The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[cladking]

Yet you make claims about something you say you cannot even study or do not have a definition for. Doesn't that fact ever dawn on you? Your working model appears to be "I don't know anything, therefore I know everything".

Why are you incapable of reading a question and responding to it??? <<<< Like this one.

You want you lecture rather than to discuss. You proselytize more than any religious nut I've ever heard of. I can picture you standing omn a soapbox preaching to the multitudes with no one listening.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm sorry change in species is so complex but did I ever mention every experiment, observation, and test support my theory preferentially to yours.

There are many tests that can be devised to show this but you can't imagine one if you can't even understand my argument.



You showed my point convincingly.



Humans are less clever with each generation. We have more and more frailties. Efficiency keeps dropping. Standards for just about everything keep falling. Competency is no longer is valued. Fewer and fewer people can correctly apply their knowledge to the real world. Science is stuck on 1920 and Egyptology in 1880. There are countless factors in play here and some of these things can be reversed rather suddenly but the loss of "intelligence" is "permanent". For a species whose primary niche is in figuring out how to improve it the loss of cleverness is a rather severe problem. The lack of the ability to communicate ideas is rather significant but this is another thing that can be fixed quickly.

I'm hardly suggesting the future for humans is bleak so much as I'm saying current processes are all unsustainable. We need an attitude adjustment more than anything else.

Change is so complex, yet you pretend to understand it. And without benefit of any knowledge of the subject too.

Your obvious lack of knowledge and understanding while being completely convinced that you are an expert in biology--any many other subjects--is the point you have demonstrated so completely to everyone here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why are you incapable of reading a question and responding to it??? <<<< Like this one.

You want you lecture rather than to discuss. You proselytize more than any religious nut I've ever heard of. I can picture you standing omn a soapbox preaching to the multitudes with no one listening.

Irony. So much irony.

What is to discuss? You post nonsense. Repeat it as often as you can. You offer not one bit of evidence or reason for your claims.

Now you are just attacking me, since you have nothing to discuss and it has been well-documented that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[cladking]

Now you believe you know what mice think?

NO! I believe you can't understand difference in mouse "fitness" without first understanding how and why they think. By then we'll also have a good idea of what they are thinking.

But In can give you a clue; they are usually thinking "I need to find a darker place to scurry about looking for food". It's what they're thinking in between times that is important to understanding that mouse and what you call its ability to survive. Without this knowledge you are trying to reduce the irreducible. What part of this can't you understand? Why won't you respond?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You not only know how life evolves but you even know how a dog would have evolved under theoretical conditions.

Homo Omnisciencis.

If you understood life then you'd know each individual dog would strive to survive and would naturally gravitate to a niche that would support it. This would not be some mindless thing because nature wants every dog, every animal, to survive. They are given consciousness and equal amounts of fitness to accomplish this.

Even every dog has its day.

Homo Omnisciencis is your pretend go to in response to subjects you do not understand. There is no such thing as Homo Omnisciencis. You just made it up as an escape route.

 

[cladking]

You really have a bone to pick with Egyptologists. They must really have beaten the stuffing out of your pretend.

They've never really responded to anything. Every response begins with -snip- and ends in a lecture. I love 'em all anyway but as scientists they are an utter waste of space.

 

[cladking]

Homo Omnisciencis is your pretend go to in response to subjects you do not understand. There is no such thing as Homo Omnisciencis. You just made it up as an escape route.

And how do you know that there was no change in the human species in the last 40,000 years that involved only soft tissue as I postulate.

Homo omnisciencis. You know everything because if it really existed some biologist who knows survival of the fittest is real wouldda told you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

NO! I believe you can't understand difference in mouse "fitness" without first understanding how and why they think. By then we'll also have a good idea of what they are thinking.

Interesting. You have been claiming that there is no such thing as fitness. Now you are discussing how fitness needs to be understood.

Where is the evidence that mouse thoughts are required for understanding fitness or toxicology. No where to be found. Just the same pattern of pretend without support.

But In can give you a clue; they are usually thinking "I need to find a darker place to scurry about looking for food". It's what they're thinking in between times that is important to understanding that mouse and what you call its ability to survive. Without this knowledge you are trying to reduce the irreducible. What part of this can't you understand? Why won't you respond?

So you do claim to know what mice think. Huh? What about turtles?

I do not understand nonsense. It is impossible to understand nonsense. Considering how you waffle back and forth, clearly you do not understand your own nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They've never really responded to anything. Every response begins with -snip- and ends in a lecture. I love 'em all anyway but as scientists they are an utter waste of space.

So Egyptologists recognize nonsense as readily as biologists. I sort of figured that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And how do you know that there was no change in the human species in the last 40,000 years that involved only soft tissue as I postulate.

Where have you postulated this? When? I have not seen it. I have not seen anyone arguing against that idea. It could very well be that such changes have occurred. I have not seen the point raised until now and have seen no one contesting it.

This looks like your attempt to use logical fallacies in support of your claims. If you have to rely on logical fallacies, that would tell a reasonable person that they are on a dead end.

Homo omnisciencis

. You know everything because if it really existed some biologist who knows survival of the fittest is real wouldda told you.

It is your pretend. It is meaningless and useless. You can rattle it about all you like. That won't make it real.

 

[cladking]

You really have a bone to pick with Egyptologists. They must really have beaten the stuffing out of your pretend.

I might add that every single real scientist I've contacted over the years as a result of this project has responded. Every single one of them! They haven't been a lot of help because they've been wrong but they have graciously responded and told me what they know. Not one single Egyptologist has ever even acknowledged that I'm trying to reach them. Not one linguist has responded. Ask them any question in which they can't lecture and you get no answer at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm sorry change in species is so complex but did I ever mention every experiment, observation, and test support my theory preferentially to yours.

There are many tests that can be devised to show this but you can't imagine one if you can't even understand my argument.



You showed my point convincingly.



Humans are less clever with each generation. We have more and more frailties. Efficiency keeps dropping. Standards for just about everything keep falling. Competency is no longer is valued. Fewer and fewer people can correctly apply their knowledge to the real world. Science is stuck on 1920 and Egyptology in 1880. There are countless factors in play here and some of these things can be reversed rather suddenly but the loss of "intelligence" is "permanent". For a species whose primary niche is in figuring out how to improve it the loss of cleverness is a rather severe problem. The lack of the ability to communicate ideas is rather significant but this is another thing that can be fixed quickly.

I'm hardly suggesting the future for humans is bleak so much as I'm saying current processes are all unsustainable. We need an attitude adjustment more than anything else.

Now you are claiming to have a theory again. Didn't you just claim you didn't have a theory? Which is it dude? You are all over the map.

Have you ever watched a fish out of water? It will flop like mad in an attempt to hit water. I get that same impression while reading your posts.

All that stuff you claim about humans is nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I might add that every single real scientist I've contacted over the years as a result of this project has responded. Every single one of them! They haven't been a lot of help because they've been wrong but they have graciously responded and told me what they know. Not one single Egyptologist has ever even acknowledged that I'm trying to reach them. Not one linguist has responded. Ask them any question in which they can't lecture and you get no answer at all.

What project? Show us. They may have contacted you, but that does not mean the contact was praise, agreement or recognition of your 'brilliance'.

If you are looking for help, why do you contact people that you consider to be wrong? That doesn't make any sense.

If I were them, I would never admit knowing you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then answer even one and prove me wrong.

It has been fun. I have enjoyed reading your fiction. You have a great day now.

 

[F1fan]

She can see wolves from her front porch.

And every time she does her daughter gets pregnant out of wedlock.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And every time she does her daughter gets pregnant out of wedlock.

And it probably happens suddenly too. What a bottleneck for poor Sarah.

 

[cladking]

Where have you postulated this? When? I have not seen it. I have not seen anyone arguing against that idea. It could very well be that such changes have occurred. I have not seen the point raised until now and have seen no one contesting it.

!

Check out the Ancient Reality thread. It is not directly relevant here. I postulate that the natural human language became too complex and everybody had to switch to our language which requires growing a new speech center at the back of the forebrain creating a new way to think and a new species.

Like all change in species this happened very suddenly. Indeed, this happened to millions of individuals so people born homo sapiens sometimes became homo omnisciencis. An individual; might literally change species overnight in many cases. Most individuals would have lived and died the same species as they were born. It might be impossible to have made the opposite transition. At the very least it was to almost nobody's advantage and was a far more difficult and time consuming "trick".

This is part of the problem here; there is no such thing as "species" just as there is no such thing as homo sapiens or homo omnisciencis. Every individual is different and will thrive under different conditions. Before the tower of babel being homo omnisciencis was highly maladaptive and it would exclude you from every position of power and importance. Afterward it was the reverse. Two things that look alike are not necessarily alike and without an understanding of consciousness you can't even define "life" far less its changes or nuances. We worry way too much about definitions and words and way too little about understanding what we already know. This has become our nature. It is the reason we misinterpret change in species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

!

Check out the Ancient Reality thread. It is not directly relevant here. I postulate that the natural human language became too complex and everybody had to switch to our language which requires growing a new speech center at the back of the forebrain creating a new way to think and a new species.

Like all change in species this happened very suddenly. Indeed, this happened to millions of individuals so people born homo sapiens sometimes became homo omnisciencis. An individual; might literally change species overnight in many cases. Most individuals would have lived and died the same species as they were born. It might be impossible to have made the opposite transition. At the very least it was to almost nobody's advantage and was a far more difficult and time consuming "trick".

This is part of the problem here; there is no such thing as "species" just as there is no such thing as homo sapiens or homo omnisciencis. Every individual is different and will thrive under different conditions. Before the tower of babel being homo omnisciencis was highly maladaptive and it would exclude you from every position of power and importance. Afterward it was the reverse. Two things that look alike are not necessarily alike and without an understanding of consciousness you can't even define "life" far less its changes or nuances. We worry way too much about definitions and words and way too little about understanding what we already know. This has become our nature. It is the reason we misinterpret change in species.

I'm done with you. I am satisfied that all your claims are pretend. I don't need to waste more time on your fantasy. For now anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is an article here: Sensory Adaptations of Fishes to Subterranean Environments that explains how cave fishes, while losing their (to them, useless) eyesight, evolved other sensory organs that are useful in perpetual darkness.

If you were to put a normal fish and a cave fish together in a cave, it would be the cave fish that survived to reproduce, while the normal fish would just starve. That means it is the cave fish that is "fittest" for the cave environment. That is what "fittest" means, in evolution.

They, however, still showing they are fishes.

 

[YoursTrue]

I see a lot of anti-evolution folks interpret "fitness" like the local guy at the gym. That isn't the case. They need to be aware that fitness is how well an organism can survive in an environment, like the peppered moth that just happened to be better suited to a dirty, sooty, city environment than white moths, who were then targeted more by predators and eaten, leaving fewer white moths. the peppered moths weren't stronger or better, they just happened to have natural darker coloration that gave them an advantage in a dirty environment.

The clad guy wants to dismiss this phenomenon of "fitness" when it is often observed happening. Antibiotics and anti-bacterials are examples of "fitness" in action as bacteria slowly build resistance. I'll bet that poster has had antibiotics at some point, yet denies the very principle that makes them work.

It worked out nicely that the blind fish survived in their particular areas, but likely they would not survive where they need eyes to see. Being killed by their environment, genetics being genetics, of course.