Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Valjean]

Facts, logic, evidence, experiment, and knowledge (visceral) all stand on their own.

Visceral knowledge? You mean gut feelings? People have been using that for millennia, and never got anywhere with it. Everyone's gut reaction is different. None are evidenced. Gut feelings are bunk.

Conclusions are shared by peers, students, and scientismists. Such conclusions derive from paradigms which periodically change.

What the heck is a scientismist? or a "peer," for that matter?

More importantly though is that each thinker, believer, or reader builds his own distinct models of this paradigm some of which are weak or incorrect. Most are constructed of extrapolation and interpolation rather than experiment.

A scientific model is the most probable reality given the available data. As more data emerges, models are refined. Inasmuch as they're based on direct observation and objective evidence, scientific models, hypothesis and theories are always the ontological gold standards.

It's one thing to have a lot off respect for individual experts and all experts.

The respect is for their knowledge and expertise.

Conclusions are cheap. We are homo omniscience hear us brag. Everybody has conclusions. Of course good scientists are aware that conclusions are tentative and dependent on premises.

We are H. sapiens -- apes.
True, scientific conclusions are always provisional, and open to new evidence, but they're not dependent on premises. They're dependent on evidence.

 

[cladking]

Gut feelings are bunk.

I clearly said "knowledge (visceral)", I did not say "feelings (gut)". feelings mean nothing. experiential knowledge is the ONLY true knowledge. It is the only knowledge on the tip of your tongue that you can use in your day to day life.

If you don't know something in your bones, guts, or through experience you don't really know it at all. It's something someone told you or you read in a book. It will probably never be of any practical value to you. You can wow people on the internet with it.

 

[Valjean]

All true knowledge is visceral.

Then true knowledge is unrelated to facts, evidence and reality. When has gut feeling ever led to a generally accepted and demonstrable truth? People have been going with gut feelings for our whole history. Progress advanced at a snail's pace till science came up with a rational and effective method of assessment.

No. There is no certainty any assumption is true or any definition is the best.

But there are degrees of probability or truth valuation. Emotion and familiarity rank poorly here.

 

[Valjean]

I clearly said "knowledge (visceral)", I did not say "feelings (gut)". feelings mean nothing. experiential knowledge is the ONLY true knowledge. It is the only knowledge on the tip of your tongue that you can use in your day to day life.

Viscera are guts, and gut feelings are emotions.
Experimental knowledge is not visceral. Experimental knowledge sounds more like science.

If you don't know something in your bones, guts, or through experience you don't really know it at all. It's something someone told you or you read in a book. It will probably never be of any practical value to you. You can wow people on the internet with it.

You must be working from a very odd concept of knowledge. What does it mean to know something in your bones/guts? How is this experimental knowledge?

 

[Valjean]

Not necessarily.



Is there science after Darwin?

Survival of the fittest causing a gradual change in species is not "science". It is a conclusion derived from false assumptions.

It's an observation and experimentally demonstrated fact.
What false assumptions is gradual change based on? Most mechanisms of evolution are pretty commonsense.

And for the one millionth time all science is derived from assumptions some of which might well be wrong. Egyptology is the poster child of bad assumptions.

Egyptologyis a study, not an assertion of any facts. It may discover facts, but aren't they based on evidence, rather than presuppositions?
In the case of science, it's findings and claims are based on observations and falsifiable evidence. Science involves eliminating assumptions through testing. It accepts experimental evidence even when it contradicts expectations.

 

[cladking]

It's an observation and experimentally demonstrated fact.

But you still can't cite a single experiment relevant to gradual change caused by fitness.

It may discover facts, but aren't they based on evidence, rather than presuppositions?

The "facts" they cite are measurements. Everything else is interpretation of anachronisms.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When we say "survival of the fittest," we are not talking about an animals physical prowess. We are referring to any traits which allow it to survive long enough to produce viable offspring.

 

[Valjean]

But you still can't cite a single experiment relevant to gradual change caused by fitness.

Experiment? Wouldn't an experiment involving gradual change, say, a million years or so, take a million years or so co complete?
The evidence of gradual change is in the fossil record and genetics. We can also extrapolate from experiments demonstrating rapid change.

The "facts" they cite are measurements. Everything else is interpretation of anachronisms.

The egyptological facts are literally written on the walls. There are facts cited by disinterested foreigners from far away, there are paintings, sculptures, dead bodies with DNA, worksites, tools, food, textiles, weapons, &al. Those aren't measurements.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you still can't cite a single experiment relevant to gradual change caused by fitness.

You have been given such examples in the past, but like all science deniers you just handwaved it away like this

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you still can't cite a single experiment relevant to gradual change caused by fitness.

Sigh!

I've done that several times! Others have too! You ignored it and let it pass as if it weren't there or waved it away with your arsenal of semantics, fallacies and silly responses. I predict you will continue to do the same.

 

[cladking]

When we say "survival of the fittest," we are not talking about an animals physical prowess. We are referring to any traits which allow it to survive long enough to produce viable offspring.

Everybody on the planet knows what survival of the fittest means.

 

[cladking]

Experiment? Wouldn't an experiment involving gradual change, say, a million years or so, take a million years or so co complete?
The evidence of gradual change is in the fossil record and genetics. We can also extrapolate from experiments demonstrating rapid change.

Very good!

However by use of science there are other ways it would be possible to observe gradual change.

I am aware of no gradual change in species.

The egyptological facts are literally written on the walls. There are facts cited by disinterested foreigners from far away, there are paintings, sculptures, dead bodies with DNA, worksites, tools, food, textiles, weapons, &al. Those aren't measurements.

The facts about the ancient Egyptians don't fit the Egyptology. Facts are square pegs driven in round holes with most of them broken and discarded. The words chiseled in the walls say over and over that the great pyramids were not tombs but were actually the dead king himself. There is nowhere in the cultural context where the pyramids are said to have been built or intended as tombs. Most of the words necessary to support Egyptological beliefs are unattested and the literal meaning of every sentence chiseled into walls is discounted.

 

[cladking]

ou have been given such examples in the past, but like all science deniers you just handwaved it away like this

With your hands moving about in front of your face, how would you know what I'm doing?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With your hands moving about in front of your face, how would you know what I'm doing?

I've read enough of your bs and nonsense to know what you are doing.
That also includes knowing that there is zero point in trying to reason with you.
Like so many other people with blinders on here, you are not interested in intellectual discourse or learning.
You are only interested in preaching your beliefs and handwaving away any and all criticism and pointing out of your mistakes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Everybody on the planet knows what survival of the fittest means.

And yet, with every post you on the topic you prove the contrary.

This is one of those mistakes you double down on consistently while plenty of people point it out to you, only to see you handwave it away and repeat the same error.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am aware of no gradual change in species.

The reason for that is that you have your head lodged firmly into the ground.

The facts about the ancient Egyptians don't fit the Egyptology. Facts are square pegs driven in round holes with most of them broken and discarded. The words chiseled in the walls say over and over that the great pyramids were not tombs but were actually the dead king himself. There is nowhere in the cultural context where the pyramids are said to have been built or intended as tombs. Most of the words necessary to support Egyptological beliefs are unattested and the literal meaning of every sentence chiseled into walls is discounted.

Yes yes...
You are correct. All of archeology is wrong.

 

[cladking]

Like so many other people with blinders on here, you are not interested in intellectual discourse or learning.

I doubt this will land either but will make one last attempt to communicate with you.

My primary interest is relevant discourse and I've always valued learning above all else. But most don't want discourse. They want to teach. When they see ignorance, religion, or heresy they assume it's caused by a lack of knowledge and launch straight into lectures. They don't care if their own words are relevant to the argument because they see no argument with the ignorant. They use strawmen, hand waving, semantics, and gospel to ignore what the ignorant are saying and then try to enlighten them.

Almost nothing being said to the ignorant is relevant to our arguments. We are being read Gospel According to Peers for the main part.

The irony is believers in science simply can't see other ways of ordering reality, thinking, or assumptions. There is one true light and that is the scientific method after being peer reviewed.

If history is any guide I'll now be insulted and no word in this post will be addressed logically or with evidence. Go ahead and lecture me. Then when I show each part of your lecture is irrelevant I'll be ignored or get more insults.

 

[cladking]

And yet, with every post you on the topic you prove the contrary.

We've come a long way really. It took two years but at least people stopped correcting me about terminology concerning fit survival. Tens of thousands of words wasted because people simply refuse to parse words as they are intended!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I had no idea the depth of faith that exists today. But then having a knee jerk reaction is important to leading people around. Even after 10,000 years of "Evolution" even cows can go maverick or turn violent. So now schools don't try to teach critical thinking or metaphysics, they teach religion and dogma.

 

[cladking]

You are only interested in preaching your beliefs

My only belief is all people make perfect sense all the time in terms of their premises and one reality exists.

I can't "preach" this. I mention it so critical thinkers can more easily follow what I'm saying.

 

[wellwisher]

This is, however, how variation works.There is a lot of variation in sexuality, what's selected for is another matter. I see no reason to think there's anything new in the variation we see today.
"...integrated within itself?" "...opposes itself?" ...willful choice?" -- what does this mean?

???? -- not following. "Ethereal things not of the mind? Please explain.

????

This sounds like religious gobbledygook.

I'm not even sure what this means, much less its connection to science.

Apparently not. as It seems to be an original idea of yours.

There is a difference between natural selection and man made selection. For example, affirmative action was man made selection, since it was not an organic end result, but only happened because it was forced by manmade law. Once the man made force of law was repealed, the organic result came back.

Transgender is being made possible, by man made goods and services, not found in nature. Man made provides an option that does not occur naturally; change your sex by will and choice. This is an area where the evolutionary sciences are way behind. They cannot see these basic differences in selective pressures. Resistant bacteria are not only created in nature, but also in hospitals.

If humans wanted to, we could interfere with natural selection, such as choosing animals based on fur color over any natural selection reason, such as fitness. Humans and their pets allows humans to act like a surrogate environment in place of mother nature. We provide their environment and set the rules. This allows some animals to become neurotic to reflect the will of their owners. This is not natural selection, but man made selection.

In terms of religion, say for the sake of argument, science assumes the characters of religion are make believe and not part of tangible materialism. Now say people nevertheless reinforce these ideas, generation after generation, with social selection among their peers, being a function of your faith in the creed. Man made selective pressures over thousands of years will begin to engrain this non material imagery and it connected behavior into a type of religion instinct or subroutine. This was not created by a natural material environment, but by a man made environment that included using the mind's eye; imagination. This mind's eye development gives greater access to the inner world of the brains operating system and firmware.

When Darwin was developing his theory of natural selection, he had to travel to the remote Island of the Galapagos. He could not prove his theory in England, since that Island had been developed by humans over thousands of years. It would hard to find any place on the Island, that evolved 100% naturally. Because of all the lingering traces of man, critics could say England was more consistent with Adam and Eve and 6000 years of human intervention. Darwin needed a pure natural place, where no human selection argument could be shown; natural selection apart from any form of human selection. He found natural selection was much slower. This was consistent with the idea of paradise; where perfection was already there and had little reason to change.