cladking
Well-Known Member
Yes. In a sense.
People who couldn't speak the language had to invent a new one and all invention requires at least a little imagination.
Homo sapiens became extinct at the "tower of babel", long live homo sapiens.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why is evolution even still a debate?
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Yes. In a sense.
People who couldn't speak the language had to invent a new one and all invention requires at least a little imagination.
Homo sapiens became extinct at the "tower of babel", long live homo sapiens.
Like chemotherapy that takes 6 months? So 6 months is sudden?
Except when bacteria strains become more and more resistant to antibiotics over hundreds of generations, as just one of many exceptions.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Curiously enough it is the new language which caused homo omnisciencis to arise. It is the the existence of the brocas area that arises with the new language and defines our species. We know everything. There can be no changes in theory because Peers have made no such changes. So we continue to spread our germs by sneezing into tissues and persecute anyone who is an heretic, or God forbid, a disbeliever.
Imagination is far more important in a scientist than just about anything else. There's no such thing as "intelligence" as we perceive it so imagination has always ruled.
Well, you don't really present evidence. You make a series of claims without any evidence. And the Tower of Babel thing? That's religion, not a fact. This is why you lose even more credibility.
But aren't you trying to present your beliefs as science? Or are you admitting to having contempt for science?
Only if you want to sell a non-intellectual idea. That's why you aren't making any converts here, expertise is valuable to civilized and educated people.
Coke versus Pepsi, yes. Doing credible science, no.
No, only if you are right. How did you get this wrong?
I have no idea what this means.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yeah. And it's showing us evidence from humans being much older than 40,000 years.
It was his own observations of what he saw digging in the Earth. And no means of dating? With what he had available he found the Earth is at least millions of years old.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Because evidence provides answers.
The experts have more schooling, more knowledge, more experience, and more access to research and various tools than laymen do. That's why it's not irrelevant. Unless you believe an Amish kid who's never been in a car can diagnose car problems amd fix them as well as a mechanic in a shop with decades of experience.
That's why this is a thread. Repeatability and quality of research makes it mind boggling that anyone can still deny amd debate evolution. It's literally one of our best understood theories.
It's made to be proven wrong amd changes with the evidence. This is a good thing.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Cancers can last a lot longer and they are "sudden" as well.
Easily predicted with my theory. As a child I refused antibiotics because I knew it was coming. Fighting things off is good for your immune system anyway.
Administering things that kill microbes in individuals is obviously going to result in microbes that are resistant. This is not natural though. Mother nature doesn't do anything of this nature. If she did then there would be a gradual change in species. In nature nothing is stable and niches don't last long enough for a gradual change to occur. There are sudden upheavals and new animals fill the voids. The ones that experience the greatest change are those which are selected for the most unusual behavior.
cladking
Well-Known Member
No. The archaeological record clearly shows humans (homo sapiens) arose 40,000 years ago.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So you're moving the goalposts.
You literally said "massive genetic differences".
Furthermore, the claim that different behavior is determined by "genetic differences" is not supported by evidence.
Take twins. One can turn out to become a serial killer while the other becomes a charity worker.
How Can Identical Twins Turn Out So Different? : Shots - Health News : NPR
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Something he made up. Like the rest of his assertions.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Dude..... seriously.....
Oldest known <i>Homo sapiens</i> fossils discovered in Morocco | Natural History Museum (nhm.ac.uk)
It's like you are completely oblivious of the advances in the field since the 1960's. In the 60's, the oldest known H sapiens fossils were estimated to be some 40k years old.
This is literally 6 decades old information. You might want to read up.
New date for old bones
Fossils were first found in Jebel Irhoud in the 1960s, but were originally estimated to be about 40,000 years ago. At the time, these fossils didn’t fit with any working theories of human origins, so they were considered a curiosity.
Later work in the 1990s dated the bones to between 200,000 and 100,000 years old. However, new work using improved dating methods, led by researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, revealed that these fossils are even older.
PureX
Veteran Member
Science cannot investigate anything but physical functionality. And physical functionality is not truth. Nor is it the sum total of all that is (except to materialists). If you are a materialist, as I suspect you are, you will be unable (unwilling) to understand this comment, or this conversation any further. And I am sorry for that.
Audie
Veteran Member
Not that you are a scientist but
if you were you'd find a need for
facts to go along with imagination.
Kinda like with your posts only more so.
Where do you come up with these ridiculous ideas and interpretations of posts?
Science isn't business or government, which thrive on secrecy. Science advances by sharing its discoveries, so others can criticize and build on them.
Huh?
You keep saying this, but repetition is not evidence.
You ignore evidence when it is presented or you are steered to it. There are reasons biologists and paleontologists believe evolution proceeds at different rates in different situations. Are you aware of these reasons? How do you answer them?
So what is 'truth', and how are we to discern it? Is it possible to know truth at all?
cladking
Well-Known Member
I said behavior is the result of genetics and experience many many times. Behavior is the interplay of consciousness and knowledge in all life forms until homo omnisciencis arose and with us its determined by consciousness and what we have previously chosen to believe. While this can lead us literally anywhere at all it always leads us in circles in the short run. Even in the long run most individuals maintain the same beliefs their entire lives. Science and the status quo change one funeral at a time. You might say it "evolves" much like many believe species do except there are obvious differences.
cladking
Well-Known Member
As I've said many times the problem with science isn't science, its its believers.
Science was invented for the express purpose of determining reality by excluding the experimenter's beliefs. The moment you start analyzing experiment or using "evidence" in lieu of experiment you will not find reality but ONLY your beliefs. The moment you ask a Peer his opinion of an experiment there is no longer objectivity. When Peers stop taking input except from one another the entire "institution" of science is lost. The problem is, wasn't, but might someday be science; the problem is individuals who believe that every pronouncement of Peer is correct by definition and everyone who fails to agree is an heretic. The problem is with many modern humans in and out of science who believe that intelligence makes science work and that it doesn't require any understanding of consciousness beyond an IQ test. It's the belief that reality is a clockwork that is predetermined and governed by natural laws that we understand. It is mysticism and ignoring metaphysics and science history. It is the deplorable state of applied science. I could go on and on but the simple fact is science is fine but very few have a clue of why it works or what it is so we get more and more really bad science and people lap it up. In some fields even the practitioners have no clue what science is or they present their expertise while knowing it is not science at all.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Truth often rings like a bell but you must have your ears on to hear it.
It's very complex and for modern humans all "truth" is conditional and parseable. One might say real truth carrries with it instructions on how to deconstruct it.
Except it doesn't. It's an illustration of gradual change leading to speciation.
What's the interest in calling observed changes in populations over generations "sudden"? I suspect it relates to the creationist belief that new life forms only occur by divine creation, which is considered instantaneous.
And what behavior does it select for? The behavior that makes that individual more fecund than its competitors for scarce resources, which is what determines which is fittest.
Nature selects for more than behavior, which is why effective camouflage confers a selective advantage, as do thorns on plants. But behavior is most of it. If you are stronger or smarter than others competing with you for the same scarce resources or trying to elude predators, you will have a competitive advantage in the race to reproduce and get your genes out there in the gene pool in greater number.
This is an odd comment. How fast is your hair growing?
Of course, sudden is an imprecise word. It's the one used to describe the Cambrian explosion. If you could provide a simple, precise, intensional definition of sudden such that it could be agreed upon which things are sudden by thast definition and which are not, then there would be a basis for agreement or rebuttal.
Anyone not participating in dialectic will be disregarded.
Dialectic is the cooperative effort between two or more critical thinkers who are trying to decide what is true when they disagree. They do this by making what they consider sound arguments for their positions. If there is an error of fact or a logical fallacy, the other notes that, which is rebuttal. This rebuttal might be flawed, and the flaw pointed out. Eventually, they come to agreement over matters of fact if they use the same method for deciding what is true about the world, which critical thinkers do.
So, if somebody says that the theory of evolution is correct and makes a sound argument in support of that, and it is not rebutted (disagreement alone is not rebuttal), whatever else is offered is dismissed as irrelevant. And if it's clear that they don't possess the skills and knowledge to do that, then yes, they are ignorant of what others have learned and consider important.
I don't recall you presenting evidence, just unevidenced claims such as all change is sudden. Even if you did, if the evidence doesn't adequately support the conclusion following it, the unsound conclusion is what is dismissed, not the evidence.
There is a condition called the Dunning-Kruger syndrome characterized by a group of people who are unaware of what others know and the power of that knowledge. If one is unaware of critical thinking and what it can do to empower the critical thinker, then that person has no way to know that not all opinions are equal or arrived at the way the unknowing one arrives at his. We see this continually on RF, and it usually manifests as a comment like yours, some form of "you can't know" what is already known. Maybe this person thinks that one has to go back in time and witness the past to know what happened then: "You weren't there to see it, so you're just guessing."
We see ideas like yours in the debate over vaccination. "Fauci's opinion is irrelevant." And in the climate science controversy. In both cases, you have people that think their uninformed opinions are as useful and valid as any other, because being unaware of how one can know things they don't know, they assume that their ideas are equally valid when they demonstrably are not, as when the unvaccinated die at a higher rate than the vaccinated, or when extreme weather becomes more extreme as the earth warms.
I'm unclear what you mean by physical functionality. Presumably you don't mean that which physical therapists attempt to preserve or improve. So, I'll assume you mean the same thing I do when I refer to how the world works (functions) and how it is, which is what empiricism sets out to determine.
Your use of the word truth is different from mine. You call things true that I would not, things that I would call insufficiently supported belief. To strict empiricists, true means demonstrably true, which is the correspondence theory of truth: "the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world"
So, by this reckoning, empirical truth is the only truth, since nothing should be called true that cannot be shown to be true.
This epistemology seems to frustrate those who hold unjustified beliefs that they call true, which are rejected as true by empiricists. The frustrated tend to use words like materialism and scientism to depict what they deride as myopic thinking, but ever unable to show any advantage to their understanding of truth apart from comforting the believer.
Why do you think that a materialist cannot understand you? Can you not understand a materialist? Empiricists understand you. They just reject a non-empirical epistemology.