Re: Evolution
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:01 am
kX49dlbfG9E
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2046
noddy wrote:hang on a tick.
ive known plenty of blokes whos conversation ability didnt extend much beyond a dog or monkeys - mostly eyebrows with a few tonal variations to back it up.
As the good doctor says, humans love stories about animal intelligence and we apply our own causal-mania thinking to them. But it doesn't mean they demonstrate anything more than first-order perceptually-based relational reasoning. That they are better at it than we give them credit for is a consequences of our arrogance and are (largely) disinterest in non-human things.also, maybe no squirrels but how about parrots....
again, this is matters of degree to me.
even if i accept that is absolutely true - its viewable as a side effect of our increased tool/language/symbol abilities and thusly not out of the question for other critters with the rudiments of those abilities such as apes, dogs , crows or parrots.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:kX49dlbfG9E
my dog gets a biscuit every time it does certain tasks - you should see the expression on its face when im out of biscuits, it might not be a conceptual "why" but then again its not complete ignorance of the situation either.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:noddy wrote:hang on a tick.
ive known plenty of blokes whos conversation ability didnt extend much beyond a dog or monkeys - mostly eyebrows with a few tonal variations to back it up.
there is nothing wrong with this- that's most of life. But I have a hard time believing they've never asked, "why"? Like, "why did they raise the price of beer?"
we vaguely appear to be talking around simmilar points - this is probably lumper/splitter stuff.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:As the good doctor says, humans love stories about animal intelligence and we apply our own causal-mania thinking to them. But it doesn't mean they demonstrate anything more than first-order perceptually-based relational reasoning. That they are better at it than we give them credit for is a consequences of our arrogance and are (largely) disinterest in non-human things.also, maybe no squirrels but how about parrots....
again, this is matters of degree to me.
You guys realize you are crazy.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I may agree with you about no hard line of species separatism but that is different from saying there are no lines, even if they are in flux in the scheme of things.noddy wrote:i see no evidence for the uniqueness of human rationality nor the hard lines of species separation in the world around me.
its all matters of degree - we have more language/symbology and more tool usage than anything else but thats like saying an elephant has more nose.
But as for conceptual thinking, it is most certainly not a matter of degrees.
Our symbol-deriving may not be as important as the physiological differences we possess from our joints and bipedalism to our dentition to our cranial capacities; we are most certain an animal species and not severed from the rest of earth's species. We also run on the same or similiar perceptions (including the deliberative ability to think imaginatively)/instinctual/emotional software as the other critters around us- and 99% of our lives runs on that alone. In this regard, we are indeed "more nose".
Yet, despite the best efforts of some to convince us all sorts of animals can do it too, I've yet to meet a squirrel who can ponder round-ness.
Tool making, (most) communicative behavior can be explained by imagination, instinct and habit; but conceptual thinking is a whole other kettle of fish. And one distinct to us as best as the evidence shows.
All the best press in the world couldn't defeat the skepticism that Koko couldn't really "speak" and was responding merely to her handlers signs coupled with her possessing keen perceptive and volitional abilities. But no one doubts Helen Keller getting the concept of "water" despite being deaf and blind or that humans as a species play around with concepts all the time. {see the math and physics departments. }
To say otherwise is more akin to saying that any precursor-respiratory hole on a body is a 'nose'; at some point you cross that threshold and you've either got it or you don't (or you may possess some sort of alternative- even then, you wouldn't say creatures who breathe through their skin possess all nose either.
Lol evolutionists are the most sensitive defensive people I know. One little pinprick and category 4 hurricane. Their beliefs are sacredTyphoon wrote:Rather, they are once again demonstrating that they are willfully clueless about the process of science.Mr. Perfect wrote:The discovery of soft tissue in dinosaurs has been a tremendous boon to creationism. They are cashing in on it left and right. The quality of creationist content these days is off the charts.
Cashing in the same way as late comers in a US Marine biscuit circle jerk.
FYI this is the opposite of evolution. Evolution is about gaining traits not eliminating them. Also the study is about mutations being eliminated, and evolution is supposed to be caused by mutations. This article is actually a twofer against evolution. There is literally no accounting for the "mind" of the evolutionist.Typhoon wrote:Nature | Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving
Analysis of 215,000 people's DNA suggests variants that shorten life are being selected against.
wronger than a wrong thing dipped in wrong.Mr. Perfect wrote:
FYI this is the opposite of evolution. Evolution is about gaining traits not eliminating them. Also the study is about mutations being eliminated, and evolution is supposed to be caused by mutations. This article is actually a twofer against evolution. There is literally no accounting for the "mind" of the evolutionist.
You may be right about it being a side effect of certain preconditions. I am not arguing any ghost-in-the-machine thing here.noddy wrote:even if i accept that is absolutely true - its viewable as a side effect of our increased tool/language/symbol abilities and thusly not out of the question for other critters with the rudiments of those abilities such as apes, dogs , crows or parrots.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:kX49dlbfG9E
you cant fly/glide without a certain surface area to weight to muscle ratio, its a side effect of having those pre conditions not a special property per se.
I once had a cat who could open doors.noddy wrote:
my dog gets a biscuit every time it does certain tasks - you should see the expression on its face when im out of biscuits, it might not be a conceptual "why" but then again its not complete ignorance of the situation either.
we vaguely appear to be talking around simmilar points - this is probably lumper/splitter stuff. when you have an analog spectrum of black to white with infinite shades of grey in between, the hard catagories of "silver" versus "light grey" are always fun for humans but perhaps not as relevant as they think.
So says the gentleman who finds a conspiracy behind every piece of sinew.Mr. Perfect wrote:You guys realize you are crazy.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I may agree with you about no hard line of species separatism but that is different from saying there are no lines, even if they are in flux in the scheme of things.noddy wrote:i see no evidence for the uniqueness of human rationality nor the hard lines of species separation in the world around me.
its all matters of degree - we have more language/symbology and more tool usage than anything else but thats like saying an elephant has more nose.
But as for conceptual thinking, it is most certainly not a matter of degrees.
Our symbol-deriving may not be as important as the physiological differences we possess from our joints and bipedalism to our dentition to our cranial capacities; we are most certain an animal species and not severed from the rest of earth's species. We also run on the same or similiar perceptions (including the deliberative ability to think imaginatively)/instinctual/emotional software as the other critters around us- and 99% of our lives runs on that alone. In this regard, we are indeed "more nose".
Yet, despite the best efforts of some to convince us all sorts of animals can do it too, I've yet to meet a squirrel who can ponder round-ness.
Tool making, (most) communicative behavior can be explained by imagination, instinct and habit; but conceptual thinking is a whole other kettle of fish. And one distinct to us as best as the evidence shows.
All the best press in the world couldn't defeat the skepticism that Koko couldn't really "speak" and was responding merely to her handlers signs coupled with her possessing keen perceptive and volitional abilities. But no one doubts Helen Keller getting the concept of "water" despite being deaf and blind or that humans as a species play around with concepts all the time. {see the math and physics departments. }
To say otherwise is more akin to saying that any precursor-respiratory hole on a body is a 'nose'; at some point you cross that threshold and you've either got it or you don't (or you may possess some sort of alternative- even then, you wouldn't say creatures who breathe through their skin possess all nose either.
all true enough.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I once had a cat who could open doors.noddy wrote:
my dog gets a biscuit every time it does certain tasks - you should see the expression on its face when im out of biscuits, it might not be a conceptual "why" but then again its not complete ignorance of the situation either.
I will never forget that cat and will forever appreciate that when my mother was diagnosed with cancer; she not only knew something was wrong but immediately became a comforter and caretaker for her when we were not around. Not only was it a deliberate change in behavior, it, as much as anything else helped my mother get through the whole ordeal. Her passing was a very sad affair for me, in part because I could never communicate how much it meant to me she was around during a very fraught time-- my mother didn't take the whole thing well, jumping from one existential crisis to the next; my siblings disappeared; and my father became extremely withdrawn. So between my mother's cancer, the break-up with a fiancee, school and severe money issues all roughly hitting at once....it was as if me and that cat versus the world.
...the funny thing? That cat never particularly cared for me.
At no point was there a 'why' from her either; life doesn't collapse without it. And not being able to ask it doesn't invalidate the personalities, inventiveness or intelligence of creatures.
we vaguely appear to be talking around simmilar points - this is probably lumper/splitter stuff. when you have an analog spectrum of black to white with infinite shades of grey in between, the hard catagories of "silver" versus "light grey" are always fun for humans but perhaps not as relevant as they think.
In the grand scheme of things, it is a minor detail. But our world is made up of minor details. Which is why I'm being so insistent about it, we are within the same ballpark but with a danger of talking past one another.
I've learned to be careful in the atheist Church. They have as much trouble keeping their stories straight as the theist ones.noddy wrote:wronger than a wrong thing dipped in wrong.Mr. Perfect wrote:
FYI this is the opposite of evolution. Evolution is about gaining traits not eliminating them. Also the study is about mutations being eliminated, and evolution is supposed to be caused by mutations. This article is actually a twofer against evolution. There is literally no accounting for the "mind" of the evolutionist.
evolution believes penguins and ostriches lost their wings, it believes dolphins and whales lost their hair..
this is basic stuff, taught in atheist churches.
traits come and go based on whats working in the environment at that time - as the conditions change so too the traits required to breed successfully.
the only time ive heard this crazy idea about evolution being about gaining traits is from creationists - ive never once even heard the concept from university or biology textbooks, i have no idea why you think its relevant.Mr. Perfect wrote:I've learned to be careful in the atheist Church. They have as much trouble keeping their stories straight as the theist ones.noddy wrote:wronger than a wrong thing dipped in wrong.Mr. Perfect wrote:
FYI this is the opposite of evolution. Evolution is about gaining traits not eliminating them. Also the study is about mutations being eliminated, and evolution is supposed to be caused by mutations. This article is actually a twofer against evolution. There is literally no accounting for the "mind" of the evolutionist.
evolution believes penguins and ostriches lost their wings, it believes dolphins and whales lost their hair..
this is basic stuff, taught in atheist churches.
traits come and go based on whats working in the environment at that time - as the conditions change so too the traits required to breed successfully.
For example, a whale and dolphins may indeed lose their hair, but they are still whales and dolphins. These traits can be bred out of all kind of animals, and they remain the animal. So it's not a phenomena that bears on evolution.
In order to become something other than a whale or dolphin they have to at some point start gaining traits. Still waiting for that to come in. Been waiting for almost 2 centuries, I wonder how much longer....
Lol. No.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote: So says the gentleman who finds a conspiracy behind every piece of sinew.
Mr. Perfect wrote:Ok, I will give you 8 out of 10 for proper recitation of unprovable evolution talking points, but 2 out of 10 for rebuttal anticipation.
Every evolution bible I ever read said life started as something like a single celled organism that eventually became a brontosaur. Smoothing out the trend lines that is a story about gaining so many frikking traits.
This is why creationists say, "show me the traits", and the evolutionists have no response.
And I think we will never ever ever get one.
Nice evasion. For a cell to become either a brontosaur or an algae, enormous gains have to be made. Enormous. Evolutionists can never demonstrate this ever occuring. That is why as a part of scientific inquiry creationists ask for evidence, as any scientist would. Observation. Lab results.noddy wrote: that traits can be gained is not the same thing as saying traits must be gained, you are being very confused in your statements, earlier you where demanding that evolution must have trait creation in it, yet you still believe worms and algae and insects exist.
very confusing.
Sure. And they are much more complex than the original single cell.we have trapped bacteria in our cells that produce energy (mitochondria) - lichen is bacteria and algae joining together to form a new creature, dna crosses over creature boundaries all the time via things like viruses.
Yeah, I;ve heard about that. Hasn't resulted in any new species yet, at all. I wonder why people talk about it as if it did.scientists are currently copy and pasting bits of dna from all sorts of creatures into other creatures and it works fine, their is absolutely no reason to believe the boundaries are fixed or the "traits" of the classical animal boundaries mean much at all.
God did it.im still waiting for a creationist to explain monotremes - half mammal, half bird creatures.
no evasion. just clear language based on the facts to clear up your gas lighting obfuscations.Mr. Perfect wrote:Nice evasion. For a cell to become either a brontosaur or an algae, enormous gains have to be made. Enormous. Evolutionists can never demonstrate this ever occuring. That is why as a part of scientific inquiry creationists ask for evidence, as any scientist would. Observation. Lab results.noddy wrote: that traits can be gained is not the same thing as saying traits must be gained, you are being very confused in your statements, earlier you where demanding that evolution must have trait creation in it, yet you still believe worms and algae and insects exist.
very confusing.
After 200 years none are offered.
Sure. And they are much more complex than the original single cell.we have trapped bacteria in our cells that produce energy (mitochondria) - lichen is bacteria and algae joining together to form a new creature, dna crosses over creature boundaries all the time via things like viruses.
Anything observable in nature on how that happens?
Yeah, I;ve heard about that. Hasn't resulted in any new species yet, at all. I wonder why people talk about it as if it did.scientists are currently copy and pasting bits of dna from all sorts of creatures into other creatures and it works fine, their is absolutely no reason to believe the boundaries are fixed or the "traits" of the classical animal boundaries mean much at all.
God did it.im still waiting for a creationist to explain monotremes - half mammal, half bird creatures.
squirrels can't contemplate roundness..... some humans don't realize they are crazy.....Mr. Perfect wrote: You guys realize you are crazy.