No one chooses what they believe

[cormac mac airt]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Actually it is a part of the process of evolution  whereby individuals and species  have alterations in their structure which eventually  affect  a whole population (if the y do NOT affect a population but die out with  individuals then they remain part of the evolutionary process but dead ends 

what you are talking about as evolution is the  end result. But each step is part of the evolutionary porcess 

yes syndactyly is the result of several different processes (ONE of which is a mutation )i pointed that out and it was in the source material I gave  i also explained that it does not seem to be a strong survival characteristic and thus we do not all have webbed hands. However there IS an element of genetic evolution in some cases,  as it tends to run in families 

There are at least 3 biological process which make up evolution including genetic drift  I deliberately didn't get too complicated, and used the one which fits the point iwas making 

ie

quote

 

If certain heritable characteristics increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characteristics that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations. This is precisely what is called "evolution by natural selection". On the other hand, if the characteristics which lead to differential reproductive success are not heritable, then no meaningful evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not: if improvement in reproductive success is caused by traits that are not heritable, then there is no reason why these traits should increase in frequency over generations. In other words, natural selection does not simply state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate any heritable characteristics which have affected their survival and reproductive success". This statement is not tautological: it hinges on the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that has been amply confirmed.)[17]

Finally; indeed  the definitions of evolution are both simple and quite broad

In general, it simply means incremental change with one process leading to another process

In biology it is a term used to  explain the PROCESSES by which different kinds of living organisms  develop from other earlier ones 

This includes 

a individual processes and adaptations  and 

b species wide  change 

You cannot have b without a  (ie a species does not suddenly alter overnight with every individual in tha t species suddenly having new characteristics. Evolution of a species begins with one or perhaps a few individuals, and spreads out until it has evolved a significant species wide change Evolution is occurring from the first genetic change in that first individual, and, in a sense, never ends.  

Finally; it is now fairly well accepted that specific forms of human cognition  such as pattern recognition are evolutionary adaptations which had survival value, and thus became part of all human beings,  just as our fingers etc evolved  to become an essential part of a modern human being 

quote

evolution

 

noun

any process of formation or growth; development:the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

a product of such development; something evolved:The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economicstructure or institutions.

a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a singleaction, as in a machine.

a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements:

end quote

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evolution

so you can see that the processes, and the individual changes brought on by the mechanisms of evolution are also evolution in process  

Quit bastardizing the definition of evolution to serve your own purposes. Said definition concerns a population for the very reason that just because an individual can have one or more deleterious mutations that DOES NOT mean that such WILL extend to later generations as you imply. Genetic drift ALSO applies to populations for much the same reason. Also, you don’t get to move the goalposts from one individual to one “or perhaps a few” individuals. Quit waffling and admit your error. I do NOT require you to define what either are to me as you have shown to have a poorer than average understanding of both. 

cormac

Edited July 19, 2019 by cormac mac airt

[jmccr8]

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I guess that is not a response to this particular post but a general observation?  

Hi Walker

Or it may have been just me not quoting the whole post and the purpose is to remember the context of the post by the poster of origin.

I have been working in the backyard and needed to stabilize and smack a board into position, unfortunately, my hammer was out of reach but there was a rock sitting within reach so I picked it up and used it. It was not designed as a tool but the situation made it available to be used in that purpose because I chose to assign it with the quality of having that function. Things have meaning and purpose because we give it one and if there were no intelligible qualities it would have no purpose just in the same way that if there was no intelligence nothing would have a purpose.

jmccr8

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Quit bastardizing the definition of evolution to serve your own purposes. Said definition concerns a population for the very reason that just because an individual can have one or more deleterious mutations that DOES NOT mean that such WILL extend to later generations as you imply. Genetic drift ALSO applies to populations for much the same reason. Also, you don’t get to move the goalposts from one individual to one “or perhaps a few” individuals. Quit waffling and admit your error. I do NOT require you to define what either are to me as you have shown to have a poorer than average understanding of both. 

cormac

Indeed, MW, is succeeding at convincing me he is not in support of Science. 

He is not only posting all the basic common misconceptions, jut because he likes to “think” of himself as one who supports evolution, doesn’t negate that at his core his thinking is teleological on the subject. 

Warning what follows is not a comprehensive understanding of Evolution and Natural Selection.

For example: “You cannot have b without a  (ie a species does not suddenly alter overnight with every individual in tha t species suddenly having new characteristics,” 

in other words, what MW should, or would have said (if he knew the subject) is that natural selection can only take place if there is variation, or differences, among individuals in a population, he is not discussing evolution he is discussing the myth of Genesis.

Walker continues with this quote; “ Evolution of a species begins with one or perhaps a few individuals, and spreads out until it has evolved a significant species wide change Evolution is occurring from the first genetic change in that first individual, and, in a sense, never ends”

in other words” MW is spouting babble,  basically superimposing his own Creationist thinking by implying that Adam and Eve or immaculate conception kickstarted Evolution. 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm confident I read them with far more proficiency than you are capable of writing them.

A tragedy does not require death.

You didn't address the logic I just spoon-fed to you about the deficiencies of ambiguity in good communication.  Furthermore you can't keep your methodology consistent, even over a few sentences:  "If tragedy requires a death then you have limited language not expanded it, and destroyed many other meanings of the word".  Neither is indicative of intelligence, education, or the ability to read.

If it's not a personal comment then why are you even including it in your response to me?  Relevance?

The problem is that instead of addressing points counter to yours you apparently get uncomfortable and have to reassure yourself that you aren't wrong, such as the above which is the literary/argument equivalent of admiring yourself in the mirror while fondling yourself.  Most educated and well-adjusted people know to do that in private. (This is a personal comment, not a general one)

I am confident you read proficiently too, and so do I. 

A person versed in Science typically, doesn’t use ambiguous words, they know the accompanying lexicon and use it as it demonstrates a common bridge to understanding. 

I have noted that Walker has not acknowledged this, in fact, he posted to me that he doesn’t “believe” that lexicons are taught in the educational system as a central part of a branch of knowledge.

I do think MW the poster who claims he has transcended anger and has the self professed self esteem of a warrior was butt hurt over being called out for being wrong and intended to imply that in comparison our intellects are substandard in comparison to the great Walker, 

Only in Wally World does such nonsense exist...ha ha ha ha ha.

 

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

55 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Indeed, MW, is succeeding at convincing me he is not in support of Science. 

He is not only posting all the basic common misconceptions, jut because he likes to “think” of himself as one who supports evolution, doesn’t negate that at his core his thinking is teleological on the subject. 

Warning what follows is not a comprehensive understanding of Evolution and Natural Selection.

For example: “You cannot have b without a  (ie a species does not suddenly alter overnight with every individual in tha t species suddenly having new characteristics,” 

in other words, what MW should, or would have said (if he knew the subject) is that natural selection can only take place if there is variation, or differences, among individuals in a population, he is not discussing evolution he is discussing the myth of Genesis.

Walker continues with this quote; “ Evolution of a species begins with one or perhaps a few individuals, and spreads out until it has evolved a significant species wide change Evolution is occurring from the first genetic change in that first individual, and, in a sense, never ends”

in other words” MW is spouting babble,  basically superimposing his own Creationist thinking by implying that Adam and Eve or immaculate conception kickstarted Evolution. 

 

Evolution of a species NEVER starts with just one individual, and remember he originally implies as much. It ALWAYS starts with a population. Variations WITHIN a species ARE NOT the same as evolution OF a species. He quite often misapplies evolution to many of his posts. 

cormac

[+Sherapy]

20 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Evolution of a species NEVER starts with just one individual, and remember he originally implies as much. It ALWAYS starts with a population. Variations WITHIN a species ARE NOT the same as evolution OF a species. He quite often misapplies evolution to many of his posts. 

cormac

Thank you, yes, in fact, Walker is actively arguing that Evolution starts with an individual maybe two tops. 

Can you expand on the denoting the difference of “ variations within a species are not the same as evolution of a species”?

Edited July 19, 2019 by Sherapy

[+Liquid Gardens]

52 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I have noted that Walker has not acknowledged this, in fact, he posted to me that he doesn’t “believe” that lexicons are taught in the educational system as a central part of a branch of knowledge.

I think what he means is that he simply doesn't agree with those lexicons.  Since he advocates for great ideas like the word 'fact' to include things that are false and apparently that tragedy requires death now, I'm feeling pretty good about sticking with the opinion of our current educators over him.

52 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I do think MW the poster who claims he has transcended anger and has the self professed self esteem of a warrior was butt hurt over being called out for being wrong and intended to imply that in comparison our intellects are substandard in comparison to the great Walker, 

Haha, oh no doubt, that ship ("I have complete mastery over my negative emotions") has long since sailed.

Despite not being able to read well and not being that intelligent and being plagued by such a limited vocabulary, I think I can boil down most of the problems with Walker's bad arguments and well, everything, to one malady: exaggeration.  It permeates everything, the personal stories, the literally incessant boastful and eye-rolling self-aggrandizement, and his treatment of evidence.  Sometimes the exaggeration is just a thin veneer that still leaves what he is saying true if a bit overstated but within acceptable semantic/definitional parameters, and sometimes the exaggeration results in something unsupported and a funhouse mirror of what the evidence actually says ('it's psychology 101 that if someone doesn't have faith they can't get out of bed').  Truck lights are angels, imagination is actual astral travel, winning the lottery is clairvoyance, reading random articles on various topics becomes 'I've studied 'x' for 30 years'; pretty obvious pattern.

And the impervious ego, I can practically hear the 'boing' when I make a point against him and he doesn't respond to it and wants to only discuss the topic his narrow way.  And that he almost always only takes into account studies/evidence for his position and not the studies/evidence against it and thus doesn't come to a unbiased conclusion (the efficacy of corporal punishment, intelligence of animals, etc).  And that he complains about insults while insulting people; 'the problem is trying to communicate with someone of limited vocabulary' isn't actually an insult you see, he said he meant it generally not personally... in a response to me.  I don't think I've ever seen a poster with a larger gap between the show and the tell; he talks up a mountain and shows you a pimple.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Liquid Gardens

[+Liquid Gardens]

43 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Evolution of a species NEVER starts with just one individual, and remember he originally implies as much. It ALWAYS starts with a population. Variations WITHIN a species ARE NOT the same as evolution OF a species. He quite often misapplies evolution to many of his posts. 

cormac

From what little I've read it also seems to be debatable whether the notion, 'if they served no purpose, men would not have nipples', is accurate in general.  There seems to be some reason to believe that things can be byproducts that are not actual adaptations in that they didn't improve reproduction and aren't a result of natural selection, but since they are not harmful they persist.  

[+Desertrat56]

27 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

From what little I've read it also seems to be debatable whether the notion, 'if they served no purpose, men would not have nipples', is accurate in general.  There seems to be some reason to believe that things can be byproducts that are not actual adaptations in that they didn't improve reproduction and aren't a result of natural selection, but since they are not harmful they persist.  

Don't men still have some glands in that area, so the nipples are not compelely useless.  I have heard of men getting breast cancer, which I take to mean there are glands of some sort.  Otherwise it would be a different kind of cancer.

Edited July 19, 2019 by Desertrat56

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Thank you, yes, in fact, Walker is actively arguing that Evolution starts with an individual maybe two tops. 

Can you expand on the denoting the difference of “ variations within a species are not the same as evolution of a species”?

The cranio-morphological physical changes and to a lesser extent its resultant behavioral changes are examples of evolution OF a species whereas, as an example, I belong to Mitochondrial Haplogroup K1a + 195 whereas it is likely IMO that you probably belong to any of the other 3500+ mitochondrial haplogroups/haplotypes which would be an example of variations WITHIN a species. 

cormac

Edited July 19, 2019 by cormac mac airt

[+Sherapy]

5 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The cranio-morphological physical changes and to a lesser extent its resultant behavioral changes are examples of evolution OF a species whereas, as an example, I belong to Mitochondrial Haplogroup K1a + 195 whereas it is likely IMO that you probably belong to any of the other 3500+ mitochondrial haplogroups/haplotypes which would be an example of variations WITHIN a species. 

cormac

Ahh, excellent example.

This makes sense to me. 

Thank you

[cormac mac airt]

5 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

From what little I've read it also seems to be debatable whether the notion, 'if they served no purpose, men would not have nipples', is accurate in general.  There seems to be some reason to believe that things can be byproducts that are not actual adaptations in that they didn't improve reproduction and aren't a result of natural selection, but since they are not harmful they persist.  

The above also fails to consider vestigial organs as well. If there is no negative reason to retain such there is also no need for genetics to eliminate them currently. As to male nipples, since ALL humans are female at the earliest point after conception and there is no need to eliminate said parts as they present no negative repercussions to the developing fetus there is thus no need to eliminate them either. From a genetic perspective "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" often applies. He keeps digging his hole deeper. 

cormac

[+Sherapy]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The above also fails to consider vestigial organs as well. If there is no negative reason to retain such there is also no need for genetics to eliminate them currently. As to male nipples, since ALL humans are female at the earliest point after conception and there is no need to eliminate said parts as they present no negative repercussions to the developing fetus there is thus no need to eliminate them either. From a genetic perspective "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" often applies. He keeps digging his hole deeper. 

cormac

I don’t even bother with his links as it is obvious he puts search terms into google to expand on his opinions, his claim to fame is .com articles at best, okay he does read but to what end as most of his links don’t even support his claims, or what ever opinion he happens to land on, he gets lost cognitively very easily and he doesn’t get it because he is bad at evaluating his own ineptness, despite repeated errors, he has the same MO regardless of the topic. I used to think how can anyone be this wrong over and over and over...

He is the true life epitome of the Dunning Kruger effect.

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

I don’t even bother with his links as it is obvious he puts search terms into google to expand on his opinions, his claim to fame is .com articles at best, okay he does read but to what end as most of his links don’t even support his claims, or what ever opinion he happens to land on, he gets lost cognitively very easily and he doesn’t get it because he is bad at evaluating his own ineptness, despite repeated errors, he has the same MO regardless of the topic. I used to think how can anyone be this wrong over and over and over...

He is the true life epitome of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Unfortunately he's not the only one at UM like that. I've seen MANY posters whose links don't support their conclusions. Many of those of which try to make excuses for their poor research and understanding. 

And then you get the occasional whiners who complain because the originally incompetent researchers "knowledge" isn't accepted as on par with those who actually know what they're talking about. And yes, there are some of those here at UM as well. You know the type. 

cormac

[+Sherapy]

24 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Unfortunately he's not the only one at UM like that. I've seen MANY posters whose links don't support their conclusions. Many of those of which try to make excuses for their poor research and understanding. 

And then you get the occasional whiners who complain because the originally incompetent researchers "knowledge" isn't accepted as on par with those who actually know what they're talking about. And yes, there are some of those here at UM as well. You know the type. 

cormac

On a good note, this type of poster tends to offer opportunities for refining critical thinking, and research skills, by learning what not to aspire to, but on the flip side it wastes a lot of time and space, trying to have a give and take productive dialog. 

 

I think for posters as this they are looking to advance an agenda, not engage in quality discourse, or it deters our smart posters from posting.

I prefer to hear from you, or Paul, or LG, Dan, Stubbs, X, Hammie’s, etc. etc. 

I want to learn and I appreciate those that invest in nurturing themselves academically. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Sherapy

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

'if they served no purpose, men would not have nipples',

Ah, but men's nipples are the perfect illustration that people invent purposes for things, rather than that things have purposes in themselves.

St Patrick in chapter 18 of his Confessio reports that the ancient Irish displayed submission to their male social superiors by ... you got it. So far as I know, St Patrick is the only source for this practice, but hey, dude's a saint; would he lie to us?

In case the Confessio is a bit dry, here is the muscial:

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

11 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

On a good note, this type of poster tends to offer opportunities for refining critical thinking, and research skills, by learning what not to aspire to, but on the flip side it wastes a lot of time and space, trying to have a give and take productive dialog. 

 

I think for posters as this they are looking to advance an agenda, not engage in quality discourse. 

I tend to agree. The claim of something to the effect of "I'm just trying to pass my knowledge on" is just pure BS. Half of nothing is STILL nothing. 

cormac

[Dejarma]

41 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I think for posters as this they are looking to advance an agenda, not engage in quality discourse, or it deters our smart posters from posting.

I prefer to hear from you, or Paul, or LG, Dan, Stubbs, X, Hammie’s, etc. etc. 

I want to learn and I appreciate those that invest in nurturing themselves academically. 

this is purely from my own way of thinking:

what YOU feel about something is what's important.. You may feel that someone has an edge, but listen to yourself... <yourself> being the most important person on this planet, BTW.

I'll give you my reasoning:

the most selfish people on this planet are those who want to do good because they feel horrible about a bad situation= it makes them feel 'horrible'

UN-selfish people don't feel anything, they don't care.. After 60 years of existing on this planet; things have taken a turn-around with regards to my way of perceiving things..

Not important- just saying

[+Sherapy]

1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

this is purely from my own way of thinking:

what YOU feel about something is what's important.. You may feel that someone has an edge, but listen to yourself... <yourself> being the most important person on this planet, BTW.

I'll give you my reasoning:

the most selfish people on this planet are those who want to do good because they feel horrible about a bad situation= it makes them feel 'horrible'

UN-selfish people don't feel anything, they don't care.. After 60 years of existing on this planet; things have taken a turn-around with regards to my way of perceiving things..

Not important- just saying

I am not sure I am following can you expand on this?

[Dejarma]

Just now, Sherapy said:

I am not sure I am following can you expand on this?

yeah sure, sorry:

i'll start by asking you a question= why do you feel you need others to help you?

[+Sherapy]

30 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I tend to agree. The claim of something to the effect of "I'm just trying to pass my knowledge on" is just pure BS. Half of nothing is STILL nothing. 

cormac

Good point, taking a Biology course 50 years ago isn’t adding much, I don’t know what you do for fun, but I think it’s study every free moment. 

 

 

 

[cormac mac airt]

12 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Good point, taking a Biology course 50 years ago isn’t adding much, I don’t know what you do for fun, but I think it’s study every free moment. 

Much of what was taught 50 years ago is about as useless as breasts on a bull. 

Predominantly personal research in Archaeogenetics but I have a wide range of historical/archaeological interests. 

cormac

[+Sherapy]

36 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

yeah sure, sorry:

i'll start by asking you a question= why do you feel you need others to help you?

Is this a general question or personal?

[Dejarma]

3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Is this a general question or personal?

what's the difference? i don't understand the question.. ok, personal if you like

Edit to add:

ok, give me a general reply to the question & a personal one.. i'm interested in how you perceive the question

Edited July 19, 2019 by Dejarma

[XenoFish]

Welcome to UM. Where the threads are made up and the replies don't matter.