Author Topic: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?  (Read 21039 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #50 on: February 10, 2010, 01:20:12 am »
"As far as I know science remains yet the only method of investigation that clearly works in our attempt to better understand nature and the world we live in."


i agree with this insofar as yes science is us trying to build a language to describe the patterns we see in the natural world...however, we have abused our knowledge and ability to recognize, derive, duplicate and manipulate natural processes to create this horrible society we live in. starting with the abuse of the science of agriculture, we continue to create systems that deny natures existence outside of serving our own purposes!  this is not understanding or knowledge.    this is an extremely understated and annotated version of the real truth and depth of this situation,
  what scientists do not realize is that they will never truly understand any part of the natural world by analyzing, deriving, duplicating etc...

There are now many scientists including myself who do realize this very clearly and are labeled emergentists as opposed to reductionists. It is even a basic outcome of the past twenty years in condensed matter physics and complex systems research.  :) We have clearly demonstrated that there is a basic epistemologic barrier of knowledge in many instances where there is what we call instability. Which does not mean that we cannot know much about anything because fortunately there is sometimes protection from chaotic influences. There are just drastic limitations.

As to the horrible society we live in, it seems to me that it is utterly unfair to invoke scientists as the main culprits. This society is an emerging phenomenon that results from collective action of each woman or man on this planet. In particular the action of those greedy people who do 'applied (junk) science" before a safe scientific answer is available. This situation unfortunately prevails up to now in life science, agriculture and medicine.      


Offline roony

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 401
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #51 on: February 10, 2010, 01:25:25 am »
Yes of course. Evolution is first of all just a fact, whether one likes it or not. Period.

Darwin's natural selection and more recently complex systems theory is a theory that may explain or explains yet a good deal of the characteristic features of evolution, whether one likes it or not. Period.



  

Go & prove it in a lab, experimentally unprovable theories, only a fundamentalist would ever refer to an experimentally unprovable theory as fact


Which spells out the type of people, irrational & fundamentalist, who'd consider an unprovable science such as evolution as fact, fundamentalists, fanatics, extremists

Pretty much sums most people who believe in something as racist & eugenic as evolution, with its roots in aryanism & supremacy

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #52 on: February 10, 2010, 01:47:18 am »
Go & prove it in a lab,

There is at least one thing that does not need any proof in a lab or elsewhere.

It's your idiocy, roony  :)

alphagruis

  • Guest
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #53 on: February 10, 2010, 02:23:57 am »
Or at least the best one we currently have. I try as an amateur to use a basic version of the scientist's toolkit. I like it because to a certain extent it works, not because it's perfect (which it isn't).

Science is just a human activity and so cannot be and is by far not perfect, unfortunately. I just can't see a better way.

Yes, mapping the genome of several species doesn't seem to have produced the sort of rapid and numerous breakthroughs that some people expected, but I wasn't surprised. Having all the details helps some, but it still doesn't give you the totality of the complex big picture.

Yes, excellent example of the failure of the genetic reductionism. A huge amount of money has been spend to map genomes because it is still erronously believed by many molecular biologists that the secret of life is encoded in genes. And by the way also because it is technically possible to do it and generates a lot of returns in computer and molecular biology techniques business.
 
Emergentist physicists know since decades from a rational point of view what you or Jessica (women are usually good at this) or others know intuitively, namely that the properties of the whole cannot be inferred from or read in any part, even if this part is as remarkable as the DNA macromolecule. This is precisely what complex system science tells us and what emergence means, technically.  

Offline jessica

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,016
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #54 on: February 10, 2010, 05:42:55 am »
We have clearly demonstrated that there is a basic epistemologic barrier of knowledge in many instances where there is what we call instability. Which does not mean that we cannot know much about anything because fortunately there is sometimes protection from chaotic influences. There are just drastic limitations.

i went and meditated on this today and will now use the exact thing i am going to condemn to prove a point that is pointless!

the barrier of knowledge is IN FACT! our emphasis on the verbal and written explanation of the intangeable and undefinable objects, instances, patterns, occurences, occasions..etc...this is what you call science...its own barrier to the "knowledge" it pursues!

we use the human language...spoken or written to explain, categorize and assign specific meanings to common things that exist similarly in our known universe.  by doing this we limit what that object is or can be and the possibilities and extent of its existence, animation, maliability...etc...because the object is then something KNOWN as another...not actually what it is but our interpretation...
we have abused our ability to communicate verbally by emphasizing its importance, the emphasis on teaching communication verbally (and even visually and auditorially) and only between a human and another human is the  most bizarre "evolution" of the human species and perhaps has far more influence on what is to become of human kind .  this lack of any other form of communication between ourselves as a species and all of the other energies in the universe disconnects our species and creates an inability to communicate using our other powers of perception and  diminishes our abilities to communicate with other beings and elements that present themselves to us on a visual level(animals, rocks, trees, clouds, elements, light...etc...)
we are taught to perceive things that are only tangable and can be explained with the human language...things that we can create a finite, static symbol and explanation for...thus denying that everything is in fact infinte and constantly evolving...this furthers our inability to even exist in the present and as a part of the universe...we then become something that is dependent on taking signals from other humans and in only a few manners! no wonder everyone is so confused and unable to take care of themselves!
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 06:06:40 am by jessica »

Offline jessica

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,016
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #55 on: February 10, 2010, 06:04:14 am »
honestly more and more thinking science is a most ridiculous, benign and egotistical pursuit!
i have long thought the only ology worth considering is theology....even that is limiting
but i think science can learn a lot from the simple mechanics of a cup in the sense that is isnt the actual physical manifestation of the cup that is useful, but the "empty" space within the vessel that can be filled...and perhaps the only thing that is more useful then knowledge is the unknown
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 07:13:01 am by jessica »

Offline Matt51

  • Scavenger
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #56 on: February 10, 2010, 06:21:07 am »
Few people, say 1000 - 2000, at 60000 years ago, would explain the lack of genetic diversity among humans. However, more people means more evolution - with 6  billion humans, we should be seeing far more evolution. But we do not have the "great leap forward" that was supposed to have occurred with 1000-2000 humans. There is a disconnect here. And if people were widely scattered, and did not migrate out of Africa, again there should have been more evolution.
I can say God re-engineered humans, or time travelers, or space travelers, or I can just admit I don't know. Makes as much sense as the Theory of Evolution.

Offline miles

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,904
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #57 on: February 10, 2010, 06:47:10 am »
..............................................There are lots of small mutations.................. If there is no pressure alleviated by a mutation(i.e. people are not more likely to survive and reproduce), there's no reason why it should progress in to more distinctive traits....
5-10% off your first purchase at http://www.iherb.com/ with dicount code: KIS978

Offline roony

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 401
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #58 on: February 10, 2010, 07:08:11 am »
Ah yes, realising our fractioned states of omnipotence, the main reason science will never work, is that distance & time & volume & mass, are simply curvature's of space

Trying to create scales of units, & algorithms & philosophies, according to a simple distortion in space, is sciences biggest mistake


The curvature of space gives the illusion of time & distance, & scales of units & known's, it gives the illusion of communication, when we are one omniscient, & the illusion of solitude when we are all, ie. omnipresent


Like looking through a prism in space, it divides our reality up into time, distance & volume, giving the illusion of abstraction & minimalism, when all we're seeing are abstractions of infinity being warped into objects & thought's as they intersect a distortion in space


What we think of the seperation of thought & imagination & objects in reality, are in fact the same, our thoughts are the tree's & air around us, our dreams are the flowers we hold, our idea's are the animals we walk with, our aspiration's are the bacteria & parasites who continously rebuild & sustain us, they are our imagination, our thoughts simply displaced by a distortion in space



We have to realise, it is impossible to make a mistake, it is impossible to be wrong, we dont need the internet, our ability to reason & think is far superior to any book or ideology, as our ability to reason & think outside of ourselves is infinite

We simply have to stop thinking of our thoughts as singular & concentrate on the probabilities of our thought's & idea's & stop concentrating on the actual words, it's the infinite nature of reason & idea's behind ourselves which creates those around us
« Last Edit: February 10, 2010, 07:14:19 am by roony »

William

  • Guest
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #59 on: February 10, 2010, 08:00:37 am »
honestly more and more thinking science is a most ridiculous, benign and egotistical pursuit!
i have long thought the only ology worth considering is theology....even that is limiting
but i think science can learn a lot from the simple mechanics of a cup in the sense that is isnt the actual physical manifestation of the cup that is useful, but the "empty" space within the vessel that can be filled...and perhaps the only thing that is more useful then knowledge is the unknown

Because science ignores runic roots.
If you were consider a cup or any container in the light of the rune "laguz" (elder futhark), it's neither simple nor necessarily mechanical.
IMHO it is consciousness that evolves, not physical Man, and science has gone wrong because it denies it own roots.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #60 on: February 10, 2010, 08:14:17 am »
...Human bottlenecks explain human development? http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/bottleneck.html
Some say as few as 1000 humans remained ~ 60000 years ago, other scientists say as many as 75,000 physically modern humans were in Africa. How could so few people have propelled the "Great Leap Forward", where humans transitioned culturally from apes to modern man, in such a short time?


Luckily for RPD that bottleneck occurred long before the Neolithic revolution started, though I wouldn't put it past the critics of RPD to start claiming that the Neolithic revolution started much earlier than they originally thought.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline roony

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 401
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #61 on: February 11, 2010, 10:03:10 pm »
 "We cannot begin to make that same assertion for the nuclear realm. There are people who will defend QCD far more ferociously and unscrupulously than I have ever seen anyone defend general relativity. They will tell you that “QCD has been confirmed endless times, and of course it has predicted everything correctly.”

But in reality, it has only managed to fit a relatively meager set of things it has tried to predict, and there are major empirical indications which cast doubt even on the things we do know how to test with QCD. Following the scientific method, we should be giving top priority to exactly those kinds of experiments which cast the most doubt, and would pave the way either to greater certainty or to an improved theory.

(One thing is for sure. We know from the existence of dark matter and dark energy that there is something out there beyond the scope of the standard model. How else could we hope to find out what it is, if we do not probe our areas of weakness and doubt first?) But this is not being done.

 

Even though I had taken a graduate course in nuclear physics at Harvard, I was still quite surprised years ago when I read a then-new book by Makhankov et al (The Skyrme Model) describing the present realities of nuclear physics.

(Makhankov was then director of a crucial piece of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, JINR, Dubna, one of the world’s very top centers.) He explained how QCD was utterly useless for predicting or explaining the wide range of nuclear phenomena they focused on there. These included “low and medium energy” scattering, where “low energy” includes what we would see in an H bomb or a fusion reactor. We are all obliged to start with a prayer to QCD, insallah, and prove that we are among the faithful before our work can be published, but many empirical researchers really wonder if there is any connection at all between the world we actually live in and that mythical paradise.

 

More concretely, the challenge of predicting and explaining the masses and lifetimes of the hadrons is a central challenge in physics today, as important as the challenge of explaining atomic spectra (colors) was at the start of the twentieth century. Some thought that this was a minor part of physics at the time, but it is what really led to quantum mechanics. But could it be that we are offered a similar revolution in understanding, and will never achieve it, because we are now too jaded to take that kind of empirical challenge seriously enough? Why has the careful empirical work of Palazzi and MacGregor not received the level of deep appreciation, respect and follow-up that it deserves from people trying to formulate general theories of physics? "


"But here are the weird things, which I tend to despair of orthodox physics of accepting.

            First, the time-forwards dynamics implied by the classical fields and the P mapping (the free space master equations derived in the most recent paper  at arXiv.org by myself and Ludmilla) are not really relevant to the statistics we observe

macroscopically

in experiments. That is because the conventional notion of time-forwards causality simply does not work at that level.

(Our notion of time & cause & effect... if it doesnt work on the sub-microscopic level, or the sub macroscopic, as this article states, how can we assume it to work on the macroscopic, or in our reality ?
Once you go past the curvature of space, either sub-microscopically, or sub macroscopically, time forwards causality ceases to exist, it also ceases to exist outer macroscopically, it's only when it is distorted within a narrow range by the curvature of space we get the illusion of time & causality - Roony)


            Second, what does work is the quantum Boltzmann equation. For any pure classical state, {p, j} across all space, we know that Tr(r(p,j)H) equals its energy. Thus the classical Boltzmann equation is exactly the same as the grand ensemble quantum Boltzmann equation.

If we consider what patterns of correlation, causality, and scattering networks occur within a periodic space of volume V, and let V go to infinity, we can see that all the scattering predictions and spectral predictions of quantum field theory are embedded in the quantum statistical mechanics.

Consideration of the eigenfunctions of H is essentially just a calculating device for characterizing the properties of the quantum Boltzmann equation, which are exactly equivalent to the classical one here. (Caveat: the usual invariant measures do happen to be equivalent, as noted in the earlier paper by Ludmilla and myself. However, the set of density matrices considered allowable in quantum theory is more than just the set which are reachable as P transforms of allowable classical probability distributions; see my arXiv paper on the Q hypothesis. This may or may not have important implications here, where the Boltzmann density is itself P-reachable; this is a question I need to look into more.). What is most exciting here is that a purely bosonic theory with a small h(¶mQa)2 term added may give us what we need for a completely valid quantum field theory on the one hand, and that a quantum Boltzmann distribution based on that same Hamiltonian may be exactly equivalent to the same statistical distribution we expect for the corresponding classical PDE;

thus a full “return to reality” may well be possible, not just at the level of philosophical possibilities, but at the level of specific well-posed PDE which fit empirical reality better than today’s “standard model of physics.”

Unfortunately – this is the conclusion which emerges from combining the various threads I have been exploring, each one of which already stretches the present fabric of physics because it connects areas that are not often connected in today’s overspecialized world."
« Last Edit: February 11, 2010, 10:18:56 pm by roony »

Offline roony

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 401
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2010, 10:35:25 pm »
"Yet when we observe human behavior all around us, we see people who “choose” between possible theories like a vain person in a clothing store – trying them on, preening, looking at themselves in the mirror, and then buying one. (The best dressed of all dress up like Cardinals.) They then feel obliged to fight to the death for a particular theory as if it were part of their body, regardless of evidence or of objective, good judgment. Is this really just one of many examples proving that human brains (let alone mouse brains) totally lack any kind of tendency at all towards rationality or intelligence as I have described it? Does it totally invalidate this class of model of the mind?

            Not really – and I was fully aware of such behavior when I first started to develop this kind of theory. What it shows is that humans are halfway between two classical views of the human mind. In one view (espoused by B.F. Skinner and one of sides of the philosopher Wittgenstein), humans play “word games” without any natural tendency to treat words and symbols as if they had any meaning at all; words and theories are truly treated on an equal footing with other objects seen in the world, like pants and dresses. In the opposite view (espoused by the “other” Wittgenstein!), humans are born with a kind of natural tendency to do “symbolic reasoning,” in which words have meanings and the meanings are always respected; however, because modern artificial intelligence often treats “symbolic reasoning” as if symbols were devoid of meaning, it is now more precise to call this “semiotic intelligence.” (There are major schools of semiotics within artificial intelligence, and even Marvin Minsky has given talks about how to fill in the gap involving “meaning.”)

My claim is that the first is a good way of understanding mouse-level intelligence. But human intelligence is a kind of halfway point between the two. Humanity is a kind of early prototype species, like the other prototype species which have occurred in the early stages of a “quantum leap” in evolution, as described by the great scientist George Gaylord Simpson, who originated many of the ideas now attributed to Stephen Jay Gould. (Though Gould did, of course, have important new ideas as well.) As an early prototype, it has enough of the new capabilities to “conquer the world” as a single species, but not enough to really perfect these capabilities in a mature or stable way.

Unfortunately, the power of our new technology – nuclear technology, especially, but others as well – is so great that the continued survival of this species may require a higher level of intelligence than what we are born with. Only by learning to emulate semiotic intelligence (or even something higher) do we have much of a chance of survival. The “semiotic” level of intelligence has a close relation to Freud’s notion of “sanity.”

Unfortunately, Freud sometimes uses the word “ego” to represent global understanding, sometimes to represent the symbolic level of human intelligence, and sometimes in other ways; however, the deep and empirically-rooted insights there are well worth trying to disentangle.

We do not yet now exactly what a fully evolved “semiotic intelligence” or sapient would really look like. Some things have to be learned, because of their complexity. (For example, probability theory has to be learned, before the “symbolic” level of our mind can keep up with the subsymbolic level, in paying attention to the uncertainties in our life.) Sometimes the best that evolution can do is to create a strong predisposition and ability to learn something. But certainly we humans have a lot to learn, in order to cope more effectively with all of the megachallenges listed on my homepage. "

William

  • Guest
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #63 on: February 11, 2010, 11:38:57 pm »
"Yet when we observe human behavior all around us, we see people who “choose” between possible theories like a vain person in a clothing store – trying them on, preening, looking at themselves in the mirror, and then buying one. (The best dressed of all dress up like Cardinals.) They then feel obliged to fight to the death for a particular theory as if it were part of their body, regardless of evidence or of objective, good judgment. Is this really just one of many examples proving that human brains (let alone mouse brains) totally lack any kind of tendency at all towards rationality or intelligence as I have described it? Does it totally invalidate this class of model of the mind?

Has nothing to do with intelligence, as hypnotists have observed that the most intelligent are often the most easily hypnotised.
Man is programmable, and this is what has caused the neolithic apparent stupidity. Programming (older words are cursing or spell casting) is the job of church, school most especially university, entertainment, advertising.
All of us have been programmed to believe believe believe, and few escape. Scientology offers one way of escaping, for which it is reviled by church and state. There are others (cheaper, too). Any way of escaping draws the attention and attack by trolls on the internet.

Quote
In one view (espoused by B.F. Skinner and one of sides of the philosopher Wittgenstein), humans play “word games” without any natural tendency to treat words and symbols as if they had any meaning at all; words and theories are truly treated on an equal footing with other objects seen in the world, like pants and dresses. In the opposite view (espoused by the “other” Wittgenstein!), humans are born with a kind of natural tendency to do “symbolic reasoning,” in which words have meanings and the meanings are always respected; however, because modern artificial intelligence often treats “symbolic reasoning” as if symbols were devoid of meaning, it is now more precise to call this “semiotic intelligence.” (There are major schools of semiotics within artificial intelligence, and even Marvin Minsky has given talks about how to fill in the gap involving “meaning.”)

If their arguments were designed to confuse, they could not do better. Lost me, and I usually think that if I can't understand it , it's crap. This attitude has saved me a lot of time, and apparently cost nothing.
(It saved me from university too :D  )


Quote
Unfortunately, the power of our new technology – nuclear technology, especially, but others as well – is so great that the continued survival of this species may require a higher level of intelligence than what we are born with.

I suggest that it requires something a lot more rare than intelligence, namely wisdom.
Note that a common use of nuclear tech is to boil water, and poison Afghanistan, Serbia, Iraq and everything downwind.



Quote
Only by learning to emulate semiotic intelligence (or even something higher) do we have much of a chance of survival. The “semiotic” level of intelligence has a close relation to Freud’s notion of “sanity.”


Freud lied.

Quote
Unfortunately, Freud sometimes uses the word “ego” to represent global understanding, sometimes to represent the symbolic level of human intelligence, and sometimes in other ways; however, the deep and empirically-rooted insights there are well worth trying to disentangle.

Freud was a troll.


Quote
We do not yet now exactly what a fully evolved “semiotic intelligence” or sapient would really look like.

It would look like a God.

Semiotics is nothing more than a garbled version of runelore dressed up in fancy schmancy modern doubletalk - a triumph of trolls.

What is your website url?

Offline roony

  • Shaman
  • *****
  • Posts: 401
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #64 on: February 12, 2010, 02:08:17 am »
meh, not even sure i should even bother posting, some idiot admin is likely to ban me again


Semiotics is more to do with the self organising, emergence movement in the 90's, when super fluids & self organising systems & intelligent crowds were all the rage, its also a bit crap, like most academic attempts at being creative, ie stephen hawkings black hole's & singularity ... oh yea & dark matter lol

No one has ever proven a black hole, or a singularity to exist ... it's just brainwashing & propoganda, the regular tools of modern day organised fanatical religions like science

Also take into account, general relativity falls apart in the sub-microscopic & sub macroscopic levels, including causality & time, & you've got basically what amounts to alot of people practising a fanatical religion who base their facts on faith & belief then real proof



Modern day evolution, albeit still wrong is trying to reinvent itself, like the even crappier theories, such as psychology, & its successor evolutionary psychology, both statistically based, monstrosities of disinformation & junk science

It's trying to include stuff like information science & developments such as super fluids & self correcting systems, & aspects of emergent systems, & complexity theory, to give it some sort of credibility,


Unfortunately for it, no one's forgotten its originator's were white supremacists, yes darwin & his family have a long history of being white supremacists & believing in the uber man, they were believers of gene pools, & superior genetic bloodlines, decades before darwin published his works, where do you think he got his influences from?

Which explains why their theories were used to justify the holocaust, nazism & apartheid & decades of oppression & racism, which continue to this day



So why do we have these false theories being popularised, & presented as facts? Basically politicised science, which is the correct term for most science today ....



Offline miles

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,904
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #65 on: February 12, 2010, 02:36:48 am »
I don't see anything in the general theory of evolution which doesn't make sense...
5-10% off your first purchase at http://www.iherb.com/ with dicount code: KIS978

William

  • Guest
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #66 on: February 12, 2010, 05:55:31 am »
I don't see anything in the general theory of evolution which doesn't make sense...

Me too, as it is supposed to be based on evidence.
The parting of the ways is when the general theory is applied to Man, and trips over the missing link and falls on its face.

Offline Paleo Donk

  • Chief
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #67 on: February 12, 2010, 06:15:57 am »
Aren't there missing links for most every species on this planet, we just seem to talk about man more often?

Offline jessica

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,016
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #68 on: February 12, 2010, 06:28:45 am »
Quote from: William
If their arguments were designed to confuse, they could not do better.

that is the whole point of being trained to believe that communication is only either written or oral, we are now controlled by word games....think of the laws of our societies ....we are controlled by words, nobody reads laws, they are written to deceive and confuse, and people are lazy(myself included)
lawyers and politicians basically learn how be pursusive to their own agenda in words so eloquent that they not only paint compelling pictures of heinous acts that have or have yet to happen and come up with a punishment, they decide what is best for others based on their own bias and often based on their own self interest, and because there are consequences attached to "breaking the law" we do not have much say if we feel a law is unjust and have to act in the lawyers and politicians  interest...
we "need" these laws, it is observed that the further we are away from our other forms of perception the less our grasp of right or wrong or our understanding of our place in nature, we lose our instinct to thrive righteously and justfuly and any sense of self government....but that is the same for the people writing the laws as well, so basically we are f90438ked because we are ruled by those who are just as unjust and selfish if not more then those who are imagined to be criminals!

Quote from: roony
he continued survival of this species may require a higher level of intelligence than what we are born with.
Quote from: William
I suggest that it requires something a lot more rare than intelligence, namely wisdom.

you are both assuming that we have a say in the future of our species...planets(ours and others) and galaxies have their own ideas too you know:) 
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 06:45:05 am by jessica »

William

  • Guest
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #69 on: February 12, 2010, 07:12:30 am »


you are both assuming that we have a say in the future of our species...planets(ours and others) and galaxies have their own ideas too you know:) 


Both quantum mechanics and the European creation story teach us that we are not separate from anything.

Offline jessica

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,016
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #70 on: February 12, 2010, 07:20:52 am »
Both quantum mechanics and the European creation story teach us that we are not separate from anything.

yeah i guess that would mean the "continuation of our species" would be the recognition that defining us as even the term species confines us to that definition and disconnects us from the continuous unlimited possibilities of our existence
« Last Edit: February 12, 2010, 07:27:30 am by jessica »

Offline Matt51

  • Scavenger
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #71 on: February 26, 2010, 08:36:17 am »
I think this scientist/author is closer to the truth than anyone else I have found. Humans are at least 20 million years old. Current apes descended from humans. Humans eat meat, have large brains. Apes are the degenerates that resulted because they could never get enough meat, and had to eat vegetarian.

http://www.amazon.com/Upright-Ape-New-Origin-Species/product-reviews/1564149331/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #72 on: February 26, 2010, 09:37:27 am »
From an Amazon.com reviewer: "On Oct. 11, 2009, the Discovery Channel will show a program that finally reveals the details of the Ardipithecus find. The shell shocking conclusions, believe it or not, are consistent with Dr. Aaron Filler's Upright Ape Hypothesis. Ardipithecus was clearly a biped who was NOT descended from knuckle walking ancestors. This supports the notion that the common ancestors of humans with both chimpanzees & gorillas were NOT knuckle-walkers. That adaptation emerged later & independently in the lineages leading to chimpanzees & gorillas.

....The teeth of A. ramidus lacked the specialization of other apes, and suggest that it was a generalized omnivore and frugivore (fruit eater) with a diet that did not depend heavily on fibrous plants, ripe fruit or hard or abrasive food. "

Yes, I was fascinated by it when I first heard of Ardipithecus too. If the Ardipithecus experts are right, then bipedalism and omnivory predate chimps, gorillas and monkeys. If "generalized omnivore and frugivore (fruit eater)" is meant to imply that Ardipithecus ate more insects and/or small vertebrates than chimps, gorillas and monkeys, this would mean that knuckle-walking and more intense frugivory and herbivory are just the province of one branch of primates--chimps, gorillas and monkeys--and not of the ancestors of all primates. It would mean that instead of descending from knuckle-walking frugivores which descended from insectivores, humans descended from bipedal, fruit-heavy omnivores which descended from insectivores. Do I understand the hypothesis correctly?
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline Matt51

  • Scavenger
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: Rapid Evolution Counterargument Against RPD?
« Reply #73 on: February 26, 2010, 05:57:53 pm »
Yes, you understand what he is saying. To make one point that the Theory of Evolution is wrong - Just last week discovery of Neanderthal tools on Crete was announced - Crete as been an island for five million years. The conclusion is, Neanderthals were sailors.

The Upright Ape theory - upright part man part primate existed twenty million years ago - seems to blow the missing link theory out of the water.

My interpretation of general omnivore is a meat eater who occasionally snacks on berries. Lack of meat caused the apes to degenerate from the human branch. Not that a chimp is stupid as far as animals go, but they don't match humans. I guess apes are largely vegan - except for an occasional bug, or when they rarely get lucky and get some meat.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk