A new application of irony at least three coats.
-
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!
Irony of the evolutionary belief
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
Trump Tower
McBell
Unbound
Who, besides you, has claimed that every single individual is naturally selected?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You don't claim every single individual is naturally selected, according to the rules/laws or whatever of evolution?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Uhu
You seem to feel you possess some profound hyperlogic and superknowledge that make the rest of us seem like mindless, drooling bananas by comparison, but the question makes no sense.
If all individuals are equally fit, why are we not all the same size, height, hair color, complexion, disease resistance, eye sight, muscle mass, etc., etc., etc.
In the world of 40,000 year old ancient people with ancient language and ancient science, there is no differences. All differences were crushed when the "tower of babel" fell on the "Tower of Babel".
But not All differences. All doesn't mean all it means all which means not all.
In fact, in the world of ancient science, ancient pants, ancient writing, ancient tacos, ancient...this is the most profound statement ever written. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Lol, idd
For all individuals to be "equally fit" ("fit", as understood in biology off course...) then all individuals would have to be exact clones of eachother AND they should all live in identical habitats.
Questions like that are what I would have asked when I was five and didn't understand and have any breadth and depth to my knowledge. I would ask the question to learn, because I wanted to know. In stark contrast to asking a "Gotcha" question from a perceived position of all knowing and no interest in learning or awareness of how ridiculous the question is.
"Fix it again, Tony!" Others from boyhood: "Found on roadside dead" and "Fix or repair daily," and for an airline, "Don't ever leave the airport."
Yes, but I don't see your point or why you included that observation there. I'm fourteen years retired from medicine and am no longer competent to practice it.
What you keep repeating is how everybody is wrong and that nobody can understand anything, and then some ambiguous words about where and how like Homo omniscience and how language corrupts consciousness.
No, translation of prose is NEVER too complex. Translating poetry can be, because poetry is deliberately vague enough for the reader to project some of himself into the meaning, so the translator has a problem. Also, literature for a similar reason, because it's also art. But not prose, such as directions to get somewhere or the terms of a will.
I've seen the result. What you came up looked little like what you responded to. The method was suggested to keep us on the same page and express conflicting views mutatis mutandis, but you chose to not cooperate. Again.
You wrote, "I described it in the part you didn't quote as a cosmos of only life. No beaches, no sky, no stars, only life." I was looking for something close to that. There was no such part I didn't quote. You seem to think "fill the entire cosmos" is synonymous with "a cosmos of only life."
Dan wrote, "I like how you give answers that have nothing to do with the comments or questions you are responding to." This would be a good example of that.
You can probably safely ignore those. You want ideas abstracted from the experience of reality that describe and predict some aspect of it.
I thought it meant nothing specific. You went out of your way to ensure that your words couldn't be understood in whatever way you meant them. Putting life in quotes suggests that you are using an atypical definition, and claiming it doesn't exist ensures that you won't be understood, since everybody in your audience understands that life DOES exist in the usual sense of those words, so they can only guess what you've changed them to mean.
Maybe by life you meant a perpetual motion machine. If so, yes, now I understand what you're thinking. Or maybe by exist, you meant travel back in time. If so, that's also a statement I can understand and agree or disagree with. But not the one you made unless I modify it, because as written, it's obviously wrong.
I recommend paying closer attention to detail. Your claim was that all individuals are equally fit. Dan wrote, "It's like the claim all things are equally fit, but turns out that doesn't include the weak, the sick, the malformed, old, etc." He mentioned individuals who could not compete with normal, healthy individuals as examples of less fit individuals, and you refer to that as minutia that detracts from your point. What it is is a rebuttal that falsifies your point, one which you answered like that.
That's another failure to engage. Perhaps if you tried my suggestion and responded using the claim you don't like as a template and change as few words as possible to correct it as you understand it needs correcting - maybe something like, "What I meant was that all things are equally fit except the weak, the sick, the malformed, old, etc." That's something he can work with and the discussion could proceed, but not after the answer you gave. That's the end of that sub-thread because you failed to engage him in dialectic and instead waved him away.
So you expect that when you said that all animals are equally fit that others should understand that you meant only the most fit ones?
This is that epistemic nihilism again, one of the curses of post-modernism. All is lost, because language can't be understood properly and all truth is relative and ultimately unknowable.
Yet, my experience is the opposite. "Waiter, I'll have a mango margarita on the rocks, no salt" and guess what happens? Later, I say, "Check, please," and guess what happens? Yet somehow, in your hands, this cannot work because there might be a shade of nuance of difference in understanding between my thoughts and the waiter's.
The obvious conclusion from the evidence is that genetic mutations over time do result in the fact that everyone is not equally fit. Of course, some are more fit than others.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Yes!!
I expect the reader to attempt to take my meaning. Anyone who thinks I mean a dying person in a coma is equally capable of jumping hurdles as an olympic sprinter is not trying to take my meaning.
When I say I am defining "metaphysics" as the basis of science and then state that "science has no meaning outside of its metaphysics" then contradicting me is ignorant, malicious, or careless. The chief reason so little communication is going on is that many people choose not to communicate. I warned you early on that what I'm talking about is complex and hard to reduce to abstract words and then everyone wants to change my definitions to something else. If I say there is no such thing as "fitness" then this still applies when I say "all individuals are fit". What I say doesn't change from one sentence to the next, merely the way I say it. I must talk this way because it's the nature of English. It is impossible to make true statements so I have to define terms and show multiple perspectives of my meaning. "Experiment is the foundation of modern science" so anything that isn't based in this metaphysic is unsupportable scientifically. We can't see reality directly.
People choose to live in an abstract world and never care that most of what exists is anomalous because they can't even see anomalies. They see and experience what they believe. They believe the internet works because of "science" which is determined by Peers and the evidence for their beliefs shows that they are omniscient and perfect. Meanwhile they believe that the fit survive because the fit have inheritable characteristics and their children are by definition the same species and no more fit then the previous generation. They experience no doublethink here but they still act as though the world doesn't really need the sick, dying, or less fit because they were going to perish anyway. They still believe that every individual that dies was less fit by definition. They are wholly unconcerned that Peers don't divide individuals by their fitness and then do actual experiments showing that the unfit don't survive. They CAN NOT perform such experiments because we have no means to separate individuals this way and we don't even understand the consciousness that is unique to each.
It is simply impossible to reduce individual differences to experiment at this time. It is impossible to experiment showing a speciation in large animals at this time. All of the experiments necessary to show survival of the fittest are impossible at this time.
We do have observation and every single speciation event observed by man for 10,000 years has resulted from selection of unusual characteristic in bottlenecks.
The reason species don't get smarter, faster, and stronger is very very simple; all individuals are equally fit. Since they are all different some will have a large or slight statistical advantage which causes each generation to be a little different just as Darwin believed, but variations in individuals are within set parameters and changes in habitat are a random walk which means any nominal change in species will almost always be walked back or walked sideways in the very next generation. Then long before ANY significant change in species has occurred the habitat will be wiped out, eradicated. All the differences become moot because the species is extinct. If some survive they'll probably have to adapt to a new niche which will result in a RAPID change I call adaptation. If only oddballs survive then a RAPID change called a speciation event occurs. The oddball genes go hand and hand with oddball consciousness and behavior and a new species is born RAPIDLY.
There is and can be no gradual change caused by survival of the fittest except in Darwin's head. Bad Darwin.
Unfortunately most of Darwin's beliefs still survive and still underlie modern "theory".
cladking
Well-Known Member
I agree but you are not talking about "fitness", you are talking about disease and process errors. Obviously defective individuals will be eradicated from the genome relatively quickly. This is "always" a tiny percentage of the population. The question isn't about how and why defects appear or what effect their removal has on the species. The question is how do species change.
Rather than killing the lame, sick, and weak we must ignore them to see the big picture.
cladking
Well-Known Member
...there is none so blind.
People should be more familiar with the Bible. Whether it came down from ancient science or not there is still a very great deal of wisdom in it.
Indeed, I believe the authors were so wise their species were named after it; homo sapiens. Unlike us they didn't know everything.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Isn't it true by definition that every grandparent all the way back to even the first lifeform was naturally selected. An individual today is the very pinnacle of creation and would be unimprovable except some are less fit.
The illogic in Darwin's thinking is extreme; Bad Darwin.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I don't have much time this morning to catch up but the ability of people to believe they know what each other is talking about is extreme. Poll the participant in a game of chinese telephone and each will tell you that they passed the message unchanged or essentially unchanged but it is not true. Each person simply relays what he "heard" but this is not what was said. After only a few iterations the message is completely changed but it will still make sense. In fact I'm sure you could relay gobbledty gook and by the time it reaches the end it will make sense. I'll try it sometime.
No. We each have our own unique language. We understand one another a hundred times better than the survivors of the tower of babel but we still never hear what the other meant.
I am talking about 'fitness' as in the following.
Peppered Moths: Natural Selection
RS Edleston was an English naturalist who studied insects in the 1800s. In 1848 he recorded an unusual discovery in his journal. “Today I caught an almost totally black form of Biston betularia (peppered moth) near the centre of Manchester.” This is the first recorded sighting of a dark peppered moth.
What was rare in 1848 became common over the next fifty years. By 1900, the peppered moth populations in areas around English cities were as much as 98% dark moths. Scientists became curious why this was happening.
Industrial Revolution
During that time, England was experiencing what is known as the Industrial Revolution. Factories were being built, and they ran by burning coal for fuel. The result was a dark smoke that covered the surrounding countryside. Trees that had been light and covered by lichens now were dark and bare. This clearly was having some impact on the moths. Scientists began to try to find out why.Genetic Changes
Some thought the adults were changing their colors the same way the larvae could match the color of the twigs. Others thought the chemicals in the smoke darkened the moths.Finally it was found that the color was genetic. Moths passed their color to the next generation. Eggs from light moths developed into light moths and dark moth eggs turned to dark adults. The dark color was caused by a mutation in the DNA of a single moth, and the mutated gene had been passed to all its offspring.
This explained why the moths were dark, but not why the dark moths were taking over. Did the dark moths have an advantage in the dark forests? If so, the change in the moths was a result of natural selection.
Natural Selection
Natural selection was proposed by Charles Darwin to explain how new species evolve. All types of living things have small differences between the individuals in the species. If one of those differences allows the individual to live longer, they will likely have more offspring. As that trait is passed on, the population starts to look more like the successful individual. Over time, the species changes.
In 1896, J. W. Tutt suggested that the peppered moths were an example of natural selection. He recognized that the camouflage of the light moth no longer worked in the dark forest. Dark moths live longer in a dark forest, so they had more time to breed.
All living things respond to natural selection. Over 100 other species of moth were observed to darken over time in polluted forests. Scientists call this effect industrial melanism. Natural selection is still at work in the peppered moth. In the last 50 years, most industrial countries have significantly reduced their pollution. As predicted by the theory, the number of dark moths are dropping as the forests become cleaner.
Natural selection in peppered moths has been extensively studied. To find out how, continue reading onto Dr. Kettlewell’ experiments.
Last edited:
That's not working out very well for you. Perhaps you should consider tweaking your approach to something that gets better results. A good starting place is to assume that people will understand the words according common usage and trying to conform to that. When you don't mean that everybody is equally fit, find other words to express what you DO mean. That's the trick to communicating.
Also, pretty hard to do if you don't know what the words mean to the writer. You've also said that experiment is the basis of science. Also, what you called a definition of metaphysics is not that. I've given you my definition, which I thought was quite clear. You had no questions for me, no disagreements, but unfortunately, also no reaction of any kind. I just tried searching RF to find that, but it appears that the Search function isn't working today.
Yet I'm not having any trouble there except with selected speakers and writers. You keep identifying problems that I can't relate to.
There you go again with "science." How does that differ from science without the scare quotes? The way Tower of Babel and tower of babel differ? Also, I can't relate to that comment either. The way I know it works is that I can access it.
Have you seen this?
"You stare into your high-definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter, which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that's processed by millions of precise circuits.
"This is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach your wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a supercomputer on a mass server.
"This sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say, "Science is all a bunch of manmade hogwash."- anon.
You probably should stop using that term. You're still not correct, and you should be able to see that. You know that every creature dies, including the fittest. Its fitness was manifest long before that when it generated copies of its alleles and added them to the population's gene pool and modifying their relative proportions.
That because the theory works, like the Internet.
This is also an incorrect understanding of natural selection. What are selected is genes, not individuals.
Once again, if it works, it's fine as is. You have more trouble there than I do. Unfortunately, you see that as a problem with language rather than a problem with using language effectively, and so look away from the actual communication defect despite having it pointed out to you.
That doesn't describe most communication, which involves a single copying. Everybody reading these words is reading the original, and their copy is second generation, not fourteenth, and so retains more fidelity.
Are you familiar with information theory? A Xerox of a Xerox of a Xerox will suffer more loss of information than a single copying. Solution: don't do it that way.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Yes, exactly. I say "I believe that language changed at an event we know only as 5the "Tower of Babel" and then most people including every single believer in science tells me they know for a fact that there was no Tower of Babel, language never changed, and that I'm an ignorant (and probably stupid) Biblical creationist. I have never said the "Tower of Babel" existed. I seriously doubt it did. It might have been the Meidum Pyramid or only God knows what. Unlike those ascribing meaning I never even said! "I don't know!". this isn't just an expression. It is the reality. Changing the one language of the entire planet and population was likely more a series of related events that was a little different everywhere it occurred. I don't know. I'm working with all the same evidence and experiment that everyone else is. I don't believe you are omniscient so why in the hell should I think I am. The main difference here is you have discounted and ignored vast swathes of facts and evidence as well as most experiment because most people can think in terms of only one equation, one experiment, and one fact at a time. I don't think this way!!! And I believe ALL the facts, ALL the evidence, and ALL of what is recorded in history and pre-history fits one single pattern.
Communicating the nature of this pattern is nearly impossible because we all speak different languages: remember the tower of babel, it still applies even when I don't use it in a sentence and people parse it to mean I'm an idiot rather than ancient people were not idiots. I can't read what I write for you. You must try to parse it as intended and try to address that and not what you mean when you say "metaphysics".
If I were saying Darwin was right about species changing slowly because the fit survive, nobody would have trouble understanding me. Nobody would ask why each generation isn't more naturally selectable than the last.
Bad Darwin. We were already on a 2000 year long detour and he set us on a 200 year detour from our detour. Meanwhile 40.000 years of human science lies just out of the reach of tourists because Egyptology is anti-science. The world is lost and spiraling down the tubes as we kill off the unfit and operate an economy that wastes virtually all human potential and more than 90% of the resources it consumes. Of course the only solution is to bulldoze more power plants and have more wars. It's all good because everything we destroy just gets more money going to the rich whom are most fit and most likely to breed a new generation even better than homo omnisciencis has ever been.
It's not a crazy world because people are crazy. Did I ever mention everyone makes sense (even Hamas). It's a crazy world because we have crazy premises like linear progress and the unfit die. Bad Darwin.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I've attacked this from many many angles.
Part of the problem is that Ancient Language and the ancient gods aren't really dead. Our entire world and everything we do have threads of ancient ideas and and confusions of those ideas running through. Everything. To make it worse a great deal of ancient science courses through Bible and language itself. Even our languages often resonate with Ancient Language because the vocabulary didn't change at the tower of babel and since most of AL was intended literally our words are often very close to what an ancient might say.
But this is pervasive in our many languages. Even humor is usually a play on words or concepts from Ancient Language. It just tickles the parts of the brain that would have processed the words if we thought like ancient people. Alchemy 9is just a confusion of ancient chemistry that was invented at Chemmis at the foot of the pyramids. Astrology is a confusion of ancient astronomy that was far more advanced than most can imagine.
Ancient Language speakers were revered for their knowledge and wisdom and power and were known as the "Nephilim" after the tower fell. People tried to interpret the ancient writing (1 Corinthians 14) and often had the help of AL speakers but still they couldn't understand the nature of metaphysical language. These interpretations that were signed off on by homo sapiens often contained admonitions not to change a single word because they were only true as exactly written. AL can't be translated but the writing still became the basis of all religions.
Ancient Language was static except to the degree there was human progress. Our languages splinter and morph continually. We don't even realize that it is complex language that sets us apart from all other individuals. We don't even realize that the impossibility of communicating in abstract language is still complete. Language is far better than after the tower fell but we are never talking about the same thing. Many groups think they are. Groups of people like doctors or car mechanics can certainly discourse.
I'm coming to believe there is no means to communicate with people if you don't accept their fundamental assumptions. I understand Darwin but those who accept him and his 19th century assumptions don't understand me. Bad Darwin.
You know that a world exists where you can count ten computers and one internet and get the same number everytime. It simply doesn't occur to people who live in such a nice orderly existence that every computer is unique, every electron is unique, and the internet changes in far less than a microsecond all the time. It would never occur to most people that the moon doesn't orbit the earth but a point between the center of the earth and moon, and it also orbits every particle in the universe that is moving relative to it.
There's no such thing as "infinity" but if there were reality would be infinitely more complex than infinity itself. People want orderly, they like survival of the fittest, they want to believe they know everything or know who to call and ask.
There is no such thing as linear progress. All progress is hard won and usually inches at a time. Then we all slide back. It's very rare that people like Imhotep, Newton, or Einstein come around and propel us any significant distance. But now it appears that we can't go any further on this road because we are on a detour and headed the wrong direction. We need to at the very least build a bridge back to the main route. When a patient says "doc, it hurts when I do this" a good doctor will tell him not to do it.