Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Your claims and conclusions are so nonsensical, they aren't worth commenting on. I am afraid that if read more I will actually lose IQ points.

 

[John53]

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

I parsed a bar today.

Was it painful?

 

[We Never Know]

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

Dang!!! That have you so wound up with the facts you are replying to yourself lol

 

[cladking]

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.

Mutations are a process "error". Disease is an evolutionary event which is detrimental to the sick and beneficial to the organisms that cause it. These things including accidents that don't heal properly are "disease and process errors" as I defined them. All "unfit" individuals are the result are the result of such errors. These errors do not define a species. By definition mutations are different. By definition disease and broken limbs are abnormalities. Species are defined by the numerous unique and fit individuals of which they are composed and these individuals are axiomatically equally fit. Even if this ids not taken axiomatically the reality is that each of these individuals could exist and thrive given the right environment. Who died and left biologists to determine who is fit and who is not. Who died and left Hitler to make this determination? Bad Darwin.

A frog born with five legs will not live long. Nature didn't intend any frog to have five legs. There is no natural environment where a frog with five legs will thrive. It doesn't change the simple fact that all frogs are equally fit. It just means mistakes have to be factored out of the definition for clarity and understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

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

Doro knows all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Was it painful?

It is now that I've read the ancient science parody.

 

[John53]

It is now that I've read the ancient science parody.

Should have tried parsing it in your fiat

 

[cladking]

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

A sky 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.

No. I didn't answer it because it is too complex just like real life. In real life the fox probably has no choice and there's only a single rabbit. He attempts to approach stealthily so the dumb rabbit would be in most danger. But the point at which the fox springs depends on his knowledge and experience. If the rabbit looks fast or alert he must spring earlier and count on his speed to win the day. If it's dumb or slow he can get closer to improve his odds. In any case he is weighing all his knowledge against the actual situation. If he's lucky he wins if he's unlucky the rabbit wins and vice versa. The fox is weighing dozens and dozens of factors. Of course a good rule of thumb is a smart fast fox has a better chance with a slow dumb rabbit.

So why aren't all rabbits and foxes fast and smart? It's simply because all individuals are equally fit. A slow dumb rabbit might be ultra-alert and always get a good enough headstart. A fast smart rabbit might need to eat so many rabbits he starves. Individual vary on thousands and thousands of parameters so no encounter can be predicted. Darwin's notion that the one being eaten was less fit is a circular argument. If you define "unfit" as those which don't reproduce you've done nothing to address the questions. Bad Darwin.

 

[cladking]

A slow dumb rabbit might be ultra-alert and always get a good enough headstart.

You know I have mentioned individuals can adapt to environments as well. take it from a guy who's smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket and doesn't even believe in intelligence who has always had to adapt everywhere he goes.

Even things like disease, lameness, and mutation can sometimes be overcome.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mutations are a process "error".

So what. Mutations are the primary source of novel variation in a genome. Their origin doesn't impede the environment from selecting them if they give a fitness advantage.

You hardly know anything about this stuff.

Disease is an evolutionary event which is detrimental to the sick and beneficial to the organisms that cause it.

Disease isn't an evolutionary event. It is a disorder to the body, physiology and biology of living organisms. People are sick from the disease. They aren't sick and catch disease. Sheesh! Seriously guy.

These things including accidents that don't heal properly are "disease and process errors" as I defined them.

No they aren't. You don't have the requisite knowledge to define things. Or the credibility.

All "unfit" individuals are the result are the result of such errors.

Good grief! No. Organisms with lower fitness can be generally healthy and don't have to be diseased, malformed or injured. It is not about physical vigor. An individual that can fight off disease is more fit than one that cannot. The most fit can be injured.

We're practically taking the test for you and you can't get it right.

These errors do not define a species.

Your argue against nothing anyone claimed. Congratulations. You've completely lost the plot.

By definition mutations are different.

You like to say "By definition" a lot, even when doesn't apply.

By definition disease and broken limbs are abnormalities.

So what.

By definition a car is a vehicle. I can be a Captain Obvious about it.

Species are defined by the numerous unique and fit individuals of which they are composed and these individuals are axiomatically equally fit.

No. Species are defined by shared characteristics.

Even if this ids not taken axiomatically the reality is that each of these individuals could exist and thrive given the right environment.

Yes. Fitness! Finally.

Who died and left biologists to determine who is fit and who is not.

The environment determines who is and isn't fit. Biologist just observe and experiment.

Who died and told you, you know what your talking about?

Who died and left Hitler to make this determination? Bad Darwin.

Nonsense unrelated to the theory. Bad thinking.

A frog born with five legs will not live long.

I've seen a pond full of them. They have much lower fitness than frogs with the standard number of limbs. You've almost got it, but will you?

Nature didn't intend any frog to have five legs.

I don't know what nature intends. It isn't a person. The fact is that macromutations like that do occur. They reduce fitness. I've seen a toad that had its eyes inside its mouth and could only see with its mouth open. Do you contend it has genes that make it equally fit to the average toad with its eyes where they belong? It wasn't.

There is no natural environment where a frog with five legs will thrive.

So what. No one is arguing that they will. The theory would explain that they don't, because they have lower fitness.

It doesn't change the simple fact that all frogs are equally fit.

No they are not. YOU HAVE NEVER DEMONSTRATED THIS. It's nonsense.

It just means mistakes have to be factored out of the definition for clarity and understanding.

Why would someone suggest doing something as ridiculous as that?

Nature doesn't play your word games.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You know I have mentioned individuals can adapt to environments as well. take it from a guy who's smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket and doesn't even believe in intelligence who has always had to adapt everywhere he goes.

Even things like disease, lameness, and mutation can sometimes be overcome.

I have learned not to take anything from you. The information is erroneous.

 

[cladking]

A slow dumb rabbit might be ultra-alert and always get a good enough headstart.

He mightta honed his sense of smell or familiarized himself with the haunts of all the foxes in the area. He might feed in areas that have very few foxes. He might stay in heavy brush or near impassable terrain. Even a dumb rabbit knows how to be a rabbit and thinks in four dimensions. Any rabbit not this smart is one of those process errors and irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Should have tried parsing it in your fiat

I should have stopped at the bar and tried parsing it drunk. It would still be nonsense, but it might seem funnier.

 

[John53]

He mightta honed his sense of smell or familiarized himself with the haunts of all the foxes in the area. He might feed in areas that have very few foxes. He might stay in heavy brush or near impassable terrain. Even a dumb rabbit knows how to be a rabbit and thinks in four dimensions. Any rabbit not this smart is one of those process errors and irrelevant to the discussion.

OMG! Are you starting to learn that fit doesn't mean physically fit?

 

[cladking]

People are sick from the disease. They aren't sick and catch disease.

It's a different subject but I wager we find the latter is far more true than you realize. It would explain why very few people ever get sick from more than one serious disease and why hospitals treat only one disease at a time.

Disease isn't an evolutionary event.

Of course it is. Not only does disease direct the course of evolution of the victim but the disease as well. A bug that usually kills its victim will die as well without infecting others. The most Darwinian fit individual can die of the flu at 25. Or he can get hit by a bus with a mild cold when he pauses to blow his nose.

Reality is complicated and Darwin can't simplify the way he did. Bad Darwin.

No. Species are defined by shared characteristics.

Remarkable.

Now species don't even need any individuals. Life, all life, has been abstracted and reduced completely out of existence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I should have stopped at the bar and tried parsing it drunk. It would still be nonsense, but it might seem funnier.

Clearly creationists don't understand fitness or natural selection. Fitness is not superpowers or magic.

 

[McBell]

Clearly creationists don't understand fitness or natural selection. Fitness is not superpowers or magic.

It stands to reason that they think it does.
I mean, their whole "argument" is merely the invocation of God Magic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OMG! Are you starting to learn that fit doesn't mean physically fit?

It could be a aberration. You wait in the blind and I'll go out and see if it repeats. Be quite you know how easy creationists startle.

 

[John53]

I should have stopped at the bar and tried parsing it drunk. It would still be nonsense, but it might seem funnier.

Would there be enough alcohol in one bar?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's a different subject

It's your error, but you never show the ability to admit them.

but I wager we find the latter is far more true than you realize.

What is far more true? Fitness. Why sure it is. We've been telling you. You haven't listened. You can't parse accurate information apparently.

It would explain why very few people ever get sick from more than one serious disease and why hospitals treat only one disease at a time.

People get sick from lots of things. Just less so than before modern hygiene, steady availability of food, science and medical science. Looking at a problem in a vacuum outside the bigger picture doesn't seem to work for you.

Of course it is.

No it is not. It might be historical if were talking about diseases that occurred in the past, but it isn't an evolutionary event. I could be involved in one. But is not the same thing. You're just having trouble parsing valid facts.

Not only does disease direct the course of evolution of the victim but the disease as well.

That does't make it an evolutionary event. It makes it part of one. Again, I see where you are going wrong and having difficulty parsing these words.

A bug that usually kills its victim will die as well without infecting others.

So what.

The most Darwinian fit individual can die of the flu at 25.

I have no idea what the most Darwinian fit individual means. You aren't using the words properly because your premises are wrong I'm sure.

Or he can get hit by a bus with a mild cold when he pauses to blow his nose.

That would mean he was unlucky and not say anything about his fitness. Is the parsing feature of this forum not on? You aren't parsing my words right. You may want to get that checked out.

Reality is complicated and Darwin can't simplify the way he did.

It is, but that doesn't prevent us from learning. Maybe you, but most of us don't have to imagine our facts into existence.

Bad Darwin.

More nonsensical trash talk

Remarkable.

I've described species. Have you? No. You aren't parsing correctly.

Now species don't even need any individuals.

Sigh! You're not making sense again. Perhaps it is more of your issue with parsing the words of science. Have you tried Siri to find out?

Life, all life, has been abstracted and reduced completely out of existence.

Nonsense that probably doesn't even mean anything to you. Who can tell?