The myth of 1%

[YoursTrue]

Make that 98%. Homo sapiens exists for 200,000 years (conservative estimate). Writing exists for about 4,000 years.

Took a looonnngggg time I suppose according to evolutionists for homo sapiens to figure out they needed to write.

 

[YoursTrue]

Another "so what" argument

you mean so what that chimps don't build hospitals? I guess their genetics didn't warrant a need for it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Another "so what" argument

It's really a biggie. Just those few missing genes...

 

[YoursTrue]

Er..........

View attachment 85344

Yeah, the whatever it is just doesn't understand...

 

[YoursTrue]

Keep in mind, humans didn't have writing, or hospitals, for 99% of our whole history, despite our human genomes. So why do you conclude that it was our genetics or brains responsible for our recent technological spurt?
If we were technologically the same as modern chimps for most of our history, maybe the recent advances are more a cultural or historical fluke than a direct result of our genes.

Actually I don't think it was genetics as if implanted by the process of evolution. Nobody really knows when writing actually began. That's what I am understanding at this moment. But history does show it's only about 4,000 years old or so there are proofs of it. This makes one wonder about the 200,000 year history supposedly for homo sapiens. I know the argument some put forth -- well, homo sapiens didn't need to invent writing because they were not in cities for 195,000 years or something like that. (lol) You think I believe that it took 195,000 for homo sapiens to make cities? c/mon let's be a little reasonable. But if not -- if that's what you think, that's what you think.

 

[Valjean]

Took a looonnngggg time I suppose according to evolutionists for homo sapiens to figure out they needed to write.

They didn't need to write. They existed for most if their history without writing.

Actually I don't think it was genetics as if implanted by the process of evolution. Nobody really knows when writing actually began. That's what I am understanding at this moment. But history does show it's only about 4,000 years old or so there are proofs of it. This makes one wonder about the 200,000 year history supposedly for homo sapiens. I know the argument some put forth -- well, homo sapiens didn't need to invent writing because they were not in cities for 195,000 years or something like that. (lol) You think I believe that it took 195,000 for homo sapiens to make cities? c/mon let's be a little reasonable. But if not -- if that's what you think, that's what you think.

Why would you not believe it? Cities have a pretty large and durable footprint. It's hard to erase all traces of them.

The latest H. sapens finds have been dated to perhaps 300,000 years ago. The oldest known "city" I've heard of is Gobekli Tepe, at only ~11,000 years old. That leaves a lot of time humans existed with no trace of cities.

 

[YoursTrue]

They didn't need to write. They existed for most if their history without writing.

Why would you not believe it? Cities have a pretty large and durable footprint. It's hard to erase all traces of them.

The latest H. sapens finds have been dated to perhaps 300,000 years ago. The oldest known "city" I've heard of is Gobekli Tepe, at only ~11,000 years old. That leaves a lot of time humans existed with no trace of cities.

1. I don't believe humans existed before 6,000 or so years ago.
there is nothing to prove or show because the facts like cities and writing don't add up to now 300,000 years or so.
2. (repeat)
3. "
etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

They didn't need to write. They existed for most if their history without writing.

Why would you not believe it? Cities have a pretty large and durable footprint. It's hard to erase all traces of them.

The latest H. sapens finds have been dated to perhaps 300,000 years ago. The oldest known "city" I've heard of is Gobekli Tepe, at only ~11,000 years old. That leaves a lot of time humans existed with no trace of cities.

dating and so-called evidence can be misleading.

 

[Valjean]

1. I don't believe humans existed before 6,000 or so years ago.
there is nothing to prove or show because the facts like cities and writing don't add up to now 300,000 years or so.
2. (repeat)
3. "
etc.

So who built Gobekli Tepe?
Please don't pretend you're unaware of the reasons we date H. sapiens to ~300,000 years ago.

 

[Bthoth]

Natural selection is a metaphor for the phenotype by environment interaction driving change in populations. There is no evidence to conclude it is the result of the will or choice of anything.

So in evolution, you observe nature is selecting versus the life intending to survive, naturally.

There is the opposing perspective.

Which is also evidence of the other problem.

 

[ratiocinator]

dating and so-called evidence can be misleading.

But not nearly as often as blind faith despite any evidence.

 

[Bthoth]

There is a an insult you claim not to make.

And """
This is close to word salad. I think there must be something wrong with you.

But if you make more wrong assertions about science, I may intervene to point out for other readers that what you write is rubbish."""""

That is natural selection.

Nature does not select, that implies thought based 'intent'. Look up the definition: "carefully choose as being the best or most suitable."

No idea. A tribe from Africa?

Vadoma.... example of humans changing (evolving).

The lives changed for the environment, not that nature selected.


Why because................ life: intends to survive. That is what drives the evolution of species, not that nature is doing it. The environment changes but the living process is what evolves ...........or else.

 

[Bthoth]

Intent is a willful process. Knowing and thinking is required. Instinct is not intent.

selecting

1. carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Intent: resolved or determined to do (something).
   
   

No. You see by that response, I'm indicating that your claim is incorrect.

Changing the diet does not cause a change in the heritable genes of the organisms that changed its diet.

Changes in the human diet have guided the evolution of our metabolism, as several studies of the omega-3 pathway show. As the result of multiple changes and migrations, individuals now carry a patchwork of genetic traits that defines what an individualised healthy diet would look like.


""No. You see by that response, I'm indicating that your claim is incorrect. ""

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So in evolution, you observe nature is selecting versus the life intending to survive, naturally.

There is the opposing perspective.

Which is also evidence of the other problem.

Your statement doesn't make any sense. There is nothing comprehensible here to address.

Are claiming or asking a question or...?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And """
This is close to word salad. I think there must be something wrong with you.

But if you make more wrong assertions about science, I may intervene to point out for other readers that what you write is rubbish."""""

I see. Whataboutism.

Nature does not select, that implies thought based 'intent'.

It's a metaphor. It is not used to imply intent.

Look up the definition: "carefully choose as being the best or most suitable."

You look it up.

Vadoma.... example of humans changing (evolving).

The lives changed for the environment, not that nature selected.

The culture changed. Clearly I was correct and you do not understand the evolution that is being discussed.

Why because................ life: intends to survive. That is what drives the evolution of species, not that nature is doing it. The environment changes but the living process is what evolves ...........or else.

Whatever.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

selecting

1. carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Intent: resolved or determined to do (something).
   

Changes in the human diet have guided the evolution of our metabolism, as several studies of the omega-3 pathway show. As the result of multiple changes and migrations, individuals now carry a patchwork of genetic traits that defines what an individualised healthy diet would look like.


""No. You see by that response, I'm indicating that your claim is incorrect. ""

This isn't what you said. It is a straw man. It is also support for selection of biological change by the environment. I don't agree with and accept claims that you understand biology.

There is no evidence of intent for the genetic changes that take place leading to the evolution of populations. Semantics and logical fallacies have failed and continue fail to be that evidence.

I don't have time to give you a university-level education on a subject you seem intent on being incorrect about from the bottom up.

 

[Bthoth]

Your statement doesn't make any sense. There is nothing comprehensible here to address.

sure there is but you're mad at me and not focused on the dialogue

Are claiming or asking a question or...?

Neither, I wrote a statement.

You claim 'intent' means thinking about it. Which is less than selection as that is far more about choice it being made.

Again, if you read without contempt. You would easily see the problem.

natural selection is accepted, and what I am writing is unique.

Sorry but i am modern and far more comprehensive with far more material then the old material.

 

[Bthoth]

I see. Whataboutism.

You can adlib as you wish, but I just point out the bias.

It's a metaphor. It is not used to imply intent.

OK.. but life: intends to continue. If far more applicable than 'natural selection' as nature is selecting NOTHING. the life is living and intends to continue surviving. All cases.

You look it up.

i did and why I wrote the definition of 'select'. I sustain that the living process does intend to continue and no matter who wrote what, nature is not selecting which life survives. Again you're just being obtuse.

The culture changed. Clearly I was correct and you do not understand the evolution that is being discussed.

Stop it. You just made fun of a group of human beings as nothing. I shared that the lives evolved with the environment, even if is a part of their culture NOW.

Whatever.

Back to square 1, you're just mad at me for being a bit different but scientifically and rationally on target.

 

[Valjean]

So in evolution, you observe nature is selecting versus the life intending to survive, naturally.

We're questioning nature's "intention" to survive. Organisms aren't planning to survive, they either do or don't, depending on luck and fitness.

Nature does not select, that implies thought based 'intent'. Look up the definition: "carefully choose as being the best or most suitable."

It's a natural, mechanical, unintentional selection.
You understand the process, I'm sure. You're just nitpicking semantics.

The lives changed for the environment, not that nature selected.

Randomly changed, then naturally sorted by fitness.

Why because................ life: intends to survive. That is what drives the evolution of species, not that nature is doing it. The environment changes but the living process is what evolves ...........or else

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can adlib as you wish, but I just point out the bias.


OK.. but life: intends to continue. If far more applicable than 'natural selection' as nature is selecting NOTHING. the life is living and intends to continue surviving. All cases.

i did and why I wrote the definition of 'select'. I sustain that the living process does intend to continue and no matter who wrote what, nature is not selecting which life survives. Again you're just being obtuse.

Stop it. You just made fun of a group of human beings as nothing. I shared that the lives evolved with the environment, even if is a part of their culture NOW.

Back to square 1, you're just mad at me for being a bit different but scientifically and rationally on target.

I'm still waiting for you to provide the evidence that intent causes genetic changes and speciation.

You haven't provided anything scientific or rational that I'm aware of. I don't think it is just me.

When you get that evidence and reasoned explanation, get back with me.