F1fan]

OK. The let me ask you a couple questions about reality that you'll ignore.

If you have bunches of red and white poker chips and throw away all the red ones are the survivors white?

More confusion since poker chips don't breed.

Even if all red birds of a speices that included white and red colors would NOT all have white offspring if all the red ones died by some fluke of nature. Even the white birds will have genes in the eggs and sperm for red color. This color gene might or might not be expressed in the offspring, but there will be red and white offspring.

Let's say the red ones are being targeted by a preditor that can't easily see the white ones there will still be red offspring. If they continue to be killed before they can breed there will still be red offspring for many generations.

If you have bunches of slow and fast rabbits and the foxes eat all the slow ones are the survivors fast?

Again, there will still be slow and fast because genes of both will linger in genes for amny generations. You seem to think that only fast rabbits or white birds only carry those genes in their reproductive system. No, the genes of both will continue on.

What kind of rabbit is most likely to have fast rabbits among their progeny?

They aren't clones. You keep thinking reproduction is like cloning. You can find a black cat give birth to a siamese or a long haired offspring because those genes are still in the mix of the parent's reproductive system.

All species will tend to get faster, smarter, and stronger all the time.

ONLY if the other traits are heavily targeted by preditors. Otherwise the other traits will just swirl around the lottery of genes available at any time in an egg and sperm.

Isn't this the point of Evolution to believers? The fit survive means the offspring of the fit are ever more likely to be naturally selected.

You are completely ignorant of this 7th grade science. What excuse do you offer us to not seek to educate yourself and keep repeating embarrassing mistakes?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Excellent point! Thank you.

I see what Darwin was saying now. A slow rabbit can be just as fit as a fast rabbit and a dumb rabbit can be as fit as a smart one. He was just saying all individuals are equally fit.

What are the assumptions Darwin used in the original formulation of the theory of evolution? Why can't you list them and show us they are wrong? You continually claim they are wrong, but you've never listed them and given any sort of detailed explanation showing they are wrong. It seems like it would be a simple thing to do given your level of confidence that they are wrong.

Go for it! Just do it! Show us where the beef is!

 

[cladking]

Fitness varies with selection and populations evolve to address it.

I do not understand this statement.

Why is it a problem?

A "random walk" is the propensity of things to move in one direction for an indeterminant time at an in determinant rate and then change direction. Many things change this way. Of course things that do can be broken down further into simpler oscillations but the net effect is still for things to end up very near where they started. Over very extreme periods of time (such as geologic time) a random walk has about the same chance as ending up just about anywhere at all so could account for change in species except for one enormous problem: We know that environments don't last that long. Before a species has wandered very far from its starting point its niche has been completely stood on its ear. The species must adapt to this change or go extinct.

This is what the fossil record shows. Many many centuries of relative stability in species and then a very sudden shift.

 

[cladking]

You're describing evolution. You're describing the action of natural selection on genetic variation which leads to changes in populations over generations.

In order to be "Evolution" females would have to continually demand ever brighter and showier mates. I seriously doubt such things continue indefinitely or that there is no reason for the odd selection of mates. If this were typical in species then the characteristics would begin to entail an extreme cost to the species (think in terms of rams butting heads). Species don't change nor does consciousness exist for the sole purpose of gratifying females no matter how much this seems to be true. Life exists to further itself in a massive living clockwork. Reality is chaotic and not like a clockwork but life makes sense and is a clockwork that reproduces as much of itself as possible. Consciousness is the means by which life cooperates to fill the entire cosmos. Perhaps 'dark matter" is some long lost echo from a another universe that filled entirely.

I don't believe in linear progress like Darwin nor that species are moving toward a goal but if there is some purpose to life it is to become the same thing as reality itself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you understand the part where I said our species (homo circularis rationatio)

That isn't our species and no one knows what you really mean by repeating that personal attempt to redefine what it means to be human. If you are trying to think that some people think in circles, then save the dramatic interpretation and just say that.

can not directly experience its own consciousness therefore might never understand it?

A claim that demands support. Are you not familiar with the idea of proposing ideas? If you were at a board meeting to sell your brilliant idea, don't think you would want to explain what it is and provide data to show it is worth the board supporting your idea. In your world does everything everyone says just become a fact for you. Clearly not, since you have been given logic and facts many times here and you reject it without any apparent consideration.

A dust mite understands consciousness better than Aristotle did.

Meaningless and unsupportable drama.

You must of necessity model consciousness to understand it at all.

You can recognize something exists without suddenly knowing everything about it. That is why science was invented.

But even here there is little to model at this time and all I can do is point you to the very little I know about it. Suffice to say that before you can grok the simplest aspect you must reject the silly notion that "I think therefore I am". It is impossible to understand consciousness using your existing models so of course you don't understand. Then you reject its characteristics as fast as you read what I write.

Oh yeah. Grok.

Klaatu barada nikto! There is a difference between we can't know something and that existing models are insufficient to describe a thing. And I haven't seen any reason to think you have the ability to cast aspersions on any model based merely on what you believe.

Consciousness is ubiquitous not in reality but in all living things and it is unique to all individuals.

An unsupported claim that has never been given support, just repetition.

To a very real degree our species must model everything to understand it.

I suppose, once in a while, even a blind hunter wings a duck.

We each essentially become a new species as we acquire language and then must model all existing knowledge and all new knowledge.

Not in any real way. It does not reflect reality or a grasp of species concepts. What am I supposed to get from grandiose claims of modelling all existing knowledge in order to know something about an aspect of reality?

We don't experience this too much because it occurs over about a 12 month period between 2 and 3 years of age when brains are very plastic.

Now you are a developmental psychologist. Is there no end to your omnipotence?

Memory is formatted just like the brain so remembering the transition is in bits and pieces at best.

This doesn't make any sense. It means nothing to me. I can't imagine it means anything to anyone. Maybe it isn't a parsing problem, but your material that is flawed.

Older memories of our thinking simply are barely retrievable or wholly irretrievable. This is just like the transition at the tower of babel that happens on the individual level. Before we are two we understand consciousness.

We can't understand it. We can understand it, but we have to be two. We change species when we do understand it. Your all over the map with this ramble.

Of course a baby's understanding is incomplete and it would be different than an adult rabbit's.

Of course. That you take this all seriously is key to others understanding. Do you have any thoughts on ducks considering that you feel these sorts of things are relevant here?

Two year olds can't think because only modern language precipitates thinking.

More conjecture without basis. Consistency is important if the consistency has some value.

But thinking is entirely different than consciousness or the experience of consciousness.

More conjecture without basis. Your belief system is pretty convoluted as I see it. Like a ball of snakes.

If you begin constructing a model of this I can fill it in. If you just reject it out of hand then you will not understand me.

Anyone can construct a model based on conjecture. Rejecting it seems obvious, since it wouldn't be based on observation, evidence or experiment. You've made that a holy trinity that you never approach.

 

[Little Dragon]

It's been in my library for decades.

Same. I got all of his pop science books. My favourite is the Ancestors's Tale. You've probably got it!

 

[Little Dragon]

I don't believe in linear progress like Darwin nor that species are moving toward a goal but if there is some purpose to life it is to become the same thing as reality itself.

Evolution isn't a linear process, it's punctuated, it speeds up, it slows down, it depends wholly on what is happening in the ecology. Geological activity, climate cycles, large asteroids smashing into the planet, and so on. If an organism is perfectly adapted to a largely unchanging ecosystem, it won't evolve quickly. The shark genus of species is a good example, of limited evolutionary changes, comparative to other species. Nature operates under the if it aint broke don't fix it system...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Did you understand the part where I said our species (homo circularis rationatio) can not directly experience its own consciousness therefore might never understand it?

No.

I don't know what you mean by homo circularis rationatio or consciousness. The former has no meaning to me at all, and the latter refers to the self-evident state of being at least implicitly aware of a relationship between self and other, between here and there, and between now and then, experienced as a parade of phenomena in a theater of sorts with one unseen viewer. Consciousness appears to be a fluctuating epiphenomenon of brains, that is, it appears to be produced by brains and varies between wakefulness and unconscious states. It's substance, scale, and location are intractable problems to date.

That was a good example of clear writing. You may not agree with it, and you may have more questions, but I'll bet you understand it. And it's a good place for you to start doing something similar. Change the parts you don't like and explain why you recommend that change, and explicitly agree with the parts you do like, and then I will have an idea of what YOU mean by that word whereas presently, I don't. What I described doesn't appear to happen in most living things - just sufficiently complex animals - but whatever that word means to you is found in EVERY living thing. See if you can reconcile those.

A dust mite understands consciousness better than Aristotle did

I don't understand that, and can't come up with any meanings for those words that makes them sensible. Maybe if "dust mite" is slang for ancient Greek philosopher and Aristotle is the name of an acarid, then the sentence becomes meaningful, but your claim as written and commonly understood is absurd.

you must reject the silly notion that "I think therefore I am"

Why? And how? That intuition is compelling and irresistible, and also quite useful.

It is impossible to understand consciousness using your existing models so of course you don't understand.

I think I understand consciousness about as well any lay person in 2023, and I really doubt that you have any insights to share there. You've provided none so far, although I have.

Then you reject its characteristics as fast as you read what I write.

You've provided no characteristic of consciousness apart from saying that it exists in all life without saying what it is you claim exists.

We each essentially become a new species as we acquire language

I don't understand that, either. Man did break off from the other great apes in large part due to the acquisition of language, but human beings without language remain (genus) Homo (species) sapiens.

Two year olds can't think because only modern language precipitates thinking.

You must mean thinking in language. That's only part of the human spectrum of thought. Emotions speak to us in a prelinguistic "language."

If you begin constructing a model of this I can fill it in. If you just reject it out of hand then you will not understand me.

My model of consciousness is the one I just described. I don't expect to ever understand you, because I don't expect you ever to engage with me. Our conversations will always and ever be like this one, where I write responsively to you and you repeat what you've already claimed and been told that it is wrong or too vague to answer. How do I know that? I'm an empiricist. I collect evidence and analyze it. There isn't even a scintilla of acknowledgement from you about what I am telling you. Nothing I write will impact your opinions or your posting behavior. I could put a gun to your head and demand that you address what is written about exploring new ways, and you would start talking about Homo omniscience or gradual change or how wrong Darwin was. I'd say prove me wrong, but you would ignore that, too.

In order to be "Evolution" females would have to continually demand ever brighter and showier mates.

I also don't understand what that intends to mean. In order to be (biological) evolution, there would need to be change in the allelic frequencies in a population's gene pool.

if there is some purpose to life it is to become the same thing as reality itself.

Once again, what could you possibly mean? Your writing is opaque and cryptic. Don't expect to be understood until you improve that. I could tell you how, but you wouldn't acknowledge seeing it much less want to explore or discuss it, so I won't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I do not understand this statement.

I know that.

Populations are not stable and they do not exist in idealized vacuums independent of the environment. Your idea that all members of a population are equally fit makes no sense based on the evidence of this instability and differences in individuals within a population. If a rabbit population continually gets faster, the consequent increase in metabolic demand would begin to be a fitness factor. Equally true of the foxes. Rabbits have to spend time eating and rabbit-blurs would soon eat themselves out of food, if they could find the time to eat, running around as they do in your scenario. And the foxes would have to start running at light speed to catch all the rabbits they need to sustain that level of activity.

The range of living things is not homogenous throughout either. There are constraints on fitness that keep the arms race in check.

Your ideal is not the reality that living things exist in.

A trait that imparts fitness in one environment may not be what provides fitness in another for the same species. Fitness has costs that are in themselves, a change in the environment.

The environment isn't just the weather. It is all the abiotic and biotic and internal and external features that living things exist with. A fast rabbit prone to virulent cancer isn't going to be more fit than just a plain old fast rabbit.

This is a very complex discussion and I have grown hesitant on providing too much detail, due to your tendency to fixate on some minutia losing sight of the big picture.

A "random walk" is the propensity of things to move in one direction for an indeterminant time at an in determinant rate and then change direction.

A random walk is just that. Something with no apparent pattern. The environment does have patterns. Where do you live that the environment defies the laws of physics and is so capricious?

There are reasons the environment changes. It can be sudden as the dinosaurs and our ancestors discovered, but it is often slow.

Many things change this way.

I don't think things change without reason or pattern.

Of course things that do can be broken down further into simpler oscillations but the net effect is still for things to end up very near where they started. Over very extreme periods of time (such as geologic time) a random walk has about the same chance as ending up just about anywhere at all so could account for change in species except for one enormous problem: We know that environments don't last that long. Before a species has wandered very far from its starting point its niche has been completely stood on its ear. The species must adapt to this change or go extinct.

While the details are obviously not clear to you, you are describing evolution.

This is what the fossil record shows.

I agree. It shows that species evolved gradually over time.

Many many centuries of relative stability in species and then a very sudden shift.

For some, that is true, but for those of us that have more than a trivial awareness of species change, we recognize the mode can be variable and dependent on the environment. You seem to have a propensity for taking concepts that you seem at most to only be aware of them and weave them into your belief system as some distorted thread that you consider revealed truth.

That is not science and isn't using logic.

 

[Little Dragon]

This is a very complex discussion and I have grown hesitant on providing too much detail, due to your tendency to fixate on some minutia losing sight of the big picture.

Yet others will benefit from reading your informative breakdowns of these common misconceptions and misunderstandings. Kudos Dan. You've done all one could do, and more.

 

[cladking]

This doesn't make any sense. It means nothing to me. I can't imagine it means anything to anyone. Maybe it isn't a parsing problem, but your material that is flawed.

Reality is logic manifest. In animals the brain is logic incarnate. In modern humans we use language to format almost the entire brain but language is not logical. A baby is just like ancient babies and lacks language. For practical purposes it is another species. It formats its memories and thinks logically like everyone before the tower of babel. This is an entirely different formatting for memory so when the child acquires language the majority of his memory including almost all memory of previous "thought" is irretrievable. Recall is formatted differently than the memory. Just as Ancient Language can't be translated individual memories of every child can't be translated. Of course some memories at such a young age are olfactory, visual, emotional etc and will be largely unaffected by a new way to think. But it is not really possible to remember old thinking or even the way we thought. such memories mat exist but only in tatters and highly piecemeal.

When we throw consciousness out of studying change in species it is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There is no life without consciousness and no understanding without science. When we rely on our senses, logic, or long trips to the Galapagos to understand reality we are merely confirming our existing beliefs. Only experiment is relevant to reality because we are not logical and can not directly experience reality, logic, or consciousness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In order to be "Evolution" females would have to continually demand ever brighter and showier mates.

No. In order to be evolution, change over time must be observed. Some idealized selection, sexual or otherwise, in a vacuum that goes to some crazy, unjustified endpoint isn't a description of evolution.

I seriously doubt such things continue indefinitely

The evidence shows they do not.

or that there is no reason for the odd selection of mates.

Sexual selection seems to be based on the perception that certain characters are a visible proxy for more useful traits that aren't so visibly obvious. I don't know if this has gone anywhere, but it has been hypothesized that a male preference for blonds results from the fact that fairer skin and lighter hair make the detection of external parasites easier.

If this were typical in species then the characteristics would begin to entail an extreme cost to the species (think in terms of rams butting heads).

And they have. Irish elk. Now you seem to be catching on. Let's see if you can sustain that.

Species don't change nor does consciousness exist for the sole purpose of gratifying females no matter how much this seems to be true.

Species do change based on sexual selection. I have no information that suggests consciousness exists so that we can all get laid.

Life exists to further itself in a massive living clockwork. Reality is chaotic and not like a clockwork but life makes sense and is a clockwork that reproduces as much of itself as possible. Consciousness is the means by which life cooperates to fill the entire cosmos. Perhaps 'dark matter" is some long lost echo from a another universe that filled entirely.

You seem prone to these explosions of florid speech. All I get out of it is that existence is complicated. But complicated doesn't mean incomprehensible.

I don't know of anyone that has evidence that life exists elsewhere and nothing on this mass migration to the cosmos that you are suggesting.

Not sure what you think the benefit of all that speculation is here in this discussion.

I don't believe in linear progress like Darwin

Darwin didn't and that isn't a part of the theory. It is your misunderstanding of it and it seems willful.

nor that species are moving toward a goal

That is not a proposal of the theory. Not something stated in science or even suggested by it.

but if there is some purpose to life it is to become the same thing as reality itself.

You will have to look elsewhere for those answers, but I don't think the syncretic belief system you are crafting is going to get you to any profound answers given it seems part of that synthesis is with bad information.

 

[cladking]

I don't know what you mean by homo circularis rationatio or consciousness. The former has no meaning to me at all, and the latter refers to the self-evident state of being at least implicitly aware of a relationship between self and other, between here and there, and between now and then, experienced as a parade of phenomena in a theater of sorts with one unseen viewer.

Instead of trying to understand my premises you are finding fault and lecturing. You can put "homo circularis rationatio" in any search engine and know exactly what it means. I've said a million times that it is the species that arose from the dust of the tower of babel. If you don't want to argue then why respond at all? I'm sure everyone is already impressed by the depth of your knowledge and your life so what is the point. I'm proposing a new way to see reality from which some things make more sense and it explains many things never before explained. If you must see the world through the lens of a '60's American product and life through the eyes of a quack from 1830's England that's your choice and you have every right to it. I do not accept your assumptions. IF I DID THEN I'D AGREE WITH YOU. Darwin was wrong. Bad Darwin.

I simply see no point in continuing this specific conversation. I very much enjoy discoursing with you but will avoid this topic.

 

[shunyadragon]

Excellent point! Thank you.

I see what Darwin was saying now. A slow rabbit can be just as fit as a fast rabbit and a dumb rabbit can be as fit as a smart one. He was just saying all individuals are equally fit.

Back in elementary school drawing 'coloring dumb rabbits' and cutting them up, "Look teacher, dumb rabbits don't survive."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Reality is logic manifest.

You've often repeated it. It doesn't mean anything and I get no answers from it or even useful questions.

In animals the brain is logic incarnate.

Again, a dramatic claim with little or no use or value in meaning or answers. It is like something an evangelical minister might say from the pulpit.

In modern humans we use language to format almost the entire brain but language is not logical. A baby is just like ancient babies and lacks language. For practical purposes it is another species. It formats its memories and thinks logically like everyone before the tower of babel. This is an entirely different formatting for memory so when the child acquires language the majority of his memory including almost all memory of previous "thought" is irretrievable. Recall is formatted differently than the memory. Just as Ancient Language can't be translated individual memories of every child can't be translated. Of course some memories at such a young age are olfactory, visual, emotional etc and will be largely unaffected by a new way to think. But it is not really possible to remember old thinking or even the way we thought. such memories mat exist but only in tatters and highly piecemeal.

I read through this and realize it is part of your belief system and has little or no basis or utility given it has left you wanting in these discussions. It comes off as rambling and extraneous.

You have, what I can only describe as a fixation with something you call Ancient Language that means nothing to anyone, given it is not known what it means or that it exists.

When we throw consciousness out of studying change in species it is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There is no evidence that consciousness is universal to living things and much that says it isn't. There is no evidence that even a trivial understanding of consciousness is required to understand evolution other than acknowledge that the one species that is interested enough to look has consciousness. This is another fixation of yours that doesn't seem to have any evidence, be a requirement or serve an utility to better understanding. I would say that this fixation has been an impediment for you based on all I have read.

There is no life without consciousness

An unsupported conclusion. Just a claim.

and no understanding without science.

Aren't you one of the first people to cry scientism when your ideas get smoked? Are you one of those that rambles on incessantly about metaphysics? Your words often seem like an exercise in contradiction.

When we rely on our senses, logic, or long trips to the Galapagos to understand reality we are merely confirming our existing beliefs.

I don't believe that. You have provided nothing to sustain this view. You are basically saying that we cannot learn. Unless of course, we assume your beliefs without question. I don't consider that learning. At least in regards to the topics you speak on. I've learned a lot about you I think.

Only experiment is relevant to reality because we are not logical and can not directly experience reality, logic, or consciousness.

If we aren't logical and only seek to find what we believe, what value would experiment be for that view? You can just ignore experiment while appealing to it endlessly and go with what we choose to believe. Now, who is the example that is doing just that? I wonder.

 

[Little Dragon]

Excellent point! Thank you.

I see what Darwin was saying now. A slow rabbit can be just as fit as a fast rabbit and a dumb rabbit can be as fit as a smart one. He was just saying all individuals are equally fit.

A fast rabbit is only going to be fitter than a slow rabbit, if they live in an ecosystem with quick predators.
A smart rabbit is only going to be fitter than a dumb rabbit if they live in ecosystem with smart predators.

A tiny little half blind slow dumb rabbit, on an island with no predators and not much food, will be fitter, than big strong smart ones with keen eyesight.
Because being small and needing few calories to survive, will overall, be a distinct evolutionary advantage, than all the others combined.

 

[cladking]

That was a good example of clear writing. You may not agree with it, and you may have more questions, but I'll bet you understand it. And it's a good place for you to start doing something similar. Change the parts you don't like and explain why you recommend that change, and explicitly agree with the parts you do like, and then I will have an idea of what YOU mean by that word whereas presently, I don't. What I described doesn't appear to happen in most living things - just sufficiently complex animals - but whatever that word means to you is found in EVERY living thing. See if you can reconcile those.

After reading this I'll try a little further.

I don't agree with any part. There is more or less truth in every part but viewing consciousness from the perspective of a sleepwalker is nonproductive. We must model consciousness. All life is conscious means all life is always conscious. We don't die when we go to sleep or passout drunk, we merely enter new states of consciousness where some parts of the brain mostly shut down and others are alert. We experience "unconsciousness" when the higher brain functions sleep or shut off largely because it is the nature of a brain that runs on abstract language.

The "self" the "viewer" we perceive is a product of language, belief. We compare sensory input to our beliefs which are models and constructed with language. It is this comparison that is thinking or the viewer. Other life lacks this and directly experiences reality. Babies are immature but also directly experience reality which includes their own amygdala. Consciousness (not our consciousness) is the experience of everything simultaneously in terms of logic and experience. We experience our beliefs whether we acquired them from good sources or bad Darwin.

 

[cladking]

I don't understand that, and can't come up with any meanings for those words that makes them sensible. Maybe if "dust mite" is slang for ancient Greek philosopher and Aristotle is the name of an acarid, then the sentence becomes meaningful, but your claim as written and commonly understood is absurd.

Perhaps the statement is hyperbolic but I don't think so. A dust mite experiences reality in terms of what it means to a dust mite. This is reality based and his brain resonates with this reality. It doesn't truly know what it means to fit into its world but it does know what it means to be a mite. It knows and learns how to better succeed in its world. It is fully conscious and knows it is fully conscious but only in terms of being a mite.

We have no idea what it means to be conscious because we are walking in our sleep running not on instinct as other species sometimes do but running on our beliefs. "I think therefore I am" fully demonstrates that the thinker doesn't know what it means to be conscious. Modern humans don't even think or experience thought until they learn language. We are a product of language. We communicate therefore we think. All progress in all species is based on language but only ours is illogical and abstract, thereby giving rise to beliefs and thought which follows.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Instead of trying to understand my premises you are finding fault and lecturing.

Of course, it is our fault you can't formulate a cogent argument.

You can put "homo circularis rationatio" in any search engine and know exactly what it means.

Not really. I've done that and there are very few hits and most of them come back to you. It still doesn't have any meaning other than a person applies it as a pet name to fulfill their belief that ever challenge to them is circular reasoning by default.

I've said a million times that it is the species that arose from the dust of the tower of babel.

Of course you have. It is part of your belief, chapter and verse. An imaginary taxonomy based on a mythological event doesn't explain anything. If you think someone is arguing in a circle, then say so and show how that is without all the rambling drama.

If you don't want to argue then why respond at all?

I don't think that others don't want to discuss or have real arguments, it is that you don't seem to. You appear to want to deliver revealed truth and have it accepted and believed without question. You seem to get all squidgy when that doesn't happen with critical thinkers.

I'm sure everyone is already impressed by the depth of your knowledge and your life so what is the point.

That seems more than a little petty. I appreciate what @It Aint Necessarily So says and that he backs it up with well informed and thought out explanations following evidence and reason. Instead of feeling jealous, you might trying learning from it.

I'm proposing a new way to see reality from which some things make more sense and it explains many things never before explained.

You haven't accomplished that and you don't provide explanations. Not in any real sense of that word. But clearly that is my fault for not be able to read your mind and parse your words based on your secret, personal definitions and semantics.

If you must see the world through the lens of a '60's American product and life through the eyes of a quack from 1830's England that's your choice and you have every right to it. I do not accept your assumptions. IF I DID THEN I'D AGREE WITH YOU. Darwin was wrong. Bad Darwin.

A baseless conclusion that appears to be more of emotional sour grapes for encountering resistance to the spread of your belief system presented without evidence or reason for anyone to embrace it.

I simply see no point in continuing this specific conversation.

And yet, this won't be the last we see of it. You'll be back with the same claims and same story. News at 11 in heavy rotation and impervious to reason, evidence or experiment.

I very much enjoy discoursing with you but will avoid this topic.

It does seem like you have no interest in the facts, evidence and science and want to go with what you believe instead.

Good luck.

We'll catch you in the rotation.

 

[cladking]

Why? And how? That intuition is compelling and irresistible, and also quite useful.

It is inductive and there is no such thing as inductive logic. Sometimes induction provides correct answers anyway because they derive from categorical knowledge or from taxonomies which do tend to be highly logical.

Homo omnisciencis language and thought are never logical. This is why we need experiment to progress. Abstractions can not be strung together in such a way as to have only one logical meaning. Abstractions can not be strung together in such a way as to have no illogical meanings.