The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

The concept of "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" is what we need to believe to exploit people while singing Kumbaya and not saying politically incorrect things.

Now days if someone's conscience bothers him because poor people are enslaved and exploited he can always send off a contribution to a charity. This charity will keep 98c of every dollar donated to make its owners and operators fantastically wealthy. T^hey'll spend billions on advertising since it's all free money and tax deductible making Madison Avenue richer and richer too. Everyone gains. The rich get riches beyond the dreams of avarice and the contributor doesn't worry about going to hell. And we all sing Kumbaya and protect the feeling of every minority from Haitians born in China to albino Norwegians and Trump supporters in favor of gun control.

As long as we're in a dark ages spiraling into oblivion don't we all at least have the right to feel good?

 

[tas8831]

Then you obviously have no understanding of metaphysics or the scientific method.

This is a very common ailment now days even among real scientists. Frankly I believe there have been a mere handful of good metaphysicians in the last century and a half. Most scientists don't know what they know.

Yes, such a shame.

Why, I recently ran across a chap that, on the one hand, boasted of having predicted 15 years ago that the worldwide life expectancy would be in decline now, yet on the other hand, wrote that people who make predictions are loopy.

 

[tas8831]

I've shown numerous species and all life change suddenly but you're still talking about unrelated ideas about "evolution".

No you have not. Not even one.

You merely writing a list is not evidence. I do not believe a single thing you claim - and no sensible person should - because you completely fail at every turn to provide any kind of rationale as to why anyone should believe you (i.e., no evidence ever).

Mink became docile in one generation, you claimed?

Folliculogenesis, onset of puberty and fecundity of mink (Mustela vision Schreb) selectively bred for docility or aggressiveness.

"We used farm-raised, 7-mo-old mink females that had been selectively bred for 7 to 10 generations on the basis of behavior towards humans."

Wow. 1 generation. Just like you said....

 

[tas8831]

Adam named the animals.

No he didn't.

They knew that there were "mules" with mixed parentage

No they didn't.

but they had no reductionistic words.

Yes they did.

They had no abstractions.

Yes they did.

Please note - my responses had the exact same level of metaphysics and evidence as did yours.

 

[cladking]

So, you EMBRACE 'look and see' science. When it suits you. And when it is premised on fantasies.

I never embrace Look and See Science. I am in a unique position however of being able to reality from two metaphysics and the perspective of a generalist.

But I am not giving myself a pass on the requirement of science to be based on experiment. Perspective and belief are irrelevant no matter who is behind them.

But I must point out a few things. Most importantly I am well aware that from the perspective of modern science my theory is really just a few related hypotheses. When I use the term "theory" I am using the ancient "definition". Which brings us to a major point; my deconstruction of the Pyramid Texts is based on the literal meaning and a mathematical/ scientific concordance. Since we all can manipulate logic in our minds to a greater or lesser extent since we don't need to parse our own thoughts it is possible for any individual to manipulate knowledge using logic. This isn't Look and See Science, this is thought and more similar to experiment design than it is to observation or seeing what we expect. Remember ALL PROGRESS comes from individual thought and new ideas. Just because most new hypotheses are wrong (especially radical ones) is no indication that all are. That they are wrong can not be indication that I am.

"Evolution" has been shown by observation and experiment to be wrong but we are misinterpreting evidence and results. Most major change in most major species in most instances is sudden and occurs at population bottlenecks where the survivors are selected for behavior rather than "fitness". All individuals of species are equally fit but have different genes.

 

[tas8831]

I never made such an assumption,

Yes you did.
You have no evidence for it, and it is counterfactual, so all you could possibly do is assume it.

I thought of hypotheses until I came up with one that would explain ALL the evidence and ALL of the experiment.

No you didn't.

What experiments does SUDDEN CHANGE!!! explain?

What evidence does SUDDEN CHANGE!! explain?

Don't say domestication of mink in one generation - that is a lie.

I've never had any use for Look and See Science. Optical illusion distorts reality. Statistics and computer modelling is confusing. And we all can see only what we believe.

So you're just an extremist Luddite troll.

Outside of experiment (like upside down flies) there is no such thing as "science".

Yes there is - and you've done no experiments. Your flies thing was a joke.

Of course it appears there's at least one more metaphysics but this metaphysics is IRRELEVANT TO ANY SPECIES THAT EMPLOYS ABSTRACTION, BELIEF, REDUCTIONISM, AND TAXONOMIES. This other metaphysics requires the use of logic and logic is impossible to express in our language.

You know nothing about logic or science or experiment or evidence.

You think anything you can conjure up is evidence - but it just your bloviating.

 

[tas8831]

I am in a unique position however of being able to reality from two metaphysics and the perspective of a generalist.

No you aren't.

SNIP excessive nonsensical ranting premised on fantasy.

You can write paragraph after paragraph of empty egotism, yet you cannot be bothered to support a single dopey claim you've made.

I don't think you are fooling anyone.

Do you?

 

[tas8831]

There's a concept "hidden" in here that few modern people can see so I'll spell it out for you.

All ideas, all progress, all experiment design/ hypothesis formation and invention ALL COMES FROM INDIVIDUALS AND ALWAYS HAS. Peers are irrelevant. Consensus is irrelevant. Committees are irrelevant. It simply doesn't matter even a little bit that every Egyptologists believes the ancients were stinky footed bumpkins who molded their superstitions into the shape of a pyramid. It doesn't matter that NO Egyptologist ever noticed that there were no abstractions in Ancient Language. Reality reveals itself through physical evidence and experiment and without experiment we are prone to misinterpret physical evidence. Only experiment can tie modern theory to reality. Everything else is Look and see Science and it is frequently invented and rubber stamped by committee.

Translation:

I'M KING OF THE WORLD! Doesn't matter if nobody else sees it....

 

[cladking]

You merely writing a list is not evidence. I do not believe a single thing you claim - and no sensible person should - because you completely fail at every turn to provide any kind of rationale as to why anyone should believe you (i.e., no evidence ever).

I can't argue with someone who denies the existence of pigs and disease.

Normally when the boy points at a naked king everyone is supposed to gasp and laugh.

Somehow I am wrong about everything and logic and facts don't matter. I am wrong while everybody else in the world is right about everything and no two people agree about anything except evolution and global warming. Well, most religious people know they are right about the origins of life.

I guess that just leaves global warming. And even I agree we are running a grave risk of all dying. I suppose you believe the human race will need to gradually evolve into a new species.

 

[tas8831]

YOU referred to worldwide life expectancy.

The Believabliltiy of Evolution

"If we're so damn smart and science is so omniscient than why is life expectancy now decreasing exactly as I predicted 15 years ago? "​

I see nothing specifically about the U.S. life expectancy - do you?

You are just a run of the mill creationist, engaging in pathetic revisionism (not realizing, somehow, that your previous posts are still available - how dumb is that?) to try to save face, and failing.

As usual.

Now - documentation for those tame mink in one generation?

And documentation for your 'prediction'?

 

[cladking]

Translation:

I'M KING OF THE WORLD! Doesn't matter if nobody else sees it....

If you don't at least TRY to respond to my arguments I'm not going to continue this discussion with you.

For instance I said "Remember ALL PROGRESS comes from individual thought and new ideas. ". You could have pointed out that the light bulb could be considered as having arisen from committee and then I could address that.

I can't carry on both sides of an argument. Until such time as you resort to addressing my points instead of looking for insults I'll stop answering your posts and respond only as necessary. You might have noticed I used to address every single point you made but now most of your points you make are repetition and insult.

 

[tas8831]

I can't argue with someone who denies the existence of pigs and disease.

And now you stoop to misrepresentation to try to cover up the obvious fact that you lack the wherewithal to actually support a single one of your foolish claims.

So sad.

Normally when the boy points at a naked king everyone is supposed to gasp and laugh.

Weird that you write that - I've been laughing at you for months.

Somehow I am wrong about everything

FINALLY - something factual!

I am wrong while everybody else in the world is right about everything and no two people agree about anything except evolution and global warming.

It is true that you are wrong about everything. You science vocabulary is like that of a child, as is your understanding of things like evidence. You actually seem to think you just writing something counts as evidence... amazing how ignorant and egotistical so many of your ilk can be.

Well, most religious people know they are right about the origins of life.

Most such folk suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I guess that just leaves global warming. And even I agree we are running a grave risk of all dying. I suppose you believe the human race will need to gradually evolve into a new species.

Wow... so insightful...

Yeah, so where is that documentation of mink speciating in one generation?

 

[cladking]

No they didn't.

Remarkable! You are suggesting that taglions, mules, and such beasts were never observed before the omnipotence of modern science allowed it.

Or maybe you're suggesting they don't exist today.

I give up.

 

[tas8831]

If you don't at least TRY to respond to my arguments I'm not going to continue this discussion with you.

Your projection is thunderous.

Remember when you first made those foolish, ignorant claims about "broccas area" and all that? And I took to replying to your posts only with things that you had ignored in my replies to you? Maybe I will go back to that, for you seem to think I should address all of your irrelevant tangents and self-aggrandizing rather than try to get you to support an assertion for once.

For instance I said "Remember ALL PROGRESS comes from individual thought and new ideas. ". You could have pointed out that the light bulb could be considered as having arisen from committee and then I could address that.

And you also said that mink speciated in one generation, and then I asked you for EVIDENCE for that, and you've spent a dozen posts blabbering on about ANCIENT LANGUAGE and sundry BS - clearly to avoid having to admit that you just make things up.

But that is OK - your inability to support a single claim already tells us much about you.

I can't carry on both sides of an argument.

You cannot carry one side, as far as I can see.

Until such time as you resort to addressing my points instead of looking for insults I'll stop answering your posts and respond only as necessary.

Why is this a one-way thing? Why do I have to answer your typically irrelevant fantasy-based points while you get to ignore requests that you actually provide support for your fantastical claims?

You might have noticed I used to address every single point you made but now most of your points you make are repetition and insult.

I have never noticed you addressing every point. Typically you do not/cannot address even a single point.

Look here - Aug. 22, 2019. I ask you for your data on your claim that people can grow a broccas area:

"Show us your "experiments" that led you to conclude that individuals grow a "broccas area"."​

A single request. Clearly in response your yammering about experiments and data and the like. You made 22 posts in that thread after my singular request.

You did not reply to that post, despite responding to 3 others of mine.

I do wonder why...

 

[tas8831]

Remarkable! You are suggesting that taglions, mules, and such beasts were never observed before the omnipotence of modern science allowed it.

Or maybe you're suggesting they don't exist today.

I give up.

Amazing.

You see, this was a bit of an experiment - you know, look and see science.

I wanted to look and see how you would react when I countered your claims with nothing but an assertion, like you do to pretty much everyone else.

And look how you responded.

 

[tas8831]

I could work on the list of things about life that are all sudden.

No don't work on a list of things, work on the relevant claim - OK?

I get that death is sudden. But YOU have claimed that the production of a new species is sudden, and given a fake example of that, so let's just work on that 1 claim of yours.

Of course the fact that all observed change to life are sudden isn't the kind of thing that a reductionistic mind which operates on belief uses to think.

Of course this guy relies on begging the question - what else has he got?

We see only those facts that coincide with what we already believe.

Quite a little admission.

A really nice example is "contagion". One day lots of healthy individuals are going about their business and the next a life form (like the plague) suddenly infects an individual.

IS infection "sudden"?

The person's loss is the plague's gain as it will grow in his body and then spread in the population quite suddenly. Each individual plague germ is suddenly created and suddenly destroyed.

It seems that there are some confusion factors here:

1. You use analogies that you do not seem to understand - explain how you think a 'contagion' infects a host. EXPLAIN what is 'sudden' about it.
2. You seem to have a rather vaporous definition of "sudden." DEFINE 'sudden' as you mean it in a biological/scientific context.

I don't know but maybe a picture will help you to understand this simple observable process.

Are you really implying that a domestic pig was created from a wild pig "suddenly"?

Sorry, but you do not get to revise history as you see fit.

The first animal suddenly turned into the second animal.

I do not believe your mere assertions.
Provide evidence for this claim.

There was no mysterious force that caused it and it wasn't the magic you call "evolution".

And it did not happen suddently.

Man created an artificial bottleneck by selecting animals based on their behavior.

No, man did not create a bottleneck.

You do not know what a bottleneck is.

They didn't one day wake up and say "I want bacon". Rather they liked the taste of the animal and as scientists they knew that by selecting for behavior they'd end up with an animal that tasted a lot like pork.

Evidence for this fantasy please.

The very meaning of "pork" was redefined by the pig.

No it wasn't.

Nature is far more complex than anything you ever imagined. But many of the things it does are actually simpler than you believe. It is never predictable. What ancient scientist could ever imagine a modern pig farm or giant pigs? But he could sure imagine raising animals to eat rather than to be eaten by.

Cool story.

Pity that you cannot provide evidence for an of it.

I am off to class now, but one thing that will cause you trouble - the wild boar you pictured is not the predecessor of the pig in the other picture.

I will demolish you naive nonsense later.

 

[cladking]

You did not reply to that post, despite responding to 3 others of mine.

If you were to return to the very first exchanges you would see I posted what is virtually overwhelming evidence that each individual grows a broccas area in order to learn modern language. Modern language that contains abstractions and must be parsed is natural to no animal on earth. I referred to the fact that babies babble and a great deal of other evidence such as that at two years of age we grow countless millions of connections in our brain in order to learn and use the language that is natural to humans and requires all these four dimensional connections. I mentioned other extensive evidence as well such as these connections almost all fall into disuse. Of course you believe this is all natural because you've force fit ALL of the evidence to suit your beliefs.

You never even saw the best piece of evidence which is that everyone's broca region is in a different place. It's in a different place because it is not natural to "Homo Sapiens". It is the result of abstraction and belief and exists ONLY in Homo Omnisciencis of which you are a card carrying member.

I must have listed dozens of pieces of evidence to support my contention and you can't even define "consciousness" past "I think therefore I am" which is mere nonsense. We are Homo Omnisciencis therefore we think. No other animal thinks or uses abstractions.

 

[cladking]

You can repeat the same nonsense endlessly but I am under no obligation to respond to it. I rarely do so you better enjoy that last post.

 

[cladking]

I am off to class now, but one thing that will cause you trouble - the wild boar you pictured is not the predecessor of the pig in the other picture.

I strongly suspected it was not but it just doesn't matter because the point and the "proof" stand. Major change is sudden just like almost all change to life on every level. The things that affect and shape life is usually virtually instantaneous on every level and in every way. The road that saves the man's life isn't used more and more as it is cut through the terrain. It isn't used at all until it is suddenly opened to traffic.

Your view, understanding, and knowledge of reality is shaped by a reductionistic science that takes reality apart and never puts it back together again. Reality is all forces and all matter acting in tandem. It can not be reduced except in experiment and experiment has meaning ONLY within metaphysics. You have put the cart before the horse and see only a few of the pieces. You complain that you keep going in the ditch.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you really implying that a domestic pig was created from a wild pig "suddenly"?

Sorry, but you do not get to revise history as you see fit.

The picture he used is of a warthog. A totally different genus than that of pigs.