When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

[tas8831]

The bottom line is I can and will respond at least once to all of your BS but you will not respond to anything other than words and you only use semantics.

I would respond to gestures, but I cannot see you.


Indeed - I would like you to lay out the actual experiments you did to support your claim about the ability to grow a "broccas" area anywhere in the brain as you have asserted is the case:

"Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language."

"...We are operating a digital system with analog programming and it's the broccas area that is the interface. We are born without this area..."
​

I will refrain from further humiliating you while we all wait for you to provide links to your amazing experiments and published research that determined this - this is Nobel Prize level science, as it is contrary to over a century of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological studies that indicate something very, very different from this. And do not do what you have historically done - demand that others provide THEIR evidence that contradicts your unsupported claims (which you then ignore or dismiss - but NEVER counter by presenting your own evidence).

 

[cladking]

I've done this a dozen times (in the relevant threads) for you and will not do it again for you.

Welcome to my ignore list you can now share with "gnostic". I'll probably have to read a few of your posts but will strongly avoid responding until you actually start DISCUSSING anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've done this a dozen times (in the relevant threads) for you and will not do it again for you.

Welcome to my ignore list you can now share with "gnostic". I'll probably have to read a few of your posts but will strongly avoid responding until you actually start DISCUSSING anything.

Run Forest.... Run!

 

[tas8831]

So you intend to stand by this BS-

I would like you to lay out the actual experiments you did to support your claim about the ability to grow a "broccas" area anywhere in the brain as you have asserted is the case:

"Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language."

"...We are operating a digital system with analog programming and it's the broccas area that is the interface. We are born without this area..."
​

I will refrain from further humiliating you while we all wait for you to provide links to your amazing experiments and published research that determined this - this is Nobel Prize level science, as it is contrary to over a century of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological studies that indicate something very, very different from this. And do not do what you have historically done - demand that others provide THEIR evidence that contradicts your unsupported claims (which you then ignore or dismiss - but NEVER counter by presenting your own evidence).

 

[tas8831]

I've done this a dozen times (in the relevant threads) for you and will not do it again for you.

You have not once laid out any of the experiments you have done to support your claims. I already exposed your lie about presenting 'hundreds' of bits of evidence for your claims in another thread, and I can do it again if necessary - but rest assured, you do lie when you make such claims. Or perhaps you are truly delusional, either way your constant mantra only makes you look like a fool.

I would like you to lay out the actual experiments you did to support your claim about the ability to grow a "broccas" area anywhere in the brain as you have asserted is the case:

"Instead they must unlearn the natural language and begin growing a broccas area to create an interface between the digital speech center and the higher brain functions that begin operating on modern language."

"...We are operating a digital system with analog programming and it's the broccas area that is the interface. We are born without this area..."
​

I will refrain from further humiliating you while we all wait for you to provide links to your amazing experiments and published research that determined this - this is Nobel Prize level science, as it is contrary to over a century of neuroanatomical and neurophysiological studies that indicate something very, very different from this. And do not do what you have historically done - demand that others provide THEIR evidence that contradicts your unsupported claims (which you then ignore or dismiss - but NEVER counter by presenting your own evidence).

 

[tas8831]

I've done this a dozen times (in the relevant threads) for you and will not do it again for you.

You have a documented habit of claiming to have laid out experiments and evidence. But those claims are documented lies.

Welcome to my ignore list you can now share with "gnostic".

Ignore as you wish, but I will continue to reply to your posts, documenting your dishonesty and incompetence for all to see. This forum is littered with the corpses of your bombastic, egotistical claims and assertions, laid bare by the simple exposure of the clueless nonsense of your claims. Claims of knowing things for which there is no evidence, claims of having experimentation on your side despite not being able to refer to a single such experiment, claims of the 'suddenness' of all biological change even as you 'allow' for 2 generations, etc.
I suspect that you have serious issues needing professional help. But until you get it, I will keep demolishing your absurd claims. Claims like 'already producing' experiments and evidence.

The Believabliltiy of Evolution

 

[YoursTrue]

Run Forest.... Run!

Me don't think so. In the vernacular.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have a documented habit of claiming to have laid out experiments and evidence. But those claims are documented lies.

Ignore as you wish, but I will continue to reply to your posts, documenting your dishonesty and incompetence for all to see. This forum is littered with the corpses of your bombastic, egotistical claims and assertions, laid bare by the simple exposure of the clueless nonsense of your claims. Claims of knowing things for which there is no evidence, claims of having experimentation on your side despite not being able to refer to a single such experiment, claims of the 'suddenness' of all biological change even as you 'allow' for 2 generations, etc.
I suspect that you have serious issues needing professional help. But until you get it, I will keep demolishing your absurd claims. Claims like 'already producing' experiments and evidence.

The Believabliltiy of Evolution

Right now you're not on my ignore list, but when presented with evidence and reasoning enough times and a person keeps repeating the same mantras such as: "You are uneducated," "Don't know what you're talking about," "Darwinian evolution is so true that it's a fact!", I am now inclined to stop discussing with some what is so obviously true to me. Maybe not to you, but to me. So some people are repeating the same thing again and again, without substantiation except what other people think and so I'm wrapping that up for a while.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Run Forest.... Run!

Six months later:

 

[joelr]

Abstract:
It should be clear to everyone who make their thorough research and analysis that there are UNSOLVED PROBLEMS and PARADOXES in several scientific, religious and philosophical branches.

Watch this video and make your contextual connections to all unsolved problems and standing hypothesis which have been a long time on the scientific stage and how these problems are being tackled.


An example of useless group thinking:
Once upon a time Newtons ideas of celestial motions around a gravitational center in our Solar System was thought to be universal, but this was contradicted by the later observation of stars orbiting the gravitational centers in galaxies. Instead of revising this idea by looking at alternate possibilities from other fundamental forces, the Newtonian consensus group thinking scientists hypothesized a "dark matter" to "hold the stars from flying away from the galaxies", i. e. to regulate the initial Newtonian celestial assumption.

It is one thing to assume something celestial matter for about 350 yeas ago and another thing to observe cosmos in later times by hugely developed telescopic instruments. One can excuse former scientists and natural philosophers for having assumed and concluded something without taking all possibilities into account, but modern science should not accept former initial assumptions which holds more assumptions in its hypothesis. This ad hoc adding biased method create more problems which becomes more and more unsolvable if continuing this methodic group thinking.

Out of the squared box individual and independent thinking is the method to solve long time standing scientific problems.

Extraordinary problems requires extraordinary thinking and when such thoughts are posted, they of course should be met with gratitude and curiosity instead of by automatic ridiculing group thinking comments.

Regards
Native

In the video he starts out with a faulty example. The answers didn't change they were refined. Newtonian equations can still be derived from GR.
Dark matter isn't a good example because many alternatives were explored. The data happens to lean towards dark matter. This isn't related to standards or norms.

 

[cladking]

Right now you're not on my ignore list, but when presented with evidence and reasoning enough times and a person keeps repeating the same mantras such as: "You are uneducated," "Don't know what you're talking about," "Darwinian evolution is so true that it's a fact!", I am now inclined to stop discussing with some what is so obviously true to me. Maybe not to you, but to me. So some people are repeating the same thing again and again, without substantiation except what other people think and so I'm wrapping that up for a while.

That's how two individuals got on my ignore list. I can put up with almost anything at all but when I type out a long answer to a stupid question and then inn the very next post say I won't answer the question a few times there is no point in even trying to discuss anything. It is very frustrating to have everything you say ignored but then when they pretend they don't understand a direct answer it's too much.

People don't really consider and respond to posts because most people just want to preach their own versions of what's right and proper. People who think they understand science but don't are the worst.

 

[tas8831]

Right now you're not on my ignore list, but when presented with evidence and reasoning enough times and a person keeps repeating the same mantras such as: "You are uneducated," "Don't know what you're talking about," "Darwinian evolution is so true that it's a fact!", I am now inclined to stop discussing with some what is so obviously true to me. Maybe not to you, but to me. So some people are repeating the same thing again and again, without substantiation except what other people think and so I'm wrapping that up for a while.

That was not a response to you, but it may as well have been. You are just as clueless, but perhaps not as bombastic and megalomaniacal as your pal.

 

[tas8831]

It is very frustrating to have everything you say ignored but then when they pretend they don't understand a direct answer it's too much. .

Best not to live in glass houses....

Searching for the term "sudden" and Cladking as username produces 44 posts in this thread. Here is what I have found.

First post containing the word 'sudden':

"All observed change in species is sudden just as all observed change in living individuals is sudden."​

I will not link to every post in which this is comes up, but I will quote from all 44 of them, and I will seek these mysterious lists of changes that are sudden, according to our local world's greatest Egyptologist that not a single person in the world recognizes as such and report on what I find. These quotes are all in order of appearance in this thread:

"and all observed change in life is sudden...All observed change in all life is sudden...It is a collection of unusual behavior that is bred to create new species and these species are sudden...And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden"...I still maintain that significant change in significant species is almost always sudden..."​

This one is a good one:

"ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN. It is YOUR JOB to show ANY CHANGE AT ALL to individuals, species, or any life on any level that is gradual."​

This was after I asked him for actual evidence for his claim. Some things never change in creationist-land... Back to the list:

"There are countless examples of sudden change from death to birth or even marriage. There are countless examples. There are also countless examples of sudden changes in population and group behavior but I don't believe in "groups" and "species' or even "civilizations". "
" I present extensive evidence for ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES TO BE SUDDEN; in a word "agriculture"....All OBSERVED change in life is sudden....Meanwhile ALL OBSERVED CHANGE TO ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN and not gradual....From the perspective of "evolutionary changes" man's extinction would be quite "sudden"... and all change is sudden...And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden"...I still maintain that significant change in significant species is almost always sudden. Gradual change exists but accounts for little of the aggregate change in most major species...There are as many causes as there were deaths and every death was sudden...I could work on the list of things about life that are all sudden. 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...Each individual plague germ is suddenly created and suddenly destroyed....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". I was merely saying that species suddenly adapt to changes in their niche. All change in life in all ways is sudden...Change in life is sudden and you still haven't shown any exceptions... I wonder how many sudden changes in life I've mentioned in this thread without even trying but still NO NONE HAS SHOWN A GRADUAL CHANGE IN LIFE...I said "sudden" can be defined as no moment between two events....I said the effects and causes of life are sudden...All change in life is sudden. Meanwhile I've listed a couple dozens changes in life that are sudden and you've failed to list even one that is gradual. Essentially the biggest problem is that all change in all life is always observed to be sudden....All observed change is sudden (less than two generations) Yes, this is your contention but everything that is offered as evidence supports my contention that all change is sudden....The evidence all supports my contention that everything that affects life including change in species is sudden.... Every single source linked by believers in evolution shows sudden change just as all observation shows....I agree and would add all change in species is SUDDEN.... All evolution is sudden...ONLY experiment counts and every experiment shows all change in all life is sudden....ALL the evidence shows ALL change in ALL life is SUDDEN. Then you merely claim you provided evidence while ignoring mine such as ALL OBSERVABLE CHANGE IN LIFE OF ALL TYPES IS SUDDEN!!... People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden...​

Examples supporting claim listed:
ZERO

Examples merely listed without any rationale or reference to experiment supporting his claim:
Peppered moths...
Dogs ("There were no dogs and then there suddenly were.")
Mink...
"agriculture"?
"contagion"
plague germs


Example in which he offered some attempt at explanation (from a flawed memory) was shown to be wrong (ignored by him, of course):

"One of the best examples of sudden change in species caused by behavior is a very modern one; 'tame minks'. Minks are hard to raise because they are mean. Someone selected sedate and friendly minks and got a new species in a single generation; SUDDEN!"​

Me, disproving his 'single generation' claim:
The Believabliltiy of Evolution



Admits some change is gradual, even as he biffs the details:

"Try showing a fossil of something that gradually changes into something much different. "Horse" is the best example that comes to mind but this isn't so gradual (think punctuated equilibrium) and today's horse isn't so much different than fossil horses as it is smaller. "​

Ironic/weird/dopey/insane claims, commentary by me in red:

"But I am not giving myself a pass on the requirement of science to be based on experiment. "

"All individuals of species are equally fit but have different genes."

"I strongly suspected it was not but it just doesn't matter because the point and the "proof" stand." = he admitted he was wrong, but then claimed it was OK anyway...

"A "moment" is a theoretical point in time during which nothing at all can occur. In other words a great deal about life, consciousness, and evolution occur in FAR LESS THAN A NANOSECOND. Change is exceedingly rapid dependent upon definitions. But is always fast and rarely does anything require more than a generation or two."

"All observed change is sudden (less than two generations) " which is it? Less than a nanosecond, or a couple of generations?

"All evolution is sudden." unless it takes a generation or two?

"ONLY experiment counts and every experiment shows all change in all life is sudden." and yet he has not once referred to any experiments that support his claims...

"Experiment" of sorts can be done in "evolution" but all such experiments ever performed have clearly shown all change in life of all types and sorts is "sudden". despite the fact that he never mentions a single one...

" Go back and read my posts. They contain several dozens pieces of evidence. " no, they really don't - LOTS of repetition of the mantra, that is about it.


CONCLUSION:

Cladking claims to have listed "hundreds" of cases supporting his position that all changes in life happen suddenly. He DEFINES this as 'less than a nanosecond.' He also admits that there is some gradual change (negating his repetitious mantra) and allows that it can take 'a generation or two' - then goes back to saying "all change is sudden".
AT BEST, he has listed not hundreds, but SIX (2 of which refer to the same thing).

So, this claim is an OUTRIGHT LIE, or perhaps an act of delusion:

"I've listed hundreds of cases in this very thread that show all change in all life is sudden but you have failed to comment on any of them. "​

 

[YoursTrue]

Best not to live in glass houses....

Searching for the term "sudden" and Cladking as username produces 44 posts in this thread. Here is what I have found.

First post containing the word 'sudden':

"All observed change in species is sudden just as all observed change in living individuals is sudden."​

I will not link to every post in which this is comes up, but I will quote from all 44 of them, and I will seek these mysterious lists of changes that are sudden, according to our local world's greatest Egyptologist that not a single person in the world recognizes as such and report on what I find. These quotes are all in order of appearance in this thread:

"and all observed change in life is sudden...All observed change in all life is sudden...It is a collection of unusual behavior that is bred to create new species and these species are sudden...And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden"...I still maintain that significant change in significant species is almost always sudden..."​

This one is a good one:

"ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN. It is YOUR JOB to show ANY CHANGE AT ALL to individuals, species, or any life on any level that is gradual."​

This was after I asked him for actual evidence for his claim. Some things never change in creationist-land... Back to the list:

"There are countless examples of sudden change from death to birth or even marriage. There are countless examples. There are also countless examples of sudden changes in population and group behavior but I don't believe in "groups" and "species' or even "civilizations". "
" I present extensive evidence for ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES TO BE SUDDEN; in a word "agriculture"....All OBSERVED change in life is sudden....Meanwhile ALL OBSERVED CHANGE TO ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN and not gradual....From the perspective of "evolutionary changes" man's extinction would be quite "sudden"... and all change is sudden...And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden"...I still maintain that significant change in significant species is almost always sudden. Gradual change exists but accounts for little of the aggregate change in most major species...There are as many causes as there were deaths and every death was sudden...I could work on the list of things about life that are all sudden. 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...Each individual plague germ is suddenly created and suddenly destroyed....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". I was merely saying that species suddenly adapt to changes in their niche. All change in life in all ways is sudden...Change in life is sudden and you still haven't shown any exceptions... I wonder how many sudden changes in life I've mentioned in this thread without even trying but still NO NONE HAS SHOWN A GRADUAL CHANGE IN LIFE...I said "sudden" can be defined as no moment between two events....I said the effects and causes of life are sudden...All change in life is sudden. Meanwhile I've listed a couple dozens changes in life that are sudden and you've failed to list even one that is gradual. Essentially the biggest problem is that all change in all life is always observed to be sudden....All observed change is sudden (less than two generations) Yes, this is your contention but everything that is offered as evidence supports my contention that all change is sudden....The evidence all supports my contention that everything that affects life including change in species is sudden.... Every single source linked by believers in evolution shows sudden change just as all observation shows....I agree and would add all change in species is SUDDEN.... All evolution is sudden...ONLY experiment counts and every experiment shows all change in all life is sudden....ALL the evidence shows ALL change in ALL life is SUDDEN. Then you merely claim you provided evidence while ignoring mine such as ALL OBSERVABLE CHANGE IN LIFE OF ALL TYPES IS SUDDEN!!... People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden...​

Examples supporting claim listed:
ZERO

Examples merely listed without any rationale or reference to experiment supporting his claim:
Peppered moths...
Dogs ("There were no dogs and then there suddenly were.")
Mink...
"agriculture"?
"contagion"
plague germs


Example in which he offered some attempt at explanation (from a flawed memory) was shown to be wrong (ignored by him, of course):

"One of the best examples of sudden change in species caused by behavior is a very modern one; 'tame minks'. Minks are hard to raise because they are mean. Someone selected sedate and friendly minks and got a new species in a single generation; SUDDEN!"​

Me, disproving his 'single generation' claim:
The Believabliltiy of Evolution



Admits some change is gradual, even as he biffs the details:

"Try showing a fossil of something that gradually changes into something much different. "Horse" is the best example that comes to mind but this isn't so gradual (think punctuated equilibrium) and today's horse isn't so much different than fossil horses as it is smaller. "​

Ironic/weird/dopey/insane claims, commentary by me in red:

"But I am not giving myself a pass on the requirement of science to be based on experiment. "

"All individuals of species are equally fit but have different genes."

"I strongly suspected it was not but it just doesn't matter because the point and the "proof" stand." = he admitted he was wrong, but then claimed it was OK anyway...

"A "moment" is a theoretical point in time during which nothing at all can occur. In other words a great deal about life, consciousness, and evolution occur in FAR LESS THAN A NANOSECOND. Change is exceedingly rapid dependent upon definitions. But is always fast and rarely does anything require more than a generation or two."

"All observed change is sudden (less than two generations) " which is it? Less than a nanosecond, or a couple of generations?

"All evolution is sudden." unless it takes a generation or two?

"ONLY experiment counts and every experiment shows all change in all life is sudden." and yet he has not once referred to any experiments that support his claims...

"Experiment" of sorts can be done in "evolution" but all such experiments ever performed have clearly shown all change in life of all types and sorts is "sudden". despite the fact that he never mentions a single one...

" Go back and read my posts. They contain several dozens pieces of evidence. " no, they really don't - LOTS of repetition of the mantra, that is about it.


CONCLUSION:

Cladking claims to have listed "hundreds" of cases supporting his position that all changes in life happen suddenly. He DEFINES this as 'less than a nanosecond.' He also admits that there is some gradual change (negating his repetitious mantra) and allows that it can take 'a generation or two' - then goes back to saying "all change is sudden".
AT BEST, he has listed not hundreds, but SIX (2 of which refer to the same thing).

So, this claim is an OUTRIGHT LIE, or perhaps an act of delusion:

"I've listed hundreds of cases in this very thread that show all change in all life is sudden but you have failed to comment on any of them. "​

Here's da problem as I see it now...conjectures based on fossils are one thing...gaps are another. (Big ones.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Best not to live in glass houses....

Searching for the term "sudden" and Cladking as username produces 44 posts in this thread. Here is what I have found.

First post containing the word 'sudden':

"All observed change in species is sudden just as all observed change in living individuals is sudden."​

I will not link to every post in which this is comes up, but I will quote from all 44 of them, and I will seek these mysterious lists of changes that are sudden, according to our local world's greatest Egyptologist that not a single person in the world recognizes as such and report on what I find. These quotes are all in order of appearance in this thread:

"and all observed change in life is sudden...All observed change in all life is sudden...It is a collection of unusual behavior that is bred to create new species and these species are sudden...And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden"...I still maintain that significant change in significant species is almost always sudden..."​

This one is a good one:

"ALL OBSERVED CHANGE IN ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN. It is YOUR JOB to show ANY CHANGE AT ALL to individuals, species, or any life on any level that is gradual."​

This was after I asked him for actual evidence for his claim. Some things never change in creationist-land... Back to the list:

"There are countless examples of sudden change from death to birth or even marriage. There are countless examples. There are also countless examples of sudden changes in population and group behavior but I don't believe in "groups" and "species' or even "civilizations". "
" I present extensive evidence for ALL CHANGE IN SPECIES TO BE SUDDEN; in a word "agriculture"....All OBSERVED change in life is sudden....Meanwhile ALL OBSERVED CHANGE TO ALL LIFE ON EVERY LEVEL IS SUDDEN and not gradual....From the perspective of "evolutionary changes" man's extinction would be quite "sudden"... and all change is sudden...And almost all major changes in almost everything and in all life forms on the individual or species basis are "sudden"...I still maintain that significant change in significant species is almost always sudden. Gradual change exists but accounts for little of the aggregate change in most major species...There are as many causes as there were deaths and every death was sudden...I could work on the list of things about life that are all sudden. 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...Each individual plague germ is suddenly created and suddenly destroyed....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". I was merely saying that species suddenly adapt to changes in their niche. All change in life in all ways is sudden...Change in life is sudden and you still haven't shown any exceptions... I wonder how many sudden changes in life I've mentioned in this thread without even trying but still NO NONE HAS SHOWN A GRADUAL CHANGE IN LIFE...I said "sudden" can be defined as no moment between two events....I said the effects and causes of life are sudden...All change in life is sudden. Meanwhile I've listed a couple dozens changes in life that are sudden and you've failed to list even one that is gradual. Essentially the biggest problem is that all change in all life is always observed to be sudden....All observed change is sudden (less than two generations) Yes, this is your contention but everything that is offered as evidence supports my contention that all change is sudden....The evidence all supports my contention that everything that affects life including change in species is sudden.... Every single source linked by believers in evolution shows sudden change just as all observation shows....I agree and would add all change in species is SUDDEN.... All evolution is sudden...ONLY experiment counts and every experiment shows all change in all life is sudden....ALL the evidence shows ALL change in ALL life is SUDDEN. Then you merely claim you provided evidence while ignoring mine such as ALL OBSERVABLE CHANGE IN LIFE OF ALL TYPES IS SUDDEN!!... People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden...​

Examples supporting claim listed:
ZERO

Examples merely listed without any rationale or reference to experiment supporting his claim:
Peppered moths...
Dogs ("There were no dogs and then there suddenly were.")
Mink...
"agriculture"?
"contagion"
plague germs


Example in which he offered some attempt at explanation (from a flawed memory) was shown to be wrong (ignored by him, of course):

"One of the best examples of sudden change in species caused by behavior is a very modern one; 'tame minks'. Minks are hard to raise because they are mean. Someone selected sedate and friendly minks and got a new species in a single generation; SUDDEN!"​

Me, disproving his 'single generation' claim:
The Believabliltiy of Evolution



Admits some change is gradual, even as he biffs the details:

"Try showing a fossil of something that gradually changes into something much different. "Horse" is the best example that comes to mind but this isn't so gradual (think punctuated equilibrium) and today's horse isn't so much different than fossil horses as it is smaller. "​

Ironic/weird/dopey/insane claims, commentary by me in red:

"But I am not giving myself a pass on the requirement of science to be based on experiment. "

"All individuals of species are equally fit but have different genes."

"I strongly suspected it was not but it just doesn't matter because the point and the "proof" stand." = he admitted he was wrong, but then claimed it was OK anyway...

"A "moment" is a theoretical point in time during which nothing at all can occur. In other words a great deal about life, consciousness, and evolution occur in FAR LESS THAN A NANOSECOND. Change is exceedingly rapid dependent upon definitions. But is always fast and rarely does anything require more than a generation or two."

"All observed change is sudden (less than two generations) " which is it? Less than a nanosecond, or a couple of generations?

"All evolution is sudden." unless it takes a generation or two?

"ONLY experiment counts and every experiment shows all change in all life is sudden." and yet he has not once referred to any experiments that support his claims...

"Experiment" of sorts can be done in "evolution" but all such experiments ever performed have clearly shown all change in life of all types and sorts is "sudden". despite the fact that he never mentions a single one...

" Go back and read my posts. They contain several dozens pieces of evidence. " no, they really don't - LOTS of repetition of the mantra, that is about it.


CONCLUSION:

Cladking claims to have listed "hundreds" of cases supporting his position that all changes in life happen suddenly. He DEFINES this as 'less than a nanosecond.' He also admits that there is some gradual change (negating his repetitious mantra) and allows that it can take 'a generation or two' - then goes back to saying "all change is sudden".
AT BEST, he has listed not hundreds, but SIX (2 of which refer to the same thing).

So, this claim is an OUTRIGHT LIE, or perhaps an act of delusion:

"I've listed hundreds of cases in this very thread that show all change in all life is sudden but you have failed to comment on any of them. "​

Sudden? Did the last type of homo sapiens suddenly appear after they morphed slowly from grunting cavemen? Or do you conjecture it took lots and lots of time for the difference in speech, reading, writing and einsteinium type thought, wondering about the universe?

 

[cladking]

Sudden? Did the last type of homo sapiens suddenly appear after they morphed slowly from grunting cavemen? Or do you conjecture it took lots and lots of time for the difference in speech, reading, writing and einsteinium type thought, wondering about the universe?

There is no morphing or gradual change in life. Of course nothing is static and every time an individual is born or dies its "species" is a little different.

40,000 years ago a man (probably) named S3h (probably) and vaguely remembered as "Adam" (probably) was born of proto-human parents. The parents were "human" in every single way though likely a little more "intelligent" than we are and almost completely ignorant because they lacked complex language. What made S3h different is that he had a mutation that tied his speech center to higher brain function. His mate named Sopdet (Eve) was an unusually eloquent proto-human who worked to promote S3h and to help him elaborate on the existing language. The language developed very quickly because it brought higher brain functions to bear on the ability to communicate. Of course S3h's being the first human imposed severe restrictions on his ability to make great progress but his children were all born with the same mutation. This ability to communicate and pass complex ideas from generation to generation launched the human race. It all happened very suddenly and started when S3h was about three years old after he grew the billions of brain cells that we all grow that was to help us communicate in Ancient language. A great deal of human progress is the result of people who understand one another bouncing ideas off of one another. No doubt a great deal of true genius happened around the camp fire with Adam, Eve, the kids and the grandkids who were most of the human race in those days.

All changes in life are sudden much as changes in science are sudden. Just like life, science tends to change one funeral at a time though life is even more dependent on the existence of one birth at a time. Individuals and Peers tend to change very little over the years whether they need to or not.

Proto-humans couldn't use their greater intelligence to progress because they each started at square one. But humans had the combined knowledge of all their ancestors in the form of Ancient Language. Today rather than language to hold all of human knowledge we rely on the existence of Peers whom most people (who believe in scientism) believe vote reality into existence. If Peers say we are really just a movie in an alien movie theatre or that our solar systems are strange atoms then it becomes real to the victims of scientism. We use a reductionistic science where experiment is obsolete and politics dominates research and the opinion of Peers. If you can't get funding then you're out of work and if you challenge the status quo there is no more funding for you. We have soup of the day science and if you say the wrong thing "No soup for you".

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no morphing or gradual change in life. Of course nothing is static and every time an individual is born or dies its "species" is a little different.

40,000 years ago a man (probably) named S3h (probably) and vaguely remembered as "Adam" (probably) was born of proto-human parents. The parents were "human" in every single way though likely a little more "intelligent" than we are and almost completely ignorant because they lacked complex language. What made S3h different is that he had a mutation that tied his speech center to higher brain function. His mate named Sopdet (Eve) was an unusually eloquent proto-human who worked to promote S3h and to help him elaborate on the existing language. The language developed very quickly because it brought higher brain functions to bear on the ability to communicate. Of course S3h's being the first human imposed severe restrictions on his ability to make great progress but his children were all born with the same mutation. This ability to communicate and pass complex ideas from generation to generation launched the human race. It all happened very suddenly and started when S3h was about three years old after he grew the billions of brain cells that we all grow that was to help us communicate in Ancient language. A great deal of human progress is the result of people who understand one another bouncing ideas off of one another. No doubt a great deal of true genius happened around the camp fire with Adam, Eve, the kids and the grandkids who were most of the human race in those days.

All changes in life are sudden much as changes in science are sudden. Just like life, science tends to change one funeral at a time though life is even more dependent on the existence of one birth at a time. Individuals and Peers tend to change very little over the years whether they need to or not.

Proto-humans couldn't use their greater intelligence to progress because they each started at square one. But humans had the combined knowledge of all their ancestors in the form of Ancient Language. Today rather than language to hold all of human knowledge we rely on the existence of Peers whom most people (who believe in scientism) believe vote reality into existence. If Peers say we are really just a movie in an alien movie theatre or that our solar systems are strange atoms then it becomes real to the victims of scientism. We use a reductionistic science where experiment is obsolete and politics dominates research and the opinion of Peers. If you can't get funding then you're out of work and if you challenge the status quo there is no more funding for you. We have soup of the day science and if you say the wrong thing "No soup for you".

Such an interesting story. Any evidence for it, or is it just a fairy tale?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no morphing or gradual change in life. Of course nothing is static and every time an individual is born or dies its "species" is a little different.

OK, well I must say I don't understand species too well, but -- as far as morphing goes, I use the word liberally, shall we say. And you are saying there is no gradual change in life. As far as the theory of evolution, I understand it, but it's impossible to solidify a definite factual basis in reality for it, I realize scientists lean on a few things to propogate their faith, which they must say is not faith even though fish remain fish, blind or not, birds remain birds, etc.

OK, I see then from your following comments you don't really believe in the (basic outline of) Bible, so that's interesting. I find the Bible quite believable, yes, there are certain things I find difficult to understand, but then I leave those matters in God's hands. Thank you, though, for your reply.

40,000 years ago a man (probably) named S3h (probably) and vaguely remembered as "Adam" (probably) was born of proto-human parents. The parents were "human" in every single way though likely a little more "intelligent" than we are and almost completely ignorant because they lacked complex language. What made S3h different is that he had a mutation that tied his speech center to higher brain function. His mate named Sopdet (Eve) was an unusually eloquent proto-human who worked to promote S3h and to help him elaborate on the existing language. The language developed very quickly because it brought higher brain functions to bear on the ability to communicate. Of course S3h's being the first human imposed severe restrictions on his ability to make great progress but his children were all born with the same mutation. This ability to communicate and pass complex ideas from generation to generation launched the human race. It all happened very suddenly and started when S3h was about three years old after he grew the billions of brain cells that we all grow that was to help us communicate in Ancient language. A great deal of human progress is the result of people who understand one another bouncing ideas off of one another. No doubt a great deal of true genius happened around the camp fire with Adam, Eve, the kids and the grandkids who were most of the human race in those days.

All changes in life are sudden much as changes in science are sudden. Just like life, science tends to change one funeral at a time though life is even more dependent on the existence of one birth at a time. Individuals and Peers tend to change very little over the years whether they need to or not.

Proto-humans couldn't use their greater intelligence to progress because they each started at square one. But humans had the combined knowledge of all their ancestors in the form of Ancient Language. Today rather than language to hold all of human knowledge we rely on the existence of Peers whom most people (who believe in scientism) believe vote reality into existence. If Peers say we are really just a movie in an alien movie theatre or that our solar systems are strange atoms then it becomes real to the victims of scientism. We use a reductionistic science where experiment is obsolete and politics dominates research and the opinion of Peers. If you can't get funding then you're out of work and if you challenge the status quo there is no more funding for you. We have soup of the day science and if you say the wrong thing "No soup for you".

Likely we agree on some points. I was thinking that humans of all lifeforms (I hesitate to say of all creation, because not everyone believes the proposition that life on earth was promoted, given a start, however a person wants to call it, by God) contemplate the prospect of death (intellectually and emotionally) from the time they are old enough to think about it. I remember I was about 6 years old when I started to understand that death was not life. It scared me to think I might die in my sleep. My mother did not know how to comfort me much. I don't think <small smile there> that cattle think about it much in a contemplative way. Maybe when they have the preservation instinct as they're herded to the slaughterhouse. But it's not the same thing as humans thinking about it. I mention cows since I saw a herd of cows grazing today as I was driving, they were busy munching along...P.S. I understand that every time something 'new' comes up, either in the way of vegetation or animal or human life, the propogation is genetically slightly different from its forebearer. This does not mean (to me) evolution of the Darwinian kind.

 

[rational experiences]

Science. A human thinking.

I will think upon the mechanics of a planet and build a machine.

Mechanical planet energy dead in his machine presence. Machine Owns no self function or ability.

Machine depends on conscious designer human life body thoughts who uses a machine as a powerful extension of his own mind.

Tells orders controls machine conditions himself. Why he thought men were a God. Group consensus agreed.

Most machines communicate with purpose by components machine to machine. Equal status.

Other machine type converter he puts mass into machine then mind controls uses machine to force change matter.

Then decided he is a God. Group consensus egotists all agree.

Natural human spiritual not an egotist. Natural group first human family.

Instead of using machine to machine equal status. He uses machine to watch study experiment human life within the atmosphere body.

Claiming he works on behalf of god. What he first thought about planet earth. Earth is not his theory God. His machine is. Group consensus allows it.

Human gets attacked as human knows humans are not machines or machine components.

Machine group theists however possessed by machine use the claim humans are bio mechanical.

What group consensus causes when groups against family were quoted to be the Cult.

Every life human was once just sperm inside a man's body and an ovary inside a woman's body.

Mind of baby self quotes I evolved myself.

Anything a scientist theories about as past is dead.

Reason the suns previous alight living energy mass died and no longer exists.

No sun body mass exists in any past.

So his group life human was attacked as lots of humans who said don't discuss dead things. As they owned the sacrifice of life by human scientists. Group consensus.

Group consensus scientific said self consuming body sun advice told us that science converting nuclear is an evil human practice. Group consensus also.

Group consensus fact finding is of no value. As natural family human group consensus told you that your human cult group are evil history against life survival.

Highest group consensus totally ignored .....family and natural.

 

[cladking]

OK, well I must say I don't understand species too well, but -- as far as morphing goes, I use the word liberally, shall we say.

I define "species" as the sum total of the consciousness, genes, and behavior that comprise a group that communicates and can generally reproduce as adults. I agree that there is no changing from one type of animal or species over a long period of time. Almost all change is sudden and the resultant species is generally at least similar to the parent species. The change is caused by behavior as ancient writing and the Bible suggest.

OK, I see then from your following comments you don't really believe in the (basic outline of) Bible, so that's interesting.

I doubt our understanding of the Bible is so very different looking at the big picture. My version may seem very alien when it is dissected.

I believe the Bible is a composition of ancient writing made by individuals who did not understand the meaning of the writing. It was written in the same language Adam invented and failed at the "tower of babel". There is no real outline because the authors didn't understand any of it and much of it was disjointed and not really appropriate. Much of the Bible is an attempt to preserve history but it too is mostly jumbled. Ancient Language was metaphysical and could not be translated. The holy books date at least to the 15th century BC and appear among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I think of the Bible as being the conclusions of ancient science but written in a form that is very difficult to interpret. Some scripture is obvious in its meaning but most is rather enigmatic in its origin and meaning. It is not in the least disturbing to me that so many people interpret these early writings as meaning there is a God who started or even presides over reality. Obviously we don't know how it started and the concept of an outside intelligence that cares about happenings is as good an explanation as any. Much of the writing is literal because this was the nature of Ancient Language; highly literal.

But it's not the same thing as humans thinking about it.

Indeed. All individuals are hard wired to survive because this is what nature/ God wants. It is logical not to waste resources, like individuals, so we are hardwired to survive. But only modern humans think. Consciousness and thinking are very different concepts. Consciousness is awareness and the ability to learn and experience where thinking is comparing sensory input to beliefs.

I've read most of the Bible and researched much of it at least once. While I know every word makes perfect sense to the original authors (not the compilers) in terms of their premises much of the meaning remains opaque to me. I'm sure that the admonition to not change a word appears because the compilers were well aware that Ancient Language could not be translated and that further drift in translation would make the task of understanding it even harder.

I guess we're drifting off topic a bit so I'll just leave it here. I believe much of the meaning of the Bible will be deduced as time goes by and the current understanding may be closer to reality than much of the consensus thinking in science. In this case "science" refers to any field of study not founded on experiment.