Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

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.

In reference to specialization, a person can have a specialty in the medical field, yet make different decisions than another doctor, and one doctor having gone to medical school can make mistakes or be more or less competent than another doctor in the same field.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Ridiculous. Not a scrap of data to support this wild claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

That's an unfortunate choice. Don't know much about classical literature either I see.

Until people recognize they are their beliefs I can't even dissect those beliefs.

Unintelligible.

I don't believe that the course set by homo omnisciencis leads anywhere but extinction.

Since it is a made up fictional construct, it isn't going anywhere.

Truth to tell I'm beginning to suspect almost everyone would rather die than give up any of his beliefs. It's really children who are the ones that deserve a future. Most of my future is behind me. There are at least four possibilities for extinction and none bear any similarities to the "horsemen". We are essentially going to believe ourselves out of existence because we won't awaken until it's much too late, if ever.

Wow! Anything soluble you'd like to discuss or is it more misplaced fear rhetoric.

We owe it to children to teach them how to be critical thinkers and literate in art, literature, history, math and science. That doesn't include made up taxa, mythical 40,000 year old anything and pretty much 99% of what you claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's an unfortunate choice. Don't know much about classical literature either I see.

I (think I) understood the implication, sorry you did not.

 

[cladking]

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

There are crazy people on drugs and otherwise who don't make sense. They are far more rare than most people think. Most "crazy" people are only individuals who have been pushed past their breaking point and make perfect sense and simply can't handle the reality in which they find themselves. Truly crazy people often are rational in a few areas but not necessarily. I suspect these people simply have problems in the brain.

People can get drug addled. You can spot these because they usually have symptoms consistent with concussion.

Just about everything makes perfect sense and if you think it doesn't then there's probably a problem with your models.

In reference to specialization, a person can have a specialty in the medical field, yet make different decisions than another doctor, and one doctor having gone to medical school can make mistakes or be more or less competent than another doctor in the same field.

Specialization is rarely conducive to seeing the big picture. The closer you look at a single part of a painting the less you can see the portrait. Of course the sharpest among us are often those who are trained in complex specialties so it's wise not to underestimate any of their abilities.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ridiculous. Not a scrap of data to support this wild claim.

There's nothing much to support the claim of "natural selection," and "survival of the fittest" as the binding primary power of the theory of evolution. Please do not think that means I agree with everything those who do not go along with the theory say.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are crazy people on drugs and otherwise who don't make sense. They are far more rare than most people think. Most "crazy" people are only individuals who have been pushed past their breaking point and make perfect sense and simply can't handle the reality in which they find themselves. Truly crazy people often are rational in a few areas but not necessarily. I suspect these people simply have problems in the brain.

People can get drug addled. You can spot these because they usually have symptoms consistent with concussion.

Just about everything makes perfect sense and if you think it doesn't then there's probably a problem with your models.



Specialization is rarely conducive to seeing the big picture. The closer you look at a single part of a painting the less you can see the portrait. Of course the sharpest among us are often those who are trained in complex specialties so it's wise not to underestimate any of their abilities.

I agree that in a mad person's head (such as those who punch people at random on the street) he may have a 'reason' to do it.

 

[cladking]

We owe it to children to teach them how to be critical thinkers and literate in art, literature, history, math and science. That doesn't include made up taxa, mythical 40,000 year old anything and pretty much 99% of what you claim.

You don't think we owe it to them to perform experiment in Evolution or to test Darwin's assumptions?! We don't owe it to them to apply modern science to solving questions like how the pyramids were built or why it is apparent there was a single worldwide language?

We didn't invent science so a few Peers could live comfortably and get grant money for studying only what they are told. We invented science to understand our world and make predictions. Instead any "science" without commercial, military, or political applications isn't even performed any longer. I wager science could figure out why the schools failed pretty quickly and there might be nothing more important.

 

[cladking]

I agree that in a mad person's head (such as those who punch people at random on the street) he may have a 'reason' to do it.

They probably just want to get beaten up so they know they're alive. You've got to be in pretty sorry shape to act this way.

A society that let's them roam free is in far sorrier shape.

 

[cladking]

This is a sick society that locks up cop killers for a shorter time than the guy who sold him the gun. Every year it gets sicker and sicker.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't think we owe it to them to perform experiment in Evolution or to test Darwin's assumptions?!

Why, they were sound assumptions. I recall someone here saying they were wrong, but that person can't even list them, let alone show them to be wrong. Of course, they only see what they believe and have a difficult time parsing valid information.

We don't owe it to them to apply modern science to solving questions like how the pyramids were built

Modern science is being used to do just that.

or why it is apparent there was a single worldwide language?

It isn't apparent and there is no evidence there was a single, worldwide language and it would be a disservice to try and tell them unsupported stories.

We didn't invent science so a few Peers

There is again. The Peers conspiracy. Around but never found.

could live comfortably and get grant money for studying only what they are told.

And you know this for no reason you can explain.

We invented science to understand our world and make predictions.

And yet some people just make claims that have no substance, like 40,000 year old science, butterfly languages or fish-farming beavers.

Instead any "science" without commercial, military, or political applications isn't even performed any longer.

Lots of science for the benefit of knowing is carried out all the time. I've done it. I have colleagues that do that. Just because you turn your beliefs into facts, doesn't make them facts.

I wager science could figure out why the schools failed pretty quickly and there might be nothing more important.

The schools haven't failed. I can't explain how someone comes to believe they know everything and invented a pseudoscience, but I don't blame the schools for that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is a sick society that locks up cop killers for a shorter time than the guy who sold him the gun. Every year it gets sicker and sicker.

I'll leave you to whatever it is you're doing now. Have a good day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just a tiny number of the references evidencing natural selection.

Kreitman, M., & Akashi, H. (1995). Molecular evidence for natural selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26(1), 403-422.

Genovart, Meritxell, Nieves Negre, Giacomo Tavecchia, Ana Bistuer, Luís Parpal, and Daniel Oro. "The young, the weak and the sick: evidence of natural selection by predation." PLoS One 5, no. 3 (2010): e9774.

Beauchamp, Jonathan P. "Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 28 (2016): 7774-7779.

Fenster, Charles B., and Kermit Ritland. "Evidence for natural selection on mating system in Mimulus (Scrophulariaceae)." International journal of plant sciences 155, no. 5 (1994): 588-596.

Blier, Pierre U., France Dufresne, and Ronald S. Burton. "Natural selection and the evolution of mtDNA-encoded peptides: evidence for intergenomic co-adaptation." TRENDS in Genetics 17, no. 7 (2001): 400-406.

Hirayasu, Kouyuki, Jun Ohashi, Hidenori Tanaka, Koichi Kashiwase, Atsuko Ogawa, Minoko Takanashi, Masahiro Satake et al. "Evidence for natural selection on leukocyte immunoglobulin-like receptors for HLA class I in Northeast Asians." The American Journal of Human Genetics 82, no. 5 (2008): 1075-1083.

Bustamante, Carlos D., Adi Fledel-Alon, Scott Williamson, Rasmus Nielsen, Melissa Todd Hubisz, Stephen Glanowski, David M. Tanenbaum et al. "Natural selection on protein-coding genes in the human genome." Nature 437, no. 7062 (2005): 1153-1157.

Grant, Peter R., B. R. Grant, J. N. Smith, I. J. Abbott, and L. K. Abbott. "Darwin's finches: population variation and natural selection." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 73, no. 1 (1976): 257-261.

Akey, Joshua M., Michael A. Eberle, Mark J. Rieder, Christopher S. Carlson, Mark D. Shriver, Deborah A. Nickerson, and Leonid Kruglyak. "Population history and natural selection shape patterns of genetic variation in 132 genes." PLoS biology 2, no. 10 (2004): e286.

Cagan, Alexander, Christoph Theunert, Hafid Laayouni, Gabriel Santpere, Marc Pybus, Ferran Casals, Kay Prüfer et al. "Natural selection in the great apes." Molecular biology and evolution 33, no. 12 (2016): 3268-3283.

Andersen, Kristian G., Ilya Shylakhter, Shervin Tabrizi, Sharon R. Grossman, Christian T. Happi, and Pardis C. Sabeti. "Genome-wide scans provide evidence for positive selection of genes implicated in Lassa fever." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367, no. 1590 (2012): 868-877.

Cain, Arthur J., and Philip M. Sheppard. "Natural selection in Cepaea." Genetics 39, no. 1 (1954): 89.

Millstein, Roberta L. "Natural selection as a population-level causal process." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (2006).

Hurst, Laurence D., Elizabeth JB Williams, and Csaba Pál. "Natural selection promotes the conservation of linkage of co-expressed genes." TRENDS in Genetics 18, no. 12 (2002): 604-606.

Haldane, J. B. S. (1936). Natural selection. Nature, 138(3503), 1053-1053.

Artacho, Paulina, and Roberto F. Nespolo. "Natural selection reduces energy metabolism in the garden snail, Helix aspersa (Cornu aspersum)." Evolution 63, no. 4 (2009): 1044-1050.

I could keep going until I filled up a 1000 pages of this thread and not be near reaching the end there is so much evidence supporting the theory of evolution and natural selection.

 

[YoursTrue]

They probably just want to get beaten up so they know they're alive. You've got to be in pretty sorry shape to act this way.

A society that let's them roam free is in far sorrier shape.

And then, of course, moralistic evolutionists would encourage "society" to feel sorry for the mentally ill who maimed or killed others. And when and if they can, blame law enforcement for hurting the mentally ill who got out of control. Etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just a tiny number of the references evidencing natural selection.

Kreitman, M., & Akashi, H. (1995). Molecular evidence for natural selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26(1), 403-422.

Genovart, Meritxell, Nieves Negre, Giacomo Tavecchia, Ana Bistuer, Luís Parpal, and Daniel Oro. "The young, the weak and the sick: evidence of natural selection by predation." PLoS One 5, no. 3 (2010): e9774.

Beauchamp, Jonathan P. "Genetic evidence for natural selection in humans in the contemporary United States." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 28 (2016): 7774-7779.

Fenster, Charles B., and Kermit Ritland. "Evidence for natural selection on mating system in Mimulus (Scrophulariaceae)." International journal of plant sciences 155, no. 5 (1994): 588-596.

Blier, Pierre U., France Dufresne, and Ronald S. Burton. "Natural selection and the evolution of mtDNA-encoded peptides: evidence for intergenomic co-adaptation." TRENDS in Genetics 17, no. 7 (2001): 400-406.

Hirayasu, Kouyuki, Jun Ohashi, Hidenori Tanaka, Koichi Kashiwase, Atsuko Ogawa, Minoko Takanashi, Masahiro Satake et al. "Evidence for natural selection on leukocyte immunoglobulin-like receptors for HLA class I in Northeast Asians." The American Journal of Human Genetics 82, no. 5 (2008): 1075-1083.

Bustamante, Carlos D., Adi Fledel-Alon, Scott Williamson, Rasmus Nielsen, Melissa Todd Hubisz, Stephen Glanowski, David M. Tanenbaum et al. "Natural selection on protein-coding genes in the human genome." Nature 437, no. 7062 (2005): 1153-1157.

Grant, Peter R., B. R. Grant, J. N. Smith, I. J. Abbott, and L. K. Abbott. "Darwin's finches: population variation and natural selection." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 73, no. 1 (1976): 257-261.

Akey, Joshua M., Michael A. Eberle, Mark J. Rieder, Christopher S. Carlson, Mark D. Shriver, Deborah A. Nickerson, and Leonid Kruglyak. "Population history and natural selection shape patterns of genetic variation in 132 genes." PLoS biology 2, no. 10 (2004): e286.

Cagan, Alexander, Christoph Theunert, Hafid Laayouni, Gabriel Santpere, Marc Pybus, Ferran Casals, Kay Prüfer et al. "Natural selection in the great apes." Molecular biology and evolution 33, no. 12 (2016): 3268-3283.

Andersen, Kristian G., Ilya Shylakhter, Shervin Tabrizi, Sharon R. Grossman, Christian T. Happi, and Pardis C. Sabeti. "Genome-wide scans provide evidence for positive selection of genes implicated in Lassa fever." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 367, no. 1590 (2012): 868-877.

Cain, Arthur J., and Philip M. Sheppard. "Natural selection in Cepaea." Genetics 39, no. 1 (1954): 89.

Millstein, Roberta L. "Natural selection as a population-level causal process." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (2006).

Hurst, Laurence D., Elizabeth JB Williams, and Csaba Pál. "Natural selection promotes the conservation of linkage of co-expressed genes." TRENDS in Genetics 18, no. 12 (2002): 604-606.

Haldane, J. B. S. (1936). Natural selection. Nature, 138(3503), 1053-1053.

Artacho, Paulina, and Roberto F. Nespolo. "Natural selection reduces energy metabolism in the garden snail, Helix aspersa (Cornu aspersum)." Evolution 63, no. 4 (2009): 1044-1050.

I could keep going until I filled up a 1000 pages of this thread and not be near reaching the end there is so much evidence supporting the theory of evolution and natural selection.

So what? They have fallen for the tragedy that the concept of evolution brings in the full. Anyway, it won't last forever...

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a sick society that locks up cop killers for a shorter time than the guy who sold him the gun. Every year it gets sicker and sicker.

hmm we certainly agree on that. And then have demonstrations because a police officer did the best he could. I agree, it's a sick society. Which is another reason I am thankful that God promises new heavens and a new earth where RIGHTEOUSNESS is to dwell. (Imagine that!) Naturally many who go to church, etc.,.and are promoters of the theory of evolution will not want to talk about it in realistic terms, but claim the Bible is filled with myths, fantasies, and more like that. Oh well.
2 Peter 3:13 - But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.



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.

You are so over the place, I don't even know where to start

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My God we've been through this a million times.

Indeed. And still it hasn't sinked in.
It's exhausting is what it is.

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.

You in every thread:

 

[gnostic]

This is a sick society that locks up cop killers for a shorter time than the guy who sold him the gun. Every year it gets sicker and sicker.

none of that have anything to do with Darwin.

killing, murders and wars have been going on for millennia before Darwin wrote On Origin.

what is sick is that YOU CANNOT GRASP that Evolution have to do with the abilities to reproduce and biodiversity, not about killing. You seem to want to blame Darwin for the wars, when nothing in Darwin writings say anything about enforcing government policies or enacting legislation or waging wars. The sickness is actually coming from you, you using misinformation & spinning absurd conspiracies.

The post by @TagliatelliMonster of ostrich with head bury in the sand, perfectly depict your stubborn refusal to learn from your errors.

 

[cladking]

Modern science is being used to do just that.

Science is more than mere methodology but also a perspective and state of mind. There has been no methodical study of any great pyramid in more than a century and a quarter. When Flinders Petrie left science went with him.