Irony of the evolutionary belief

[shunyadragon]

You've merely proven my point. You can't see post 832 because it doesn't fit your belief. You can't respond to it because you can't accept my premises , like that reality and people always make sense.

Your premise is the assumption that the sciences of evolution are false based on an ancient religious agenda without science, Yes, your premises are unacceptable.

Conclusion, no coherent response.

 

[cladking]

I could give you some pointers here, but you haven't been interested in the past, so I've stopped doing that.

It's not lack of interest. Some are impossible for me and most of the remainder probably aren't applicable or have already been tried.

I've spent a lifetime trying to change peoples' minds so I know exactly what is involved. I know it's virtually impossible and it can only happen one on one. People don't just adopt their beliefs they become them. They are inseparable. It wouldn't be so hard if people realized they are doing it but they don't. They absorb beliefs that are comfortable and have a nice snug fit. They are so fundamental to us we don't even know we're doing it and we're living a moment out of time; out of phase with reality, that I call sleepwalking.

 

[cladking]

Your premise is the assumption that the sciences of evolution are false based on an ancient religious agenda without science, Yes, your premises are unacceptable,

This is false.

I have studied but not believed in evolution for nearly 70 years. I didn't know the Bible was full of truth until quite recently.

Bad Darwin.

 

[gnostic]

Natural Selection is confined to biology, @cladking.

Natural Selection have nothing to do with human cultures, languages, politics and wars. You are like a child, jumbling everything into a mess of your own making, and not making sense.

Why do you insist on mixing everything up, and then blaming Darwin?

Darwin was never involved in politic, nor strategy in wars, and yet you blame Darwin.

 

[cladking]

Yes, your premises are unacceptable.

No. No premises can ever be "unacceptable" or we'll be digging mass graves again. Some premises are merely wrong. Bad Darwin.

 

[cladking]

Does anyone keep up with research any longer?

Maybe people are too fixated on the specialties. It's a huge world out there with important experiments in thousands of subjects.

Try google alerts or something. I used to use this but people tell me what I need to know now days.

 

[shunyadragon]

Does anyone keep up with research any longer?

Maybe people are too fixated on the specialties. It's a huge world out there with important experiments in thousands of subjects.

Try google alerts or something. I used to use this but people tell me what I need to know now days.

Get a decent education in the science related to evolution.

Research is constantly in progress in all the universities of the world.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. No premises can ever be "unacceptable" or we'll be digging mass graves again. Some premises are merely wrong. Bad Darwin.

Your premise is the assumption that the sciences of evolution are false, ie Bad Darwin, based on an ancient religious agenda without science, Yes, your premises are unacceptable.

Yes, some premises are merely wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your premise is the assumption that the sciences of evolution are false, ie Bad Darwin, based on an ancient religious agenda without science, Yes, your premises are unacceptable.

Yes, some premises are merely wrong.

And some are so radically wrong they look parody.

 

[cladking]

Get a decent education in the science related to evolution.

Did you miss all those times I said that every experiment ever performed applies to every single event, process, and observation. It's just like every single thing in reality affects every other single thing but it only applies to human concerns and human knowledge.

Why don't people realize this? Why is metaphysics no longer taught in schools. I got it starting in first grade but by then I already knew all about things like parallax. I don't think they even teach metaphysics in colleges any longer. I know I didn't get much.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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".

This is farcical nonsense. I read stuff like this before, but it was parody.

Is there a category of science called dumpster science? Maybe their should be

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Response to disease varies and impacts fitness. The discussion is about fitness or at least that of the person you are responding. I don't know what you are talking about and I read and understood everything. You can't use your get out of reasoning free card to save yourself.

 

[cladking]

I don't think they even teach metaphysics in colleges any longer

It seems like you can't even tell a lot of people what it means!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

This is just more unsupported claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Back to the ignore pile for you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems like you can't even tell a lot of people what it means!!!

I wouldn't turn to you for advice, science or philosophy if my life depended on it. If I used your answers on a test the faculty and any reasonable person would lock me up.

 

[John53]

This is farcical nonsense. I read stuff like this before, but it was parody.

Is there a category of science called dumpster science? Maybe their should be

All = all of them except those that contradict what I'm saying.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory of evolution and natural selection do not state, allude or demonstrate that each generation will be more fit than the preceding generations. It is survival of the "fittest" and not survival of the progressively fitter. Fit for the environment they are born into.

Speciation doesn't occur at or near population bottlenecks. It isn't that no one has shown this, it is that it is a nonsense claim.

The assumption Darwin based the theory on are sound.

Darwin was right.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All = all of them except those that contradict what I'm saying.

My all is all there is except there's more.

I parsed a bar today.

 

[We Never Know]

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.

'Using your four rabbits..a fast one, a smart one, a dumb one and a slow one.

A sly fox is hungry and rabbit is on its menu, which of those rabbits are more likely to become dinner for the fox?'

Its obvious why you won't answer this. Its because you know it shows environmental fitness is an advandage.