The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

It's necessary because otherwise communication is impossible.

Thanks for the post. You've given me a new means to communicate this whole thing. I shouldda thought of it before.

I merely need a perspective that is more "natural" to the reader.

...later

 

[cladking]

"Survival" is not so much predicated on "fitness" as it is on luck and happenstance, anyway.

There's a VERY simple reason for this. Almost ALL animal are fit and those which aren't tend to be dinner very quickly. We don't need "evolution" to weed out the sick, lame, and dull witted because predators do it for us.

 

[gnostic]

I don't get to choose or define the words you use and you can't decide the meaning of my words. Our job is to understand the author, not rewrite him.

What a load of craps.

That’s all you have been doing in your Ancient Reality thread, parsing what others have written.

People generally don’t know how to read Egyptian hieroglyphs, which is why there are specialists translating hieroglyph in modern languages, eg English, German, French, Arabic, etc.

Do they have problems translating the hieroglyphs? Do they sometimes struggle with trying to conveying the original contexts of these hieroglyphs?

Of course, they do.

They are attempting to translate ancient texts, so there are bound to be problems. No translations of ancient texts are ever perfect.

And I don’t believe in perfection.

But here is the thing...you have been claiming that you have superior understanding of the hieroglyphs than the translators, eg the Old Kingdom hieroglyphs of the Pyramid Texts.

But how can you claim perfect understanding of what the hieroglyphs say, when you cannot read or translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, yourself?

You have been using other people’s English translations, and have been parsing to suit your personal belief/opinions of what you believe to be the original contexts.

If anyone is re-writing anything, it is you, cladking.

 

[gnostic]

There's a VERY simple reason for this. Almost ALL animal are fit and those which aren't tend to be dinner very quickly. We don't need "evolution" to weed out the sick, lame, and dull witted because predators do it for us.

Again...you are still not understanding what it mean by “survival of the fittest”.

You still under the impression that the fittest being the “strongest” or the “smartest” or the most vicious, or by predatory nature alone.

You need to understand what it really mean in biological contexts, instead of relying on the same misinformed creationists’ strawman that they have been using century-and-a-half.

You accuse others of rewriting, when you are doing exactly that with the “survival of the fittest”.

Hypocrisy and double standards seemed to be your specialities as well your fetish for conspiracy theories.

 

[cladking]

But here is the thing...you have been claiming that you have superior understanding of the hieroglyphs than the translators, eg the Old Kingdom hieroglyphs of the Pyramid Texts.

But how can you claim perfect understanding of what the hieroglyphs say, when you cannot read or translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, yourself?

No!

You are not reading what I write. you simply choose to read what you can understand and is consistent with what you believe. I NEVER said I have "superior understanding" to Egyptologists. I said Egyptologists do not understand the words at all. They have exactly ZERO comprehension of the meaning. My comprehension of this three dimensional language is about 85%. I understand it about as well as a 5 year old Egyptian would have understood it.

I am the ONLY person who "understands" the glyphs but my understanding is less than 1%. I lack both the inclination and the time to become proficient in "reading" the glyphs. Some Egyptologists understand more than 30% of the glyphs but their interpretation is wrong. Nobody will ever be able to read OR translate Ancient Language because it is incompatible with all modern languages. A "translation" would look something like a flow chart which would be mostly incomprehensible to all individuals except a few experts. Nobody alive can read a language formatted in terms of what is real instead of what they believe. We can model the language to understand it and THIS is what I have done. It is quite apparent that the meaning of ancient writing underlies all of our beliefs today to at least some degree. These manifestations of ancient science are most visible in things like religion and the "theory" of evolution. Neither are a true reflection but rather a kaleidoscopic view of it. Ancient science understood consciousness and the nature of language because they could observe them directly rather than indirectly.

Ancient Language couldn't be more simple to understand. When they said "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" what they REALLY meant was "literally bring me the literal boat that literally flies up and literally alights". You don't parse the words you PARSE THE CONTEXT. I've said this in a million different ways but few seem to be able to see any of them. They aren't trying.

When you see evolution from the perspective of consciousness it becomes obvious why life spans are decreasing, humans are devolving, and all change is sudden. It become OBVIOUS that species go extinct despite the will of every individual. New species take their place and ofttimes the new species was fathered by the old one. You might say that this is just ancient Look and See Science but the ancient science was tied to reality by a mathematical logic manifested in metaphysical language. Our science is tied to reality by experiment but no experiment has ever shown a gradual significant change in species. "Observation" can not tie science to reality because every observer sees something different. We parse reality they parsed perspectives. Parsed reality isn't reality at all unless it is founded in experiment.

 

[Milton Platt]

I can understand how an intelligent individual may have problems with the creation account in Genesis. What I don't understand is how that same intelligent individual has no problem whatsoever believing everything we see in the world somehow came from the so-called primordial soup.

Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?

Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.

If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."

Not all science is direct observation. We cannot see electricity, but we can measure it's effects and understand the principals by which it works. It takes the planet Pluto longer to make a complete orbit around the sun than we have known that it exists, yet we know that it does orbit the sun and can calculate how long one complete orbit will be. Inference is a part of science, but it is and inference from available testable and knowable facts and observations.
To characterize all inference as equal is unjustified. We cannot see radiation, but infer it's existence from other observable facts.

It is also just fine to say to the question of the origins of life that one does not know. Abiogenesis is a theory which is supported by the available evidence and which does damage to none of it. But at least we have factual information that can be verified and tested that supports the theory. We cannot say that of god claims. The two are not on equal footing.

 

[sooda]

No!

You are not reading what I write. you simply choose to read what you can understand and is consistent with what you believe. I NEVER said I have "superior understanding" to Egyptologists. I said Egyptologists do not understand the words at all. They have exactly ZERO comprehension of the meaning. My comprehension of this three dimensional language is about 85%. I understand it about as well as a 5 year old Egyptian would have understood it.

I am the ONLY person who "understands" the glyphs but my understanding is less than 1%. I lack both the inclination and the time to become proficient in "reading" the glyphs. Some Egyptologists understand more than 30% of the glyphs but their interpretation is wrong. Nobody will ever be able to read OR translate Ancient Language because it is incompatible with all modern languages. A "translation" would look something like a flow chart which would be mostly incomprehensible to all individuals except a few experts. Nobody alive can read a language formatted in terms of what is real instead of what they believe. We can model the language to understand it and THIS is what I have done. It is quite apparent that the meaning of ancient writing underlies all of our beliefs today to at least some degree. These manifestations of ancient science are most visible in things like religion and the "theory" of evolution. Neither are a true reflection but rather a kaleidoscopic view of it. Ancient science understood consciousness and the nature of language because they could observe them directly rather than indirectly.

Ancient Language couldn't be more simple to understand. When they said "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" what they REALLY meant was "literally bring me the literal boat that literally flies up and literally alights". You don't parse the words you PARSE THE CONTEXT. I've said this in a million different ways but few seem to be able to see any of them. They aren't trying.

When you see evolution from the perspective of consciousness it becomes obvious why life spans are decreasing, humans are devolving, and all change is sudden. It become OBVIOUS that species go extinct despite the will of every individual. New species take their place and ofttimes the new species was fathered by the old one. You might say that this is just ancient Look and See Science but the ancient science was tied to reality by a mathematical logic manifested in metaphysical language. Our science is tied to reality by experiment but no experiment has ever shown a gradual significant change in species. "Observation" can not tie science to reality because every observer sees something different. We parse reality they parsed perspectives. Parsed reality isn't reality at all unless it is founded in experiment.

LOLOL.. You don't read Egyptian hyroglifics and have never set foot in Egypt.

 

[McBell]

I am the ONLY person who "understands" the glyphs but my understanding is less than 1%. I lack both the inclination and the time to become proficient in "reading" the glyphs.

Now that I know chest waders won't be nearly enough, I will have to wait until I can get the pontoon boat out....

 

[rrobs]

Not all science is direct observation. We cannot see electricity, but we can measure it's effects and understand the principals by which it works. It takes the planet Pluto longer to make a complete orbit around the sun than we have known that it exists, yet we know that it does orbit the sun and can calculate how long one complete orbit will be. Inference is a part of science, but it is and inference from available testable and knowable facts and observations.
To characterize all inference as equal is unjustified. We cannot see radiation, but infer it's existence from other observable facts.

It is also just fine to say to the question of the origins of life that one does not know. Abiogenesis is a theory which is supported by the available evidence and which does damage to none of it. But at least we have factual information that can be verified and tested that supports the theory. We cannot say that of god claims. The two are not on equal footing.

Good points.

 

[cladking]

Now that I know chest waders won't be nearly enough, I will have to wait until I can get the pontoon boat out....

You just ignored the point:

Egyptologists do not understand the words at all.

If I understood one single word my understanding would be "superior" to Egyptology's. Egyptology believes all the words are related to magic and superstition. Some call these paragraphs "spells" or "incantation". They never even noticed that the language contains no words for "belief", "thought", reductionism, or taxonomies. It breaks Zipf's Law. They didn't notice these simple truths because they don't understand the language, they don't understand how consciousness is affected by language, and they don't understand how language arose. They can't see the lack of necessary vocabulary for us to communicate because they believe these simple rituals are gobbledygook and nonsense.

It is wholly illogical to believe modern language can arise such that at any point at all that it lacks fundamental vocabulary to express abstraction! It is wholly illogical to believe any modern language could originate with nothing but adverbs, adjectives, a mere handful of verbs, and thousands upon thousands of nouns. "Look, see Jane run" is how we learn to read and write. It's not possible for humans to have survived on superstition and with a language incapable of expressing abstraction and metaphor. It's not possible that the literal meaning of their words might express a coherent and logical meaning by mere happenstance. It's not possible that all the physical evidence would agree with this literal meaning unless they represent one another.

So go ahead and believe the only evidence for pyramids is what Egyptiology says is evidence and the observation of fossils is sufficient evidence for survival of the fittest. But these beliefs lie at the heart of the now rapid deterioration of the human race. Look and See Science is not going to kill us but the beliefs spawned by it are.

 

[McBell]

You just ignored the point:

You mean the point wasn't a badly disguised bout of ego masturbation?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Almost ALL animal are fit and those which aren't tend to be dinner very quickly.

ALL animals that succeed in surviving and reproducing, to be more correct in context of "fitness" in evolutionary terms.

We don't need "evolution" to weed out the sick, lame, and dull witted because predators do it for us.

The predators weeding out the "sick, lame, and dull", is called natural selection.
Which is evolution. Derp.


Another aspect of this, on the side of the survivors, some will have "good genes", so to speak, and be able to run or react just a little bit faster then its peers and thereby have better chances of surviving predator attacks.
Others will be better at "hiding in the crowd" and thereby draw less attention from predators, also giving them better chances of surviving the attack.

The other average Joe's, because of this, will see their chances of not surviving increase. Because the lion's gotta eat. They aren't part of the "sick, lame and dull" though. But quite a few will end up being eaten as well.


That's also natural selection.

Might want to inform yourself a bit.

 

[cladking]

ALL animals that succeed in surviving and reproducing, to be more correct in context of "fitness" in evolutionary terms.

I can't find a sentence or meaning in these words. Please rephrase.

The predators weeding out the "sick, lame, and dull", is called natural selection.

No. ONLY the sick, lame, and dull are unfit. All the others are for all practical purposes are equally fit. Each individual has approximately the same odds of success or failure because success and failure is largely the product of chance. A less than average mosquito might have countless millions of off spring while a super mosquito might not reproduce at all or all of the eggs are destroyed through happenstance.

When it comes to not being a meal alertness is far more important than speed, agility, or intelligence. Alertness is closely associated with consciousness. If an individual attends to threats he is far less likely to eliminated. Once a lion and any wildebeest meet the outcome is preordained. It simply doesn't matter which if any are more "fit". Foxes eat rabbits and no amount of "fitness" can ever change this equation. Darwin looked at the wrong end of the question and the wrong end of the rabbit. Consciousness drives life and it drives change in life and change in species.

The other average Joe's, because of this, will see their chances of not surviving increase.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but all individuals are "average Joes'. People want to believe in survival of the fittest because there is always someone beneath them on the evolutionary treadmill but the reality is that every average Joe is as smart and capable as all other individuals. This isn't quite as true in humans because we've had 4000 years of de-evolution but it is still essentially true. We might fail to educate large percentages of the population and force others to work 14 hours every day just to eat but this doesn't mean that the wealthy are more "fit" or that they have ANY evolutionary advantage. It is principally exploitation and much its justification is Darwinian beliefs and the results of Look and See Science. Inequality is not leading to a healthier human race but rather to a continuing decline in the genetic health of the species.

We maintain a fiction we call "intelligence" but such a thing doesn't even exist as we define it. We choose to believe that everyone has limited capabilities and talents except those few who succeed but the reality is that we all have virtually unlimited ability to adapt and succeed at almost any given task. Most average Joes never get an opportunity or miss it. But this isn't about human (de)evolution because humans are no longer a natural part of the environment with their own niche. Rather we are a product of belief and technology which creates our own niche and can do so almost anywhere. This is about average rabbits, lions, and wildebeest. These lack the ability for abstraction and animal technology is (still?) highly limited. Even where animals have technology man tends to destroy it when it gets in his way. Dull and slow witted animals are taken out as fast as the sick and lame. This helps the genetic health of the species. The healthy still have very diverse characteristics because of localized population bottlenecks in the past. There are still genes like those for upside down flies. There is variability in size, shape, coloration, "intelligence", speed, stamina, visual acuity etc etc etc. But to claim that some given trait will breed true while any trait might work for OR against and individual in any situation is simply short sighted. Despite significant differences, for instance, males and females tend to survive in equal numbers.

Might want to inform yourself a bit.

Humans have a unique way of thinking and communicating but where do you go to "inform" yourself about the nature of "thought", consciousness, and communication within and between species?

 

[tas8831]

"A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about."

I don't suppose you've seen any of my various rants about how the human species is imploding and fast approaching Tower of Babel 2.0?

I read one, laughed, and decided not to waste my time on yet another aspect of your phony-baloney nonsense.

SNIP GIBBERISH
But getting in a car driven by committee is suicide.

Right.

Because research and knowledge is exactly like driving a car.

Try getting into a car with someone that declares "drive" really means "go in reverse" if you parse it correctly using Ancient Language.

 

[tas8831]

Without the 'raw material' of mutation, selection has nothing to act on, and thus 'behavior' is irrelevant as a driver of evolution - if the trait never arose in the first place (via mutation), the selectable behaviors would not exist.

No. Mutation is the second leading cause in change in species in the majority of instances. Obviously it can be primary in any specific case.

No... then yes, obviously.

Need a nap?

It's not just the result of bottlenecks though.

Who said it was?
More confabulation on your part?

There are also localized bottlenecks which introduce (cause) a wider variety of genes.

That is literally the opposite of what bottleneck does.

I suggest, for like the 50th time, that you read this:

Understanding Evolution

You might - might - stop making such asinine claims.

But I doubt it.

When bottlenecks occur only locally the population changes but then it interbreeds again and these changes are "lost" or at least they become invisible to cursory observation.

Add "bottlenecks" to things you are confused about.

Any support for these assertions?

I mentioned earlier that I created a new species of fly.

No you didn't.

They couldn't see it because it's outside of their experience and beliefs.

Who is "they"? the Men In Black?

It's relevant now. I've killed every visible housefly in a local area every few hours for several weeks. You must be careful to be sure you get them all each time. This will create a new species I call "upside down flies". These flies are a little slimmer, much faster, and they usually land (or hide) on the underside of furniture. Withing a generation of cessation of such pressure the species reverts to the slow, fat, sugar eating, dirty, and annoying drones we all know know and love. But their genes live on providing the species of "flies" with a little more genetic diversity to survive almost anything. But it will be those individuals with the "upside down" genes which survive an event that kills all flies that are right side up. It is not "natural" for a fly to be on the bottom of a table covered in spilt syrup and crumbs of meat.

You sound exceptionally troubled.

I maintain that this is all part of "real science" and not modern science and not Look and see Science.

You maintain all manner of absurd things.

You know as much about science as you do about Egypt.
Your goofy Make-It-Up-As-I-Go-Along-Phony-Nonsense-Science is irrelevant.

It is real science.

First -



Second - let's see your real science regarding your fake claims about speciation being "sudden."

My gosh - in your little 5th grader fantasy described above, it wasn't even "sudden"!!!

So your goofy Make-It-Up-As-I-Go-Along-Phony-Nonsense-Science actually CONTRADICTS your own repetitious mantras!

You're hilarious!

 

[tas8831]

All OBSERVED change in life is sudden.

Lie.

 

[tas8831]

I hate to be the one to break this to you but all individuals are "average Joes'. People want to believe in survival of the fittest because there is always someone beneath them on the evolutionary treadmill but the reality is that every average Joe is as smart and capable as all other individuals.

I love that I am like the 20th person to break it to you - You do not understand what "survival of the fittest" refers to in evolution despite having it explained to you dozens of times.

At this point, one has to conclude that you are either mentally disturbed and cannot accept that you are wrong about anything or that you are a giant troll.

Which is it?

 

[tas8831]

Do you have evidence for gradual change of the type described?

You ignored it when I presented it, troll:

The Believabliltiy of Evolution

 

[tas8831]

It is "fine" only because.... [who cares]

Why did you ignore the evidence I provided?

The Believabliltiy of Evolution

Is that the only way your trolling can continue?

 

[cladking]

That is literally the opposite of what bottleneck does.

Now you not only parse sentences incorrectly but you ignore parts of them that define the meaning! I said LOCALIZED bottlenecks are the leading cause of genetic diversity and then EXPLAINED how this works yet you ignore it all.

No you didn't.

Wow!!!