Irony of the evolutionary belief

[jes-us]

-- I don't see the connection.

Compare what I said to a snow man when the sun comes out .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Compare what I said to a snow man when the sun comes out .

Is this your way of acknowledging that your nonsense doesn't hold up when a light shines on it?
It melts away then like snow in the sun?

 

[cladking]

This post seems to have set off a firestorm and, yes, I certainly noticed that no one actually addressed it.

What would Darwin predict would be the result of every unherdable cat dying or breeding only cats that can be herded (it is exactly the same thing you know)? Whether nature does it or man the result is the same. The new species probably wouldn't even look like the old one. If nature did it the new species would probably go extinct leaving no fossils because, did I mention, that bottlenecks, by definition, dramatically decrease populations and the odds of fossilization.

The answer to the question is of critical importance if we are wrong about consciousness, for which we lack even a definition, lies at the heart of change in species.

 

[F1fan]

This post seems to have set off a firestorm and, yes, I certainly noticed that no one actually addressed it.



The answer to the question is of critical importance if we are wrong about consciousness, for which we lack even a definition, lies at the heart of change in species.

You're not a serious thinker. You get science deliberately wrong. You have your own poorly informed and flawed belief about how things are. Why should anyone answer your question?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This post seems to have set off a firestorm and, yes, I certainly noticed that no one actually addressed it.



The answer to the question is of critical importance if we are wrong about consciousness, for which we lack even a definition, lies at the heart of change in species.

Garbage questions based in strawmen / misrepresentations will only yield more garbage

 

[cladking]

Garbage questions based in strawmen / misrepresentations will only yield more garbage

So which is it that's totally and utterly wrong; that all individual life without exception is based in genetics or that life is naturally selected to be more fit for the existing environment? You can't have it both ways because we can observe at all times in every species that individuals do not get more fit with each generation. There's a simple reason for this: All individuals are created exactly equally fit.

 

[wellwisher]

I agree completely. Where do you get this stuff? Mostly I just think a lot about experiment and watch my own consciousness.



I personally no longer think the left/ right brain stuff is of huge importance to the nature of humans but is critically important to understanding the nature of the brain and ourselves. No doubt other animals have divisions of labor like this in the brain and I believe homo sapiens probably did. Of course I base this on my estimation of the way I work and I know I think a little differently than most people and every test shows I'm equally left and right brained. But still I have to hold the receiver to my left ear or I wax poetic and don't get business done.

My idea comes from decades of pondering and theorizing various things to generate data for right brain integration. I am at the point, where steady state is approaching.

The emotional tagging of memory is useful to the natural or animal brain, in that if a similar experience is encountered, the animal can react to the feeling, without having to rationally analyze the situation. If they see a new similar food they may feel delight and eat. They do not have to use the left brain to reinvent the wheel, since one feeling can cover a range of similar real life situations from A to B.

The Koala Bear only eats Eucalyptus leaves. Their food tag is very limited and linear, allowing it to ignore other things.

The primitive fear of novelty is interesting in that new sensory data, without any previous emotional tag, often seems to default to fear and possible fear tag. Fear generates a lot of body energy and can make time appear to slow, implicit of the brain speeding up, for action and extra data crunching; brain waves speed up. They circle the object with the urge of fight and flight, until they can escape or subdue. Then they can rest; add a less energy intensive tag to the memory of that object. Next time, they can ignore it, and not get so wound up.

Things like racism and even depression are often connected to feeling tags and emotional thinking. It creates a one size fits all integration from A to B, that appears to cover an entire set of similar things or situations. This is where going to the left brain is useful since that allows us to see subtle difference; slopes on the curve, that can alter the tagging by creating subsets of emotional tagging on that curve, like overlap racism curve with friend tags; an acquaintance, or depression overlapped with the good times to see a silver lining.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So which is it that's totally and utterly wrong

It's been explained to you ad nauseum already.
I don't see the point in doing it all over again as if it is going to yield different results.
First, you're going to have to show / demonstrate somehow a change in attitude to signal that you are ready to actually have an intellectually honest conversation.

So far, it looks like it's just more of the same, so why would I bother?

that all individual life without exception is based in genetics or that life is naturally selected to be more fit for the existing environment? You can't have it both ways because we can observe at all times in every species that individuals do not get more fit with each generation. There's a simple reason for this: All individuals are created exactly equally fit.

Another prime example of you arguing with strawman assumptions.

I can only once again advice you to first properly learn what evolution theory is all about before trying to argue against it.
But I know already that it's a vain request. You are not interested in actually learning. You are only interested in doubling down on your errors.

 

[MikeF]

So which is it that's totally and utterly wrong; that all individual life without exception is based in genetics or that life is naturally selected to be more fit for the existing environment? You can't have it both ways because we can observe at all times in every species that individuals do not get more fit with each generation. There's a simple reason for this: All individuals are created exactly equally fit.

Didn't you create a false equivalency here? In the first instance you very specifically refer to "individual life", and in the second, you simply refer to "life", which leads the reader to infer all life in general. So while it is true that in each instance of an individual lifeform, the die has been cast for it at inception and it's compliment of genes is either suited or unsuited to survive the circumstances to come, but in the second case, you are referring to not an individuals genes, but the whole pool of genes contained within a reproductive species. It is selective pressures that affect the whole pool of available genes within a species, along with mutation of genes within the pool. Disregard the concept of fitness and ask yourself whether the pool of available genes for a given species changes over time, for whatever reasons, and as a consequence the genetically expressed features of the species changes over time. If you agree, then those changes in expressed features are said to have been selected by the circumstances that caused the changes in the gene pool.

In short, both instances you describe are true and not mutually exclusive. It is also quite apparent that not all individuals are equally fit, for not all individuals survive to reproduce for a wide variety of reasons. If they do not reproduce, then their compliment of genes does not pass to the pool of genes available for the next generation.

 

[cladking]

My idea comes from decades of pondering and theorizing various things to generate data for right brain integration. I am at the point, where steady state is approaching.

The emotional tagging of memory is useful to the natural or animal brain, in that if a similar experience is encountered, the animal can react to the feeling, without having to rationally analyze the situation. If they see a new similar food they may feel delight and eat. They do not have to use the left brain to reinvent the wheel, since one feeling can cover a range of similar real life situations from A to B.

The Koala Bear only eats Eucalyptus leaves. Their food tag is very limited and linear, allowing it to ignore other things.

The primitive fear of novelty is interesting in that new sensory data, without any previous emotional tag, often seems to default to fear and possible fear tag. Fear generates a lot of body energy and can make time appear to slow, implicit of the brain speeding up, for action and extra data crunching; brain waves speed up. They circle the object with the urge of fight and flight, until they can escape or subdue. Then they can rest; add a less energy intensive tag to the memory of that object. Next time, they can ignore it, and not get so wound up.

Things like racism and even depression are often connected to feeling tags and emotional thinking. It creates a one size fits all integration from A to B, that appears to cover an entire set of similar things or situations. This is where going to the left brain is useful since that allows us to see subtle difference; slopes on the curve, that can alter the tagging by creating subsets of emotional tagging on that curve, like overlap racism curve with friend tags; an acquaintance, or depression overlapped with the good times to see a silver lining.

Fascinating stuff! It's incredible how much can be observed or learned from self reflection and just thinking about things. Of course to have much validity this needs to be done in a formatting of reason and knowledge.

In my younger days I was interested in the nature of one's attention to be drawn to things for which one is continually exposed. If you buy a brand new Firebird you will suddenly start seeing every Firebird on the road. If you hadn't been paying attention before it might seem like the population is exploding.

Of course this is also a manifestation of memory. The familiar is important to consciousness.

The focus of ones attention is of extreme importance to how we live our lives and most people never pay it any mind at all. This focus is driven by beliefs (knowledge) and memory (as you suggest with an emotional component). I called these "attention pockets"

I'm confident that ancient people (and animals) understood all these things as part of their nature but it is wholly invisible to us without focused attention, observation, and reason. Ancient people when describing attention referred to it as being in "the middle of one's eye". Anything that any animal is attending to appears to all observers as being in the middle of his eye. It's truly remarkable that all this survives from Ancient Language yet modern people can't even see the widespread evidence that there was an Ancient Language that was universal, complex, and "unique" to humans. This language was formatted much like a bee's dance or a bird's call.

Thanks for the elaboration.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You did not address anything I said. You merely gainsaid it.

You are projecting.

Again; how is it possible for each generation not to be more fit than the previous? You're the one who claims the fit survive. I claim all individuals are equally fit so every generation is no fitter than the preceding.

Several posters have explained this to you. I did as well. I also provided a link to help you understand.

It is impossible for our matrix/ nature/ character to not improve with each generation if we are both a product of our genes AND only the fit survive. If it were true it would be a paradox but it is not true. We are a product of our genes but all individuals are exactly equally fit because the production of individuals as meat or cannon fodder would be exceedingly wasteful and inefficient. Nature/ God/ gods/ reality are not in any way inefficient or insane. This has been left up for homo omnisciencis. We are grossly inefficient and waste virtually all resources and human potential. It's what we do. it's our function to know everything and act accordingly. It is insanity.

This constitute virtual proof you are wrong and there are dozens of other ways to show the exact same thing. Science, as most individuals understand it, is a belief system. It goes beyond the adoption of mere paradigms to the very belief that reductionistic science can be applied to all areas at this time. It can not!!! Reductionistic science may never be capable of understanding most of reality.

No. You should have read through the link I provided.

"Evolutionary biologists use the word fitness to describe how good a particular genotype is at leaving offspring in the next generation relative to other genotypes. So if brown beetles consistently leave more offspring than green beetles because of their color, you’d say that the brown beetles had a higher fitness. In evolution, fitness is about success at surviving and reproducing, not about exercise and strength."

Misconceptions about evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think he would be astounded but after studying the data I doubt he'd believe in Evolution.

Doubtful since modern genetics has more than confirmed his theory.

 

[cladking]

Several posters have explained this to you. I did as well. I also provided a link to help you understand.

Maybe I'm as stupid as several posters here keep suggesting. Why don't you explain it in a way a child can understand? Or alternatively you could address the objections I post almost every time such things are posted.

This is supposed to be a discussion but most of the anti-heretics don't even try to parse my meaning and then lecture me about their own beliefs. This is exactly the same thing that s done to those with a religious perspective and every other heretic who doesn't accept dogma or the prevailing paradigm. The ONLY thing different about my heresy is that it just happens to dovetail rather nicely with the beliefs of all major religions.

Why not discuss it? What are believers afraid of?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe I'm as stupid as several posters here keep suggesting. Why don't you explain it in a way a child can understand? Or alternatively you could address the objections I post almost every time such things are posted.

I kind of already did that by posting a link to Berkeley's "Understanding evolution" page about evolutionary fitness.

I did address your objections you presented to me.

This is supposed to be a discussion but most of the anti-heretics don't even try to parse my meaning and then lecture me about their own beliefs. This is exactly the same thing that s done to those with a religious perspective and every other heretic who doesn't accept dogma or the prevailing paradigm. The ONLY thing different about my heresy is that it just happens to dovetail rather nicely with the beliefs of all major religions.

Why not discuss it? What are believers afraid of?

What I see is a misunderstanding of evolution, on your part. I see people trying to correct you. And I see you sticking with your misunderstanding.
There's nothing I can add to the conversation that the people far better versed than I am in science haven't already explained to you countless times in this thread.

 

[cladking]

Doubtful since modern genetics has more than confirmed his theory.

I think he'd take one glance at genetics and say he mustta been wrong about survival of the fittest simply because it is anomalous to the belief that it underlies change in species. After a much deeper look into modern knowledge I believe he'd give up on gradual change in species and come to believe in punctuated equilibrium which is not quite so wrong.

If he came to understand his assumption that consciousness and individuality could be factored out and life can not be reduced to "species" he might even agree with me. The man was gifted certainly, he was merely wrong.

 

[cladking]

I kind of already did that by posting a link to Berkeley's "Understanding evolution" page about evolutionary fitness.

I read it and didn't even see it was relevant.

Have you forgotten i don't accept the assumptions underlying Evolution.

 

[cladking]

What I see is a misunderstanding of evolution, on your part. I see people trying to correct you. And I see you sticking with your misunderstanding.
There's nothing I can add to the conversation that the people far better versed than I am in science haven't already explained to you countless times in this thread.

If you can't explain something to a bright six year old then you don't understand it yourself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I read it and didn't even see it was relevant.

Have you forgotten i don't accept the assumptions underlying Evolution.

You don't see an explanation and description about how evolutionary fitness works as relevant to a discussion about how evolutionary fitness works?

Mmkay.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you can't explain something to a bright six year old then you don't understand it yourself.

Berkeley already explained it to you like you're a six-year-old.

 

[cladking]

Misconceptions about evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

• MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.
  CORRECTION: Though “survival of the fittest” is the catchphrase of natural selection, “survival of the fit enough” is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two “best” individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the “fittest” in the population, but they are “fit enough” to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.

All they've done here is double down on their belief in survival of the fittest. So now we have not fit, almost fit, and super fit. But this certainly in no way addresses the simple fact that genetics demands each generation is more fit. All those words are a mere a smokescreen to hide this fact. Every objection stands. If consciousness plays any role in speciation then everything we know is wrong because our assumptions are wrong.

Maybe a bright six year old would miss these problems as he was being indoctrinated.

"Evolution" never sounded right to me and I was familiar with it long before I was six.