Funny stuff...
Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.
You assume the world is like you see it.
You assume space and time exists as you perceive them.
You assume that nature adheres to laws that are expressible as mathematics.
You assume that fossils show a gradual change in species.
You assume that the brocas area exists in newborns despite the impossibility of proving it (at this time).
You assume you can count rabbits and apples.
You assume you are intelligent and bees are not.
You assume that people understand what you say when they agree with you but otherwise not.
I could go on like this all day, because you think you exist.
You can go on all day writing UNSUPPORTED assertions, of course you can - that is your thing. ALL you seem capable of doing is asserting things and providing NO support whatsoever. Just like you did here -
Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.
You concocted a list of things you are too self-educated to understand, and left it at that. Not even a single attempt to demonstrate how you know this, nor even an attempt to provide evidence that they are wrong. Strikes 1, 2 and 3.
Not only that - several of those are things I do
not assume, and the rest are just products of your usual self-indulgent Dunning-Kruger effect. You grow more incoherent and absurd every day, and you STILL never present any kind of documentation or evidence that ANYTHING you claim has merit.
Get the help you need.
So, no choice but:
Cladking Unsupported Fantasy Assertion (aka lie) #261, it is.
cladking:
The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.
Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people). The anatomical landmarks of Broca's area are even seen in non-human primates.
There is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis" but in your and Graham Hancock's dopey fantasies.
Nobody will accept your fantasies as having merit until you present EVIDENCE of the sort that sane, educated, experienced people accept as such. This does NOT include your confident reiterations of unsupported assertions, I am happy to say.
cladking:
Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.
Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world. Show evidence that here is a "bifurcated speech center in the middle of the brain." Show evidence that an infant decides to grow a Broca's area.
And lastly, here you are claiming that you never wrote what you had written repeatedly, all in a failed attempt at saving face once you realized you have no actual evidence for your counterfactual assertions:
You wrote, foolishly:
"
I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."
Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions
"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way.
Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest.
Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."
What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?
"
Every time we see change in species it is sudden and w
as begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."
Fascinating!
"Usually this
selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."
Science cannot solve the final mystery
"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see
it's caused by behavior."
Argumentum ad populum
"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution.
All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals.
The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"
Still waiting for THAT ^^^^^ evidence, too...
Also still waiting for you to show that Darwin claimed that populations remain stable in the first edition of his book - remember when I linked to a searchable online version of it for you and you ignored it? Wonder why...
Argumentum ad populum
"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck
because of their distinctive behavior."
Argumentum ad populum
"...As I said several times before
"species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."
Weird, I mean, you just deleted all of that from your reply in that thread, as if it never happened - as if you never actually claimed that you never did what I documented you doing 7 times. And keep in mind - there were more, these were just the most obvious ones. I find such refusals to acknowledge and own up to such obvious fibs indicative of far-reaching character flaws. But that is just in my experience dealing with religious fanatics and the like.
You've not once provided evidence, so you are just trying to assert-away your false claims.
You are just boring now. I'll probably take a break from documenting your 'scientific' fraud and egregious, laughable errors. it is pretty tiresome.
Show me this second motor speech area.
Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."
Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.
Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."
Define "peer" as in 'peer review".
Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.