Irony of the evolutionary belief

[cladking]

There most assuredly is a constant improvement going on in species but the definition of "improvement" is continually changing randomly so speciation rarely or never happens by this process. Bad Darwin.

Anyone who can understand this sentence can understand why Darwin is wrong.

Species actually change when unusual genes are selected (almost always at bottlenecks) or through other obvious mechanisms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know how many times I've said it, there's no such thing as survival of the fittest because all individuals are equally fit.

After 70 years of supposed study, you should know better by now.

The only way that all individuals could be "equally fit" would be that all individuals are perfect clones of eachother and all living identical lives in identical habitats.
You have no clue. It's only more evidence you have no knowledge of what "fit" means.

If you don't agree with this then show an experiment that demonstrates it.

Gazelle A runs slightly faster then Gazelle B.

Done.

 

[cladking]

We are talking about evolutionary biology.

All experiment. All knowledge. All of reality affects everything else. You can't ignore what is known about brains and individuality when you study "evolutionary biology". Nothing exists in a vacuum and if did it would still be affected by everything in the universe.

Reality encompasses everything and human questions are affected by everything.

You gave the impression that you think nature has intentions.
I was just pointing out that it doesn't.

So??? I'm trying to communicate.

I don't believe in physical law which is your handy dandy way of saying the same thing. You think nature or God is forced to do some things by laws invented or discovered by man. This is magical hogwash. Everything affects everything else all the time and it all happens logically. There are no laws and no clockwork. Everything changes because there are no laws even to hold planets in their orbits. Our big picture is all wrong: In part because we believe nonsense like survival of the fittest and laws of nature. Nature does what it wants, what its component logic, directs and then it does something else because prediction is impossible in a chaotic universe even if we knew everything and God knows we know almost nothing at all. We can't even figure out how homo sapiens invented agriculture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are pathetic. We have a great tool and people don't even understand how it works, wield it wrong, and allow themselves to believe it has showed us how everything works. We kill one another and waste vast resources to benefit the few.

 

[cladking]

Gazelle A runs slightly faster then Gazelle B.

My God we've been through this a million times. If this were true then every generation would be faster than the preceding. Life is far more complex than this and its interactions are a million times more complex yet. I'd wager no experiment has even been performed on this. rather somebody just and sees what happens.

It is impossible to reduce consciousness to experiment. Is is exceedingly difficult to reduce natural interactions to experiment. It is impossible to reduce million of individuals to a "species". Every individual is different. No experiment has ever showed speciation in a significant species. No evidence exists that shows gradual speciation through survival of the fittest or by any means at all other than what occurs at artificial bottlenecks. There is no tangible support for Darwin.

You are merely gainsaying what I say. unless you address it I probably won't respond. I make points and can back themn up and what I get back is Darwin was right and you are wrong". Once in a while someone will provide some irrelevant observations about peppered moths, whales, or e coli. These irrelevancies often support my theory better than Darwin but you wouldn't know because I don't think you even read what I write. If you studied Darwin's beliefs with the same enthusiasm you look at what I write you'd probably believe in spontaneous generation.

Bad Darwin.

 

[cladking]

Anyone who can understand this sentence can understand why Darwin is wrong.

I doubt anyone will even read the sentence much less try to parse it as intended!



All observed change in life at all times and at all levels and types occurs suddenly. All of it. Darwin merely imagined there was a gradual change because he glanced at the fossil record. He invented a great mechanism for change and wanted to apply to something. Then he simply ignored things like selective breeding which is the introduction of artificial bottlenecks. He ignored other species that affect their environments by changing them or using agriculture.



These sentences can be an addendum to the first and shows how Darwin was wrong. Bad Darwin.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

Nature decides which genes dominate in a populations gene pool. It's always been that way.

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

No, bad Hitler, and bad Cladking for attributing Hitler's moral failings to Darwin's biology.

A frog born with five legs will not live long.

It'll probably live longer than one with no legs. Fitness is a relative term. Remember, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

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

Nature intends nothing.

Give that man a cigar!!! It's exactly what I just said and the first thing you got right!

That was a reaction to, "Nature didn't intend anything. Nature doesn't have any intentions." He contradicted you, like I did.

Darwin's notion that the one being eaten was less fit is a circular argument

The circle I see is the one you are running in chasing your tail. You're back to where you were the last time you made these now-rebutted claims. [1] Darwin didn't use the term fit, and [2] a definition is not an argument. It's not a claim of fact. It's just saying that when I use a certain word, I mean the following. These are called the definiendem and the definiens respectively. When I define a moon as a natural object orbiting planet, I'm not making an argument or even a claim of fact.

Definiendum - something that is or is to be defined, especially the term at the head of a dictionary entry.

What you see before you is an example of each in the standard form of definiendum - definiens.

I have mentioned individuals can adapt to environments as well.

Yes, but there are many kinds of adaptation, and none of them biological evolution except the kind that involves genetics and occurs across generations. Adaptations in an organism within its lifetime are something else. If I sit out in the sun, I tan. That's biological, and it's a form of evolution and adaptation, but not the kind Darwin wrote about. Eating when hungry is also causes a biological change such as hormones fluctuate, peristalsis occurs, and digestive juices flow, but nothing to do with the evolution of biological populations across generations. Also, putting a sweater on when cold is adaptation.

take it from a guy who's smarter than the average pic-i-nic basket

Not the best time to mix metaphors, but this one I could parse. I actually knew what you meant: "Besides often speaking in rhyme, Yogi Bear had a number of catchphrases, including his famous chant of excitement and greeting ("Hey, Hey, Hey"), his pet name for picnic baskets ("pic-a-nic baskets"), and his favorite self-promotion ("I'm smarter than the av-er-age bear!"), although he often overestimates his own cleverness."

I'm Don Quixote trying to save mankind from beliefs.

Another unfortunate cultural reference.

Increases in Efficiency are less than free.

Efficiency frees resources.

I have never studied any subject at all by reading other peoples opinions.

My knowledge of medicine and of contract bridge is almost exclusively other people's opinions that have become mine through study first and experience second.

We have a great tool and people don't even understand how it works

Are we still talking learning?

We kill one another and waste vast resources to benefit the few.

I'll bet you don't. I don't. But I'll also bet that you blame it on Darwin and his theory that some do. Bad Darwin!

 

[cladking]

Darwin didn't use the term fit,

He said "survival of the fittest" is an apt term. I found it in his own words and posted it and then IN THIS VERY THREAD I found it and posted it Both times with links. to his own words. You find it.

a definition is not an argument.

Definitions define the terms in which we think,. If we imagine only fit rabbits escape predation and then define this as "rabbits that escape predation" then we have a definition resulting from a circular argument. If all rabbits are equally fit then the definition has no meaning. It is a word without a referent like "unicorn". One can draw a unicorn just as one can create models and beliefs around "survival of the fittest" but there still exist no unicorns and no such thing as "fitness". It is an abstraction and is illogical.

Refute dis!

All I'll get is Drawin was right and you are wrong. No facts and no logic refute my position. OF COURSE, like every single theory there are some anomalies. There will always and necessarily be anomalies because no theory has a perfect fit to reality. Our knowledge will always be incomplete. Reality can not be described mathematically because reality is chaotic and digital and math is harmonic and analog. Reality is far too complex to just use Look and See Science. What you believe can never be reality and what you see is only what you believe. We are superstitious bumpkins and our chief superstition is that we each believe we know everything. Homo omnisciencis.

We each believe we see the nature of reality and the big picture and we ascribe ignorance, stupidity, unfitness, and pig headedness to those who disagree. And then science changes one funeral at a time.

We need to make changes now before there is a funeral for everybody.

 

[cladking]

Yes, but there are many kinds of adaptation, and none of them biological evolution except the kind that involves genetics and occurs across generations.

You kindda missed my point.

Individuals have varying ability to adapt to niches. The ability to adapt is itself a survival characteristic.

although he often overestimates his own cleverness

Indeed. But he can usually outsmart Mr Ranger Sir".

 

[cladking]

Efficiency frees resources.

Yes!!!

Humanity stumbles along at less than 5% efficiency while using a small part of its brain to think.

Animals operate at much higher efficiency. If a means exist to make a leg more efficient then nature will find it. If nature can find a means to assure the survival of single individual... ...well... ...then every single living thing would be conscious.

However when life arose nothing was alive until consciousness existed.

 

[YoursTrue]

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".

Along with that, I was again thinking that only man has the capability of fixing broken bones.

 

[cladking]

However when life arose nothing was alive until consciousness existed.

And here is another thing where the Bible is closer to being right than Darwin.

It was axiomatic to ancient science that life and consciousness were the same thing. Even a rabbit knows this.

 

[YoursTrue]

You kindda missed my point.

Individuals have varying ability to adapt to niches. The ability to adapt is itself a survival characteristic.



Indeed. But he can usually outsmart Mr Ranger Sir".

I don't think they're going to see your point. They will keep fighting until there is no more. (shrug.) Matthew 24:14 - the good news will be preached and then the end...
They won't admit what's there or not there. Once they admit what is there their thinking is at a stop gap except for imagination, but they won't admit it when there is a wall and nowhere to go beyond.

 

[cladking]

Along with that, I was again thinking that only man has the capability of fixing broken bones.

Probably but the reason is more complex than at first glance. We have complex language with which we passed down knowledge about anatomy for 40,000 years. A bird doesn't even know a bone can heal and wouldn't understand the nature of bones or the length of time required to heal. And then it must stay still or splint it to prevent continual rebreaks. It must be nursed and this is improbable.

There is a skeleton of some poor guy in the Smithsonian from very very far back that has a severely broken leg that healed improperly and kept rebreaking. But this individual almost certainly had people tending to him for long periods. He shouldda found a good doctor to start with. By the time the great pyramids were built even the worst fractures were properly set and healed. They even saved a few individuals with brain surgery.

 

[cladking]

I don't think they're going to see your point. They will keep fighting until there is no more. (shrug.) Matthew 24:14 - the good news will be preached and then the end...
They won't admit what's there or not there. Once they admit what is there their thinking is at a stop gap except for imagination, but they won't admit it when there is a wall and nowhere to go beyond.

We're all this way. I've built my entire existence on the belief that reality exists as we perceive it and all people make sense all the time. If there were new experiment or evidence that contradicts these beliefs or their corollaries I probably couldn't see it. I would probably consider it some strange irrelevancy just like Egyptologists consider all the physical evidence as some strange happenstance unrelated to the nature of the pyramids or their construction. Most of the physical evidence they can see they believe results from ancient magic and superstition.

Our very nature (homo circularis rationatio) prevents us from seeing reality.

 

[cladking]

They won't admit what's there or not there. Once they admit what is there their thinking is at a stop gap except for imagination, but they won't admit it when there is a wall and nowhere to go beyond.

As long as we can accept AND embrace our ignorance I believe we can go forward with science. In very real ways we are at the same impasse that stopped ancient science culminating in the tower of babel. We have reached a point that the human mind can't grasp enough of the complexity to move forward. but if we accept and embrace this simple fact there are several possible workarounds.

The problem is specialization and it is this marching us toward Tower of Babel 2.0

We can't get rid of specialization because most of our knowledge exists only in disparate places, fields. But we can certainly train generalists and/ or nexialists. We can certainly apply 1920's technology to the great pyramids and publish the results. We can certainly come to understand the nature of consciousness and change in species without massive overhauls in the way most people think.

Just as religion ever more closely reflects science, the way people think will come ever closer to reflecting reality as we learn more about it.

The status quo and dogma have always been the bane of homo omnisciencis progress. People aren't merely comfortable with their beliefs but they ARE their beliefs.

 

[cladking]

My knowledge of medicine and of contract bridge is almost exclusively other people's opinions that have become mine through study first and experience second.

I know. I also know this applies to most people. Of course in most real ways it applies to me as well since I had to learn language before I got so contrary. While almost everything I know I learned myself I still was aware of experiment and often used other peoples' knowledge to guide my research. Other peoples' insights, ancient wisdom, and even techniques of thinking were appropriated by me. I don't play most games such as bridge the same way other people do; I'm exceedingly aggressive. I might be the only unrated chess player to have beaten three different chess masters even though one of them required 57 attempts. In pool or snooker I never leave the other guy an easy shot. I beat the champion snooker player six games out of seven. I can't play professionally because aggressiveness under pressure is tough.

I always maneuvered to fall through the cracks. I'm not only in a highly unenviable position here but in every other aspect of my life except with children. This is no complaint because it is exactly what I set out for even if I didn't fully understand it when I charted the course as a very young child. While unenviable I enjoy most of it. I enjoy my experiments and all the research. While nothing worked out as I planned it still worked out.

"Experience" is how I do things. It is thought and deduction that leads to what I know,

Are we still talking learning?

Of course but then I'm learning something different. Just as I did when i was very little I only cram things into my models that make a clean fit. Even though I explained quantum mechanics to a baby once there's no clean fit any longer so I seriously doubt it's possible for me to learn it or even understand the current formatting of it. I'll tear down or rebuild models to fit what I know but I'll no longer do it to fit something to learn. Some things are a young person's realm. This old dog can learn new tricks providing the old bones of my models can withstand the exercise.

I'll bet you don't. I don't. But I'll also bet that you blame it on Darwin and his theory that some do.

I accidently caught an ad on TV last night (gotta watch where you sit), that said God wanted me to send money to some charity so a hungry person could eat. Of course more than 99% of every dollar donated goes to the fat cats who run the charity and the fat cats on Madison Avenue that allow no blacks in their club but puts them on every ad. Fat cats are always hungry and now days they cheat, lie, and steal almost every dollar they have.

The world has gone mad and nobody even cares. Education has failed so if we can survive it will take generations to undo the damage.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

He said "survival of the fittest" is an apt term. I found it in his own words and posted it and then IN THIS VERY THREAD I found it and posted it Both times with links. to his own words. You find it.

Why would I go looking for a post of yours? If you want it read, link to it. If you don't care enough to do that, we can leave it as an unsupported claim. It's irrelevant to me whether Darwin adopted the term at some point. What I've been interested in is what YOU mean when you use the term.

Refute dis! All I'll get is Drawin was right and you are wrong.

You've already gotten more than that.

No facts and no logic refute my position.

Your position isn't clear enough to be refuted. You'd need to make statements with clear meanings that can be shown to be correct or incorrect.

You kindda missed my point. Individuals have varying ability to adapt to niches. The ability to adapt is itself a survival characteristic.

That point is also irrelevant to a discussion of Darwin's theory.

And I'd say that you missed my point. Notice that I addressed your comment, disambiguating the various meanings of adaptation, but you failed to return the favor. Only you know why you do that, but you're far from alone. It's a common problem on these threads:

I don't think they're going to see your point.

I'll bet that you can't paraphrase his point accurately. Prove me wrong if I am. Get help from a friend if you like.

in most real ways it applies to me as well

You: "I have never studied any subject at all by reading other peoples opinions"
Me: "My knowledge of medicine and of contract bridge is almost exclusively other people's opinions that have become mine through study first and experience second."
You: "in most real ways it applies to me as well"

You can't see the problem with that? You seem to be contradicting yourself if one takes the words at face value. I can't tell what you actually believe here.

I accidently caught an ad on TV last night (gotta watch where you sit), that said God wanted me to send money to some charity so a hungry person could eat.

Let God send the money.

My rule is to never send money to remote charities or strangers. I recommend spending your charitable dollars directly. Buy somebody's groceries or pay their electric bill.

The world has gone mad and nobody even cares.

I don't care much about the world any more except about my little part of it, which is quite pleasant and peaceful. That's a young man's job. At this stage of life, I have chosen to withdraw from the greater world. I prefer a small, simple, humble existence. It's not an exaggeration to say that I haven't been ten miles from home since December 2021 when we flew to Tijuana and then walked into San Diego County for an mRNA vaccine then still unavailable where we live.

My biggest problems now are that we are experiencing exceptional growth that is straining our infrastructure. Traffic and parking were never problems before a few years ago. But the weather and prices are still good, the community is still beautiful, colorful, and friendly, home life is happy, and our friends are all decent people. It probably doesn't surprise you to know that MAGA don't want to live among Mexicans and stay put up north. My wife's family are conservative Christian Trumpers, who have never visited us. They're afraid.

Amusing anecdote: My wife's sister-in-law asked us why we moved to live with the illegals. That's her word for Mexicans. I had to inform her that Mexicans are still legal in Mexico, and that the only illegal I knew was my next-door neighbor Arlene, who had let her visa lapse. Also, when we went to the States to get that vaccine, her brother drove down from Orange County (CA) to have lunch with us, but missed the last exit where we were just north of the border and ended up going into Mexico and having to turn around. That same wife was horrified that he was bringing infection home from Mexico despite being there for ten minutes and never getting out of his car. These are the kinds of people we never deal with any more living in Mexico for obvious reasons. It's mostly other liberal humanists, and all of our social contacts fit that description. Win-win.

But back to the world going mad, I don't see it that way. Still, I don't want to be more of a part of it than I am now. Like I said, I leave that to younger people. I had my taste of the world - it's universities and airports, its department stores and amusement parks, its concerts and tourist destinations - and it was terrific, but I have all I need now here.

 

[cladking]

Why would I go looking for a post of yours? If you want it read, link to it. If you don't care enough to do that, we can leave it as an unsupported claim. It's irrelevant to me whether Darwin adopted the term at some point. What I've been interested in is what YOU mean when you use the term.

No matter how many times I post it you won't see it.

This is mere semantics anyway since the terms have the same meaning. Darwin believed in survival of the fittest and so do people today; they merely use other words.

You can't see the problem with that? You seem to be contradicting yourself if one takes the words at face value. I can't tell what you actually believe here.

Both statements are literally true. Reality doesn't exist from a single perspective nor do any words have a single meaning. Have you ever heard the expression "no man is an island". It is not only literally true but it means that but it means that no man can exist independently economically, emotionally, and intellectually from the rest of the species. It's hard for me to understand why anyone would have trouble parsing my words. I have to assume every reader speaks the language and is trying to take my meaning.

I am not an island. But still I arrive at all of my very own conclusions. I am aware, knowledgeable of, expert opinion for which I have no opinion. But I don't accept accept it. I don't memorize to learn anything. I never did. I absorb it. If it doesn't taste good I reject it but keep it under advisement until it tastes better or can be shown to be false.

My rule is to never send money to remote charities or strangers. I recommend spending your charitable dollars directly. Buy somebody's groceries or pay their electric bill.

I try to do the same. I get few opportunities and feel guilty about giving so little.

don't care much about the world any more except about my little part of it, which is quite pleasant and peaceful. That's a young man's job. At this stage of life, I have chosen to withdraw from the greater world. I prefer a small, simple, humble existence. It's not an exaggeration to say that I haven't been ten miles from home since December 2021 when we flew to Tijuana and then walked into San Diego County for an mRNA vaccine then still unavailable where we live.

My biggest problems now are that we are experiencing exceptional growth that is straining our infrastructure. Traffic and parking were never problems before a few years ago. But the weather and prices are still good, the community is still beautiful, colorful, and friendly, home life is happy, and our friends are all decent people. It probably doesn't surprise you to know that MAGA don't want to live among Mexicans and stay put up north. My wife's family are conservative Christian Trumpers, who have never visited us. They're afraid.

Amusing anecdote: My wife's sister-in-law asked us why we moved to live with the illegals. That's her word for Mexicans. I had to inform her that Mexicans are still legal in Mexico, and that the only illegal I knew was my next-door neighbor Arlene, who had let her visa lapse. Also, when we went to the States to get that vaccine, her brother drove down from Orange County (CA) to have lunch with us, but missed the last exit where we were just north of the border and ended up going into Mexico and having to turn around. That same wife was horrified that he was bringing infection home from Mexico despite being there for ten minutes and never getting out of his car. These are the kinds of people we never deal with any more living in Mexico for obvious reasons. It's mostly other liberal humanists, and all of our social contacts fit that description. Win-win.

But back to the world going mad, I don't see it that way. Still, I don't want to be more of a part of it than I am now. Like I said, I leave that to younger people. I had my taste of the world - it's universities and airports, its department stores and amusement parks, its concerts and tourist destinations - and it was terrific, but I have all I need now here.

Don't get me started on this idiocy that governs our immigration policy and the evil that makes many good citizens "illegal". Of course part of the idiocy is not requiring all citizens to officially become citizens after 7 years. That means taking the test and the oath in English. It is evil because "illegals" are economic (ACTUAL) slaves who do most of the physical work and dangerous jobs in this country as millions of able bodied people don't work at all. We owe these people a great debt and instead Congress uses them as pawns and continually threaten them with deportation. Just like they play politics with storms, warming, and everything else. They are only playing because this is a one party system that caters to only the very wealthy. The wealthy want millions and millions of slaves to abuse do the government does their bidding. Part of theb reason they gew6t away with this is bigotry but mostly people are afraid because the government imports almost as much humans as they do every manufactured good. The country is turning into a Mexican state even more quickly than the government is making it a banana republic.

I wish I had had more of the world when I was young but I had a job that afforded very little time off and long hours.

I'm in NW Indiana which is fast growing because Illinois is imploding with rapidly rising taxes and an exodus of people and companies. Our roads are becoming overwhelmed because it takes 10 years to teach an Illinois driver how to go. They stop at stop signs and wait for them to turn greens and won't go at greenlights until the car in front of them is out of sight. I remember I used to drive through the cornfields of northern Illinois and they could back traffic up for miles at a four way stop because they got only five cars a minute through it. We used to hit as many as fifteen a minute and average about 11. We used to have as many as three cars in an intersection at once but if you have two Illinois drivers on the same highway it's time to call a wrecker.

It's still a nice area here but I avoid even the backroads at rush hour. What used to be a ten minute trip might be 20 now at rushhour.

Many communities (like Schererville) around here contribute to the problem by timing all their lights to be red when you get there. I'm just changing where I do my shopping and adjusting my routes. The highway departments have a strange sense of humor here and people fly into voids where once there was a bridge. Don't even try to go anywhere when it's snowing or still windy because the snowplows don't go out in bad weather! Taxes here used to be quite reasonable but they are up about four fold in the last five years. It's still cheaper than a lot of places.

 

[YoursTrue]

Probably but the reason is more complex than at first glance. We have complex language with which we passed down knowledge about anatomy for 40,000 years. A bird doesn't even know a bone can heal and wouldn't understand the nature of bones or the length of time required to heal. And then it must stay still or splint it to prevent continual rebreaks. It must be nursed and this is improbable.

There is a skeleton of some poor guy in the Smithsonian from very very far back that has a severely broken leg that healed improperly and kept rebreaking. But this individual almost certainly had people tending to him for long periods. He shouldda found a good doctor to start with. By the time the great pyramids were built even the worst fractures were properly set and healed. They even saved a few individuals with brain surgery.

I am sure it took time for men to figure out how to fix a broken bone. but gorillas and birds, for example, although having been

 

[YoursTrue]

We're all this way. I've built my entire existence on the belief that reality exists as we perceive it and all people make sense all the time. If there were new experiment or evidence that contradicts these beliefs or their corollaries I probably couldn't see it. I would probably consider it some strange irrelevancy just like Egyptologists consider all the physical evidence as some strange happenstance unrelated to the nature of the pyramids or their construction. Most of the physical evidence they can see they believe results from ancient magic and superstition.

Our very nature (homo circularis rationatio) prevents us from seeing reality.

Perhaps to a person who is on drugs and goes crazy he makes sense to himself.