cladking

"The bulk of the "falsifiable evidence" for evolution is actually extrapolation of the specific to the general..." There is no falsifiable evidence for the concept of survival of the fittest as the chiief component of species change. Rather all the "evidence" is extrapolated from experiment that apply only to specific facts and then is applied to nature through extrapolation. This extrapolation can not be shown experimentally to be legitimate application of real scientific knowledge. The extrapolations are outside of the definitions, axioms, and methodology of science. The extrapolations are language and "logic" dependent. The extrapolations are not consistent with observation.

Your review is poor. There's no way to know if he wants me to defend my stance on evolution or why I believe the theory is incorrect. He called my statement "word salad". To me this means he got no meaning at all or very limited meaning from it. There are two statements and the second is composed of at least four parts. The concept of defending "word salad" is absurd. I am doomed before I start.

It's impossible to defend what you don't understand. Tell me what you do understand and I'll defend it. Tell me what you don't understand and I'll rephrase it.

Exactly. It is my contention that reality can be simply invisible from the "wrong" perspective. Seeing reality is dependent on one's beliefs being consistent with the parameters of that reality. Facts are always facts from every perspective but their interpretation is a result of knowledge, extrapolation, and beliefs that are inate to the way we think. The bulk of the "falsifiable evidence" for evolution is actually extrapolation of the specific to the general. It's impossible to falsify the legitimacy of these extrapolations at this time and they exist outside of metaphysics and are supported primarily by logic dependent on language but most importantly, are at odds with observation.

Sorry. I did not mean to imply that mother nature/ God/ reality/ the gods were conscious and actually mad chemists who toyed with their playthings. I merely meant that from our perspective and for practical purposes that what appears to be random in terms of reality rarely is. "Randomness" largely occurs only on the tiniest scale or longest periods. What happens in the here and now tends to be "ordained" by the "laws" of phyics. We tend to understand most events in the here and now even when we don't really understand the laws that seem to drive them. We exrtrapolate the specific to the general and call it theory. This works better with things that can be quantified than with things that can not becauyse we can more closdely approximate nature in the lab with things that can be quantified and taken apart. You can't take evolution apart in the lab nor can it be truly quantified. This seems to be where I get into trouble because people can't see anything without our beliefs. Everything we know is inconsistent with ID because everything we know is extrapolated from experiment. ID makes a poor hypothesis only because it is untestable. This doesn't mean it's false, merely that arguments to support or deny it aren't really valid at this point in time. Obviously one doesn't need ID to make a case for scientific knowledge and scientific knowledge does not support ID.

Nothing is known to be fact that denies ID. This hardly means it's a valid "hypothesis" merely that it is an untestable one at this time using the rules of modern science. Current metaphysics precludes our ability to address the question and I'm not going to say why I believe this is. Suffiice to say we are extrapolating the general from the specific and this is fraught with poor methodologies and methodologies outside of metaphysics.

Yes. Exactly. This is the nature of evolution. The bacterium(s) could survive for millions of years and evolve but without exposure to the antibiotic the off spring in a million years would probably be exactly the same in reaction to it as the current one. Mother nature is the chemist and invents millions of different ways to force things to evolve, and most of them are caused by extinctions of individuals and this especially applies to periods when the absolute number of individuals approaches zero. Evolution has little or nothing to do with survival of the smartest or survival of the fittest because every species, every individual, strives for smart and fast. Every individual attempts to survive at virtually any cost and being "fit" is normally not a significant advantage. In humans it is a decided disadvantage unless you're 7' tall and can dribble a basketball. The "theory" of evolution does a poor job of explaining observation and logic.

"Evolution" is a paradigm to explain numerous facts and extensive evidence. It was invented to fit Darwin's understanding and, for the main part, it has withstood the test of time. There do appear to be some flaws in its ability to explain all the evidence suggesting it is at best "incomplete". Whether "God" played a role in the reality that caused a failure of the paradigm to adequately explain observation or not isn't testable at this time. If the paradigm is rebuilt then there might be a means to test for the "God factor" or perhaps not. Science must use a methodology to learn about nature and then the resultant is only true within the confines of its definitions and methods. When the methodolgy fails there is no truth in any parameters or within any set of definitions. It is certainly true that most individuals really do "believe" in these paradigms and in my opinion this "belief" is misplaced. But there certainly aren't only two sides to every argument. Which each have our own perspective and experience. While I might sometimes seem to scoff at the scientific process it's only because it is a weak tool and has not uncovered much of reality yet. It can't make accurate predictions and the paradigms never explain ALL the evidence. While it's a weak tool it's the only tool that is at this time generating extensive knowledge. We may be nearly totally ignorant but we don't have other species eating our lunch. We may be threatened with extinction by our weaknesses and inaccuracies in our paradigms but populations have never been higher so we must be doing something right.

This is anopther thing that disturbs me about the theory of evolution. When Darwin invented it he didn't know that humans and oak trees shared vast amounts of DNA just like the vast majority of all life on the planet. In those days they were stll grouping species by appearances. That life evolved somewhere from single celled organisms is apparent but that life on earth originated on earth seems much less likely in light of this evidence. The similarity in life forms and the extremely complicated DNA seems to suggest that life "blew in on the cosmic wind" rather than evolved independently. There are a few life forms very different than the rest which might be the true terrestrials. These involve the organisms that feed on sulphur at the deed ocean vents. Perhaps once the planet became capable of supporting life it evolved and it was simultaneously seeded from the outside.

Nature doesn't really present humans or any animals with IQ tests and only the fittest survive. Indeed in modern times "intelligence" is likely an impediment to individual human survival and reproduction. If cavemen had been less able to understand their enviroment they'd have simply lived in fewer areas; the best habitats. But just as beavers can create ideal habitat and adapt to a wide range of habitats so can man. Less capable tribes of humans or beavers will simply always have their lunch eaten by the more capable and they will tend to become extinct to the last individual. There is no such thing as "mental evolution". Nature someday might come up with a means to breed for intelligence or some animal might do it intentionally but so far there doesn't seem to be very good reason to believe it has occured. All human progress is from study and learning (by and invented by individuals) and has nothing to do with "intelligence". Nowhere does the Bible say "God created intelligence" and understanding is never found in any books. Books teach us what others have learned and all of this learning was accomplished in concert and by methodical study of nature or thought. If there is any significant change in the "intelligence" of humans (as a whole) over time then we are quickly sliding down a slope. Cavemen were quite possibly much more "intelligent" but far less knowledgeable because they lacked libraries and the knowledge to build them and fill them with books.

At one time I was familiar with most of these terms and even some of the processes that generated the knowledge and terms. Now when I use the word "gene(s)" I'm referring to the entire encoding of the structure and each part of the structure that determines the nature of the indiviual as well as its growth, maintenance, and all physical characteristics. I am aware that many things like the developement of the lungs in the embryo is driven by rather simple genetic encoding. By the same token though there is vast difference between individuals and these are certainly not all related to experience and perspective. I am merely suggesting that the vast physical differences are each related to a difference in known or unknowns "genes" or their expression in conjunction with other genes. I believe it's common sense that most individual differences are inate and that all individual structure is determined by the "genes" whether it's highly similar to other individuals of the species or not. I believe it's common sense that no two rabbit legs are exactly alike. If you disagree then we probably have no basis for argument. I'm already certain that your expertise in the process of learning about biology and its application to understanding exceeds mine. I'm far less certain you're correct or that the extrapolations of current theory are correct.

I believe you are confusing a process to learn about "rabbits" with rabbits themselves and then illegitimately extrapolating the knowledge gained to apply to all life. In reality there is no such thing as "a rabbit". There aren't ten rabbits in the entire world because each rabbit is different. You can slice and dice one of them for dinner or study but it will still be an individual (even in stew). Even in symbiotic relationships all life is individual and each individual is different. Since there's no such thing as "a rabbit" it is impossible to dissect them or to study them except through observation and established theory; rabbits are mammals, for example. Most of them hop. It is here, in observation, that current hypotheses are seen as being highly questionable. From the perspective of lab and the concept that "a rabbit" exists many extrapolations are possible and obvious. If rabbit populations decrease then obviously some genes are likely or certain to become extinct. This obviously is decreased diversity by defnition. But the fact remains that there is no such thing as "a rabbit" and that each rabbit in the world has its own distinct genes. Every individual is already diverse enough for its own needs or it will soon die whether its otherwise fit or not. There simply is no such thing as an "average rabbit". There are norms and parameters of construction and behavior but there is no individual that is representative of "a rabbit". If "a rabbit" actually existed we could somday create the prototypical rabbit and then predict its every behavior. Obviously we will never be able to predict behavior except in the grossest sense (rabbiyts taste better with onionms). This means there's also no such thing as "rabbit populations". This is simply a short hand method we use to communicate the concept that the total number of individual rabbits always fluctuates. These are terms we use to fascilitate communication and to better develop and understand the processes used to understand nature: they simply are not representative of nature (rabbit) itself. It's this disconnect between reality and our study of it that results in observation being contrary to "theory". We extrapolate our understanding of chemistry, physics, zoology etc to apply to something that doesn't even exist except as a model for communication and understanding. The reality is that we can see how things like "natural selection" or breeding simply trumps survival of the fittest. We can see that there are numerous "missing links" caused by the lack of not rabbits but rather the individual proto rabbits. All life is individual just as all fossils and the lack of fossil record simply "proves" that individual was among a group that was very much less numerous than its ancestors and that it is much different that its ancestors because this is the very way nature imposes diversity; by first removing it among groups of individuals largely by means of eradicating much less than simply random genes (among individuals). I'm sure your expertise here exceeds mine by a wide margin but this is irrelevant because my visceral knowldge and my experience with evolution among short lived species combined with logic might be more reflective of the reality than a means to study reality that might be applied illegitimately; biology/ evotutionary theory/ etc. Basic science says theory must fit observation. There must be a reason for the disconnect between theory and observation and this post is my hypothesis for the existence of this disconnect.

Perhaps I'm not stating my contention clearly. I'm saying that each individual in genetically diverse and not only does each individual carry the genes which represent himself and his species but many more that aren't expressed. Of course much of this coding is common to all individuals and of course when there are fewer individuals rare genes might and will disappear. I'm suggesting that diversity, both individual and species, is usually irrelevant to the ability of an individual to survive. It is only through survival the individual can affect the gene pool. And at the same time the probability of the individual to survive is usually based on behaviors and the specific genes that lead to these behaviors rather than the degree to which "he" is fit. Among the survivors you'll see fitness sometimes played a role but typically it will appear to be primarily luck of the draw. It's in the off spring of the survivors where you see the changes. You say that even random numbers show a severe crippling diversity but I don't believe this because every individual has countless millions of genes. Many of these genes are simply irrelevant to the ability of an individual to survive almost any bottleneck. Green eyes might matter to individual humans even in such critical areas as mate selection but how many extinction events have given prefential treatment to green eyes? Survivors will make do with brown eyed or blues eyed mates anyway. But these survivors which are just as diverse as any other members of their species get selected based on any of the craziest parameters thrown at them by mother nature. It can simply be anything at all from geography, elevation, handedness, or foot size. It might seem that genes play no role in whether a certain individual is saved by being under the surface of the water but in fact even though it's an individual with free will, some individuals are far more likely to be diving than others and this can be related directly or indirectly to the individual genes. Indeed, it will be directly or indirectly related and these individuals which have the same diversity as other members of their species will breed true. Whatever gene directly or indirectly led them to be under the water will express itself in their offspring and the local species will have changed. Increased diversity doesn't arise until these, normally very similar, off spring interbreed with others of the species that didn't undergo the extinction. This is evolution. It is driven by population "change" and diversity is created at a later time by this same change. Just as it has been said "all politics is locaL", the same is true of evolution. Evolution simply doesn't occur to species, it occurs to individuals and it occurs suddenly. "Extinction" is an ongoing process because individuals grow old and die or are eaten. Local regions have populations that increase or decrease at least by one with every birth and every death. Very few of these population changes are important to evolution unless there is a mutation that is beneficial to an individual. These will change the species iff they breed true. Slower rabbits have a higher chance of being eaten but "unlucky" rabbits have the highest chance. If you examine the detail of this "bad luck" you'll see a glacial extinction event that is driving change even while the real driver of change, polulation decrease, isn't at work. Even after countless millions of years a rabbit still can't ourrun a cheetah so "survival of the fittest" is hardly the answer while the reality is at hand and unseen.

Perhaps I'm misunderstang something here but I believe the author is looking at the logic wrong. "Species" don't have any genes at all, far less variety. Only individuals have genes and all the variety exists between individuals. Certainly some bottlenecks will necessarily affect indiduals that don't have specific genes and hence reduce diversity but I believe most of these bottlenecks are not selective of things so gross as genes. They will tend to affect behavior, or knowledge, or things that can't be quantified like chance or the ability to detect unknown dangers. Extinction drivers can be virtually anything and are often unidentifiable even in real time. Minor changes in habitat can have sudden and devastating effects on species. If you periodically flood a roomfull of flies with intense infrared or microwave radiation that kills those oin direct line with the source then the only survivors will be those on the undersides of objects or in the shade. These individuals will tend to have as much diversity as the population as a whole did but they will be fundamentally different and their off spring can be virtually a different species. If the off spring reintegrate with normal flies the resultant will be increased variability. You can actually see this process at work with species that have short life spans. The speed of change is dependent on whether the extinction factor affects every individual or only those that have specific characteristics. If only the fast flies, survive or those with the briefest time to become airbourne, or the most energetic then you will see something like "survival of the fittest". I seriously doubt that many bottleneck causes are of this nature. An area doesn't suddenly become overrun with cheetahs so only the fastest rabbits survive. Rather the stresses are often specific and usually more widespread and robust. Being "fit" or even "smart" simply won't save many individuals except in specific instances and so long as the stresses remain his genes and life remain in danger. Every animal seeks to survive and when most die it's because their genes simply aren't up to the new task as defined by mother nature. Hence mother nature herself is selecting new specimens for a new sprecies that can survive. Mother nature doesn't select for genes or the survivors would tend to be random from the population rather than sharing one or combination of specific traits that allowed them survival. Certainly a significant decrease in population might severely reduce diversity in that locality. But, if the forces that reduce population were wholly random (it never is), then individuals will still be as diverse as they were before the decline. There will be fewer so scarcer genes might disappear but there will still be "one of each type" as it were. The forces causing the decline aren't random and don't affect each individual the same. Traits will serve to protect or destroy some individuals. These individuals will usually be nearly as diverse but, more importantly, whatever trait saved them will tend to breed true no matter how subtlely it is expressed. The new population won't be more diverse, they will be different. When this "new species" interbreeds with populations that were not subjected to the stress their offspring will have increased diversity and a better chance of surviving the same or similar insult. "Survival of the fittest" simply doesn't apply. Individuals which are fit may have no better chance of survival than those which prefer to nap in the early afternoon or prefer fish to fowl. Strenght, speed, intelligence, fine eyesight etc are of value to the individual in mate selection and chances of survival under normal conditions but in most bottlenecks this is going to be less true. Bottlenecks can result from a single source or a multitude and they'll affect each member of a species individually.

Why wouldn't they? When waters rise only the swimmers survive. Their off spring are preselected for the ability to swim. No matter what event or change occurs in a biological niche some individuals have a superior chance of survival and others do not. It usually won't have have anything to do with whether or not the individual is fit or fast. It has to do with the ability to survive and/ or adapt (individually) to the change. All life is individual but occurs in the context of species. A rabbit is a rabbit and even the fittest rabbit will make a good meal for a cheetah. I'm sure there are many animals with less variation than humans but this is due to their nature and relative lack of near extinction events or other forces that drive evolution (none of which is survival of the fittest). Even local populations suffer "population bottlenecks" and then the survivors breed with individuals which didn't suffer that bottleneck. If all members of a spcies are local then the lack of bottlenecks translates to less individual variation and a threat to the species by new changes or disease. Individuals which are able to leave a changing habitat have a much higher probability of surviving than those who don't. If you left Paris before the plague you improved your odds of survival. Actually it is. It is always ongoing even as populations increase because individuals vary and all life is individual. Even as a new threat kills some members, population can increase and the species is changing. Of course it is extremely gradual except when populations are significantly reduced. This should not be true. All survivors are still the members of the same species and most habitat changes will simply select individuals with a specific trait within that species. Obviously I'd agree that some extinction events can greatly reduce genetic diversity but this would not be the norm and never the norm so long as the event is local. There are other things that drive change in species. We can see the changes when there are large populations because there are more fossils. We don't see the "missing links" because there are few survivors. Humans and probably termites invented agriculture through a sort of artificial series of extinction events. Individuals which lacked the desired traits were simply excluded from reproducing. Individuals with undesirable traits were effectively subject to extinction. In nature this same process happens at the whim of what we call "chance" and it is driven by habitat change and near extinctions. If toad populations drop then racoon populations plummet with the survivors being individuals with the knowlege and experience required to find other food. These individuals are already distinct by nature such as, perhaps, a relative dislike for the taste of toads. Species naturally adapt to a wider array of foods, behaviors, and conditions. The individuals which survive are genetically different than those which don't and their off spring suddely manifest this difference since they get their genes from both parents. ...There are no missing links.

Where did you get such an idea and how does it explain the relative lack of variability in humans and the fact that change in species, according to the fossil record, are sudden? How does it explain the overlap of extensive DNA between oak trees and humans. The entire theory of evolution needs to be revisited in light of further evidence. You can bury me in links or deflect the questions by name calling and claiming it's off topic but I seriously doubt you can address them.

It is near extinctions that cause evolution and genetic differences. Humans are much more capable of changing their habitat by relocating than any other animal so humans will have much less genetic difference than other animals. Their ability to relocate is their adapability as well as the ability to adapt habitat to their own needs. "Near extinction" is a very very gradual process unless populations are reduced to extremely low numbers. Individual variation is a function of change which is driven by near extinctions.

"Survival of the fittest" simply doesn't explain the facts and the evidence. Of course "evolution" is real because all things change and they change in response to internal and external stimuli. But this doesn't mean giraffes got long necks gradually as food near the ground got increasingly scarce. There are four or five primary drivers of change in species dependent on whether or not you even count "survival of the fittest". Nature fills niches. if there's need for an animal that hops or runs faster then one will arise. The primary way that one arises is through near extinction events. When a species or local population of a species comes under threat because of habitat change or some other factor populations drop. The nature of the pressure (flood, lack of food, drought, disease, etc) causes individuals within the species to have a greater or lesser chance of survival so the individuals who survive are fundamentally different than those who perish. These survivors breed true and the species has changed. This also accounts for the vast individual differences within species because these survivors will mate with other populations that were not subjected to the specific stress. This is simply nature's way of assuring that there is lots of individual difference within species to improive their odds of surviving any change at all. Some mixture of genes will probably be suited to the new conditions; the new biological niche.

It sounds like you can't separate the argument from the arguer. You don't have to address the argument but then there it is whether you address it or not.

Almost all problems are caused by language. Beliefs arise largely through language and beliefs are the motivation for individual human actions. It is these actions which cause most problems. Philosopy has not been able to progress because of language difficulties; it's impossible to build on the work of others if you don't understand what they mean. We use words whose meaning varies in each application and to each listener. Problems in business arise the same way but tend to have practical explanations such as some individual is ignorant of an important fact (often caused by language) or has the wrong understanding. Everyone is own a different page.

I seriously doubt there is any other method to accurately level large areas using ancient means. I don't really know why it is believed to have been so accurately leveled but Petrie's numbers don't seem to support it. You're probably right that the leveling was at or below the first course. This would be a very important data point to ascertain how the pyramids were built. The pyramid is like the weather; everyone talks about it but no one does a thing about it. Orthodoxy is still reeling from ramps having been debunked and still unwilling to establish data points.

OK, I see what I did wrong. The earth doesn't really get to curving 16.65' until you get out near 5 miles. It's not a straight line function.

It's 440 cubits = ~1 2/3 '/ c+ = 760' X 1.4 = 10,600' diagonal The earth curves 16' / 5 mi so .2mi = ~16' X (1/ 25) or about a curve of 8" across the diagonal. If this curve can be shown in the pavement then it is very strong support for geysers. The diagonal is not visible and there is probably a hill on it so it will have to be checked on the sides. I believe these are all visible so it should be easy enough. Just logging the path of a cell phone using its GPS along the side at pavement level should be sufficient. No rant!

I suspect this is actually a curved line because it fits the contour of the earth. If they used water to level it then it has to be curved to fit this contour. Indeed, this is one of the very simple tests that can be done to establish building techniques but nothing is being done. There's been near silence for a long time. No one cares that we aren't establishing facts because they already know the pyramids were build by bumpkins with ramps. It's very difficult for me to not launch into tirades. Some of these things might be determinable by any visitor with a cell phone but still the data aren't available. They probably used stellar references to get the line true N/ S. I'd guess E/ W were either derived from this by getting the diagonals the same or they used the sunrise on the equinox. That the earth was curved was very ancient knowledge to them.

The fact that they refuse to do the science that would answer the basic questions is citation enough. It's easy enough to find plenty of allusions to how all other theories are wrong because they don't agree with the "cultural context". This context is derived from Egyptological beliefs and interpretations. Of course no other theory fits their "cultural context". Some people fault my methodolgy because it includes the hypothesis that the PT makes perfect sense. But this hypothesis is checked at every point by the laws of nature and the physical evidence and it is supported by its ability to make predictions. These words were written in stone and the literal meaning does not agree with their interpretation. They simply choose to understand them in terms of highly superstitious people rather than primitive scientists. People often ask me not to fault Egyptologists but they will not use modern science to unlock the mysteries and persist in simply abhorant methodology. They have repudiated not only the ancient science that still lives carved in stone but modern science as well. I do not fault what Egyptology has done or the truths they have uncovered. I fault their refusal to employ modern science. It's easier for them to simply say "cultural context" each time someone points out an anomaly than it is to gather data that would actually establish a few points about the people and their culture. They are stuck in a rut looking for ramps that never existed.