Producing a hierarchy of human life .

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

Bollocks. Complete and utter nonsense. Bilge. Profound and deeply offensive ignorance.

 

Anatomy can define the detailed structure of your fish and their component organs and systems.

Zoology can detail the function of each of these organs and systems.

Embryology can review the development of these organs and systems from a zygote to an adult fish.

Neurology can provide information on the nature of their nervous system.

Evolutionary biology can trace their lineage back a billion years.

Ethology can describe and explain their behaviour.

Cytology can explain the workings of individual cells.

Biochemistry can detail their metabolism.

Genetics can illuminate how all of these are controlled.

Ecology can describe how they fit into and influence their environment.

 

In short Mike, science knows a great deal more about your fish than you will ever know, as long as you choose fairy stories over sound, multiply validated observations and their resultant hypotheses and theories.

 

 

Yes , I rather feared that you would reply in that sort of analytical way . And I must say as I was typing my comments , I did reason to myself , that individual analysis of the various functions , can indeed be listed in the way you describe . 

But if you did do such a listing , surely ,( please don't hit me over the head ) .

BUT it's still not , an entity  A GOLD FISH SWIMMING AROUND IN MY POOL , Surely . 

Its Like coming across a list of the contents of the various parts of a Rolls Royse Car and a pile of steel , aluminium , copper and brass and saying there is the ingredients of a car , what more do you want ?  Oh and here is a guide how to build it. It's still a pile of ingredients , not a swish RR ready to drive away . 

One is a pile of bits . The other is LIFE . 

IF you will excuse my rather crude similarity . It is not meant in an offensive way , but as a genuine conversation about the wonder of LIFE  compared to the material contents and the mechanism of living things. 

Ps . Having read through that list of disciplines in the form of various ' OLOGY's in order to UNDERSTAND  and build a living Gold Fish . 

If you could master ALL  those OLOGY's all at once or in a sequence even , you would be a God .       QED 

 

Mike 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

9 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Perhaps one of an immediate proofs is the first line of your SINATURE STRIP .

namely . :- 

.        " LIFE IS THE POETRY OF THE UNIVERSE " . .

If the Universe was all just matter , dust , and  rock , , we might be struggling to say there is a God . Like going to some of the moons and planets , just minerals , rocks , dust , no atmosphere. .. 

But under our noses is LIFE , PLANTS , ANIMALS ,   Here on Earth its crawling with Life ...

Surely that is proof of a GOD .?

 At least enough for your comment  "  Prove god and we'll talk about god " 

 

mike 

 

No, in fact those things are evidence of reality, none require a god, all are explained by natural processes... 

33 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Yes , I rather feared that you would reply in that sort of analytical way . And I must say as I was typing my comments , I did reason to myself , that individual analysis of the various functions , can indeed be listed in the way you describe . 

But if you did do such a listing , surely ,( please don't hit me over the head ) .

BUT it's still not , an entity  A GOLD FISH SWIMMING AROUND IN MY POOL , Surely . 

Its Like coming across a list of the contents of the various parts of a Rolls Royse Car and a pile of steel , aluminium , copper and brass and saying there is the ingredients of a car , what more do you want ?  Oh and here is a guide how to build it. It's still a pile of ingredients , not a swish RR ready to drive away . 

One is a pile of bits . The other is LIFE . 

IF you will excuse my rather crude similarity . It is not meant in an offensive way , but as a genuine conversation about the wonder of LIFE  compared to the material contents and the mechanism of living things. 

Ps . Having read through that list of disciplines in the form of various ' OLOGY's in order to UNDERSTAND  and build a living Gold Fish . 

If you could master ALL  those OLOGY's all at once or in a sequence even , you would be a God .       QED 

 

Mike 

Cars do not self organise, cars do not metabolize, cars do not reproduce, cars are demonstrably the creation of humans designed by humans. The only way to tell if an object is designed is to compare it to an undesigned object ie a rock, dirt, sand, or the moon. 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

No, in fact those things are evidence of reality, none require a god, all are explained by natural processes... 

Cars do not self organise, cars do not metabolize, cars do not reproduce, cars are demonstrably the creation of humans designed by humans. The only way to tell if an object is designed is to compare it to an undesigned object ie a rock, dirt, sand, or the moon. 

Yes! But that is exactly my point . Cars are designed by Man .

In a special way ,( not waving a magic wand )  :-

Gold fish are a design process of / from a GOD .  ..... QED. 

[Moontanman]

22 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Yes! But that is exactly my point . Cars are designed by Man .

In a special way ,( not waving a magic wand )  :-

Gold fish are a design process of / from a GOD .  ..... QED. 

 No, in fact humans designed goldfish.. 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 No, in fact humans designed goldfish.. 

Quite so . That was a rather impulsive remark for me to have made . 

What I should have said is , that , in the great scheme of things , however God decided to develop water navigating creatures to swarm and occupy the seas and rivers of Earth. I imagine he developed the principle of underwater fish as swimming creatures much in the shape principle we have today , namely a streamlined head, a thrusting tail , fins to guide and a muscular body to provide thrust . Starting with a few basic types , he no doubt used the principle of natural selection to refine the designs in their various habitats ,during the design stage , .  However , I wasn't there but there are fossil records which do show the basic types and their development . 

So yes it was stupid of me to suggest God made goldfish , as they are. As you say , man has no doubt bred some fish to look nice and red, gold , and small for ornament . I think if 'one thinks' of God in this capacity with fish , as a massive laboratory of breeding and selection assistants . Which is probably wrong , but I for one need a sort of visualisation to get my head around it . Then repeat that for all the different animal and fish types , then set them breeding . Well , it's just an Image , to go on .  ( it's better than 'turtles all the way down ' as Prof Steven Hawkins , was once  told from the audience , at one of his lectures. ) .

And so with all the other creatures until you come to Man . And we all have the gist for that description . Certainly , the Mesopotamian evidence is all there for Mankind to make its debut in the region that is recently being torn to shreds! 

Mike 

ps . All because I accidentally said God made goldfish ! 

What a blunder ! 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

2 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Quite so . That was a rather impulsive remark for me to have made . 

What I should have said is , that , in the great scheme of things , however God decided to develop water navigating creatures to swarm and occupy the seas and rivers of Earth. I imagine he developed the principle of underwater fish as swimming creatures much in the shape principle we have today , namely a streamlined head, a thrusting tail , fins to guide and a muscular body to provide thrust . Starting with a few basic types , he no doubt used the principle of natural selection to refine the designs in their various habitats ,during the design stage , .  However , I wasn't there but there are fossil records which do show the basic types and their development . 

So yes it was stupid of me to suggest God made goldfish , as they are. As you say , man has no doubt bred some fish to look nice and red, gold , and small for ornament . I think if 'one thinks' of God in this capacity with fish , as a massive laboratory of breeding and selection assistants . Which is probably wrong , but I for one need a sort of visualisation to get my head around it . Then repeat that for all the different animal and fish types , then set them breeding . Well , it's just an Image , to go on .  ( it's better than 'turtles all the way down ' as Prof Steven Hawkins , was once  told from the audience , at one of his lectures. ) .

And so with all the other creatures until you come to Man . And we all have the gist for that description . Certainly , the Mesopotamian evidence is all there for Mankind to make its debut in the region that is recently being torn to shreds! 

Mike 

ps . All because I accidentally said God made goldfish ! 

What a blunder ! 

 

 

More than a blunder, it revels the basic problem with your hierarchy assertion. We can explain everything from Man "down" and have no evidence for anything above man. We can show a need for everything we see on Earth, "the ecosphere" but no need for anything outside that ecosphere. You need evidence and the watchmaker idea you proposed is easily debunked.   

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

.            I think the case rests ..  ! 

   We clearly believe , what we want to believe !

I accept the analytical aspect of science as it changes as it moves forward . But I also believe there are much higher beings in the HIERACHY  above mankind .  I can't really help what appeals to me as the truth ! 

.       .        .       .  mike  .      .      . 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[DrP]

1 hour ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

.

.              We clearly believe , what we want to believe !

I accept the analytical aspect of science as it changes as it moves forward . But I also believe there are much higher beings in the HIERACHY  above mankind .  I can't really help what appeals to me as the truth ! 

.       .        .  .      . 

What 'appeals' is irrelevant. What evidence are you drawing the conclusion that there is a hierarchy above us from? 

If there is one - it is pretty brutal.  My pet spider was eaten by another spider...  I came in to find a spindly husk and a smaller, but leaner nastier looking beast had taken it's web and had drained it of life. I didn't like the look of this newbie who had eaten my pal - I was going to bump him off but decided to leave it...  the whole lab was moved the other day anyway and it has now gone of it's own accord. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Here she is. . Before she was cruelly taken from me. Eaten in her prime. 

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Jk

7 hours ago, DrP said:

 

That looks big ! 

How much did it measure , from your picture ? 

Say from the top of its front legs , to the bottom of its back legs ? 

Quote  your comment :- 

"What 'appeals' is irrelevant. What evidence are you drawing the conclusion that there is a hierarchy above us from? " 

unquote .

The overwhelming evidence for me is :- 

the utter , utter , utter difference between the contents of the Earth , with all its atmosphere , blue skies, seas , mountains , ecosystems , animals , fish birds and human population, with all its activity . 

When you compare this with every other planet we have managed to observe . Earth stands out as an

It stands out like an utter , utter , utter GEMSTONE  of a beacon of Intelligent Creation by somebody/something , a GOD ?  

You tell me who did it if God did not do it . 

We have seen NOTHING YET  that comes anywhere near it , in all our searchings ! 

 

 

Mike 

 

Edited August 20, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Manticore]

We know very little so far about the vast majority of planets we have detected.

Here is another view of part of Earth (this one not photoshopped).

 

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

2 hours ago, Manticore said:

We know very little so far about the vast majority of planets we have detected.

Here is another view of part of Earth (this one not photoshopped).

 

YES  ,     but this is what it's really like out there . I used to live near the Lake District north west England . On some of the non tourist lakes , they were not dissimilar from this picture. Also in Scotland . 

I agree the salt flats look a bit barren . But my point is :- God ( whatever God is , which I imagine it being Massive ( if not spread throughout the Universe,)  with capability beyond imagination , power unlimited , scientific engineering skills and capability to make a CERN engineer weep , design mentality capablility to make a first year Art Student turn from Art to 'bee keeping ' . Power to make today's ' dragsters get jealous , yet human sensitivities to make poets and philanthropists cry. ( Forgetting for the moment the poor artists that have to imitate this scenery , ) or philosophers trying to get to grips with this lot . 

Why should not an entity so large yet benign exist , to oversee the greatest Civil Engineering Project , Ever even dreamt about . 

We are indeed privileged to even consider such an Entity Existing at all. 

 

Mike 

[Moontanman]

17 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

.

.            I think the case rests ..  ! 

   We clearly believe , what we want to believe !

I accept the analytical aspect of science as it changes as it moves forward . But I also believe there are much higher beings in the HIERACHY  above mankind .  I can't really help what appeals to me as the truth ! 

.       .        .       .  mike  .      .      . 

You can believe the sky is yellow, your belief will not change it's color. So far your best evidence is "what else could do it" Or "there has to be? " We could indeed be the only spark of not just intelligent life but of life in general in the entire cosmos! Kinda of a bummer but not wanting it to be true will not change the reality. We know for sure that nothing that has been discovered so far needs a higher being or beings, no need for them, no evidence of them, pretty much calls out for the null hypothesis don't you think? 

7 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

Jk

That looks big ! 

How much did it measure , from your picture ? 

Say from the top of its front legs , to the bottom of its back legs ? 

Quote  your comment :- 

"What 'appeals' is irrelevant. What evidence are you drawing the conclusion that there is a hierarchy above us from? " 

unquote .

The overwhelming evidence for me is :- 

the utter , utter , utter difference between the contents of the Earth , with all its atmosphere , blue skies, seas , mountains , ecosystems , animals , fish birds and human population, with all its activity . 

When you compare this with every other planet we have managed to observe . Earth stands out as an

It stands out like an utter , utter , utter GEMSTONE  of a beacon of Intelligent Creation by somebody/something , a GOD ?  

You tell me who did it if God did not do it . 

We have seen NOTHING YET  that comes anywhere near it , in all our searchings ! 

 

 

Mike 

 

Your main mistake here is thinking about things from the top down, like a swarm of starlings appear to follow a leader but the truth is they do not, their behavior come from the bottom up. 

Quote

When you compare this with every other planet we have managed to observe . Earth stands out as an

It stands out like an utter , utter , utter GEMSTONE  of a beacon of Intelligent Creation by somebody/something , a GOD ? 

And how many planets of of the billions just in our own galaxy have we investigated? One! One data point does not a curve make my friend... 

 

Quote

 

 

You tell me who did it if God did not do it . 

We have seen NOTHING YET  that comes anywhere near it , in all our searchings ! 

"Nothing yet" What an enormously telling statement. If an alien suddenly popped into existence in death valley, as far as the eye can see nothing but hot dry barren waste land, he would be seeing orders of magnitude more of the Earth than we can see of the rest of just our little galaxy. Would he be correct in assuming the entire Earth was a hot dry barren wasteland? 

I mean if you really want to get picky there could a civilization of hydrogen breathers on Titan. Our lander just happened to land in their version of death valley, the rest of the planet is their idea of heaven and we just haven't seen their glittering towers of crystalline water.

You ended with "in all our searchings" we haven't even touched the surface much less scratched it. There are more planets in the universe than all the grains of sand on the earth by several orders of magnitude and you want to declare "god did it"? Short sighted indeed! 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Moontanman

[Baron d'Holbach]

On 6/20/2017 at 2:56 AM, Strange said:

I don't see a hierarchy. At best there is a (partially) directed graph. You can choose different organisms to be on "top" depending on your criteria.

 

If there were a hierarchy, I see no need (or likelihood) for it to extend infinitely in both directions, so the question "who is above" (or below) is not necessarily meaningful.

 

I completely disagree.

Hierarchy is an evolutionary movement. If you look at it in a biological perspective you realize that smaller units form all the components of the larger system. Examples, cells, organism, organs, trees in forests etch.. This idea was from the 1980s. Hierarchy formed out of simplistic multi level structure to complex deterministic phenomena. And this works in all categories. Especially in human being who will to the end of time will always look upwards and advance himself to become stronger. 

And the question is  "who is above or below" is the thing that humans will always have in mind to strive to and not become to. 

[Area54]

3 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

I completely disagree.

Hierarchy is an evolutionary movement. If you look at it in a biological perspective you realize that smaller units form all the components of the larger system. Examples, cells, organism, organs, trees in forests etch.. This idea was from the 1980s. Hierarchy formed out of simplistic multi level structure to complex deterministic phenomena. And this works in all categories. Especially in human being who will to the end of time will always look upwards and advance himself to become stronger. 

And the question is  "who is above or below" is the thing that humans will always have in mind to strive to and not become to. 

Whoa there!. Certainly there are Hierarchies of various kinds within the universe at large and life in particular. My objection to Mike is that he has failed utterly to justify the kind of hierarchy he claims exists, or to counter evidence that calls it into serious question. Strange appears to be rejecting the same specific hierarchy of Mike that Moontanman, myself and probably others have questioned in this thread.

That hierarchy has two essential components. Man is above all other terrestrial life forms and their are others entities above man. Mike has failed to offer a cogent argument for the first (though one could be made) and failed to provide evidence for the latter (perhaps because nothing substantial exists).

Further, your suggestion that the concept dates from the 1980s is simply wrong. The Great Chain of Being, the prototypical hierarchy, derived from the writings of Plato and Aristotle was fully established in the Middle Ages. It was probably, in part, responsible for the development, by Linnaeus, of the biological classification system, which is inherently hierarchical. One could select more examples from the past couple of centuries. I'll throw in one more. Nikolaas Tinbergen's work in the 50s and 60s, wherein he helped develop ethology, was essentially a recognition and investigation of biological hierarchies.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

16 hours ago, Area54 said:

Whoa there!. Certainly there are Hierarchies of various kinds within the universe at large and life in particular. My objection to Mike is that he has failed utterly to justify the kind of hierarchy he claims exists, or to counter evidence that calls it into serious question. Strange appears to be rejecting the same specific hierarchy of Mike that Moontanman, myself and probably others have questioned in this thread.

That hierarchy has two essential components. Man is above all other terrestrial life forms and their are others entities above man. Mike has failed to offer a cogent argument for the first (though one could be made) and failed to provide evidence for the latter (perhaps because nothing substantial exists).

Further, your suggestion that the concept dates from the 1980s is simply wrong. The Great Chain of Being, the prototypical hierarchy, derived from the writings of Plato and Aristotle was fully established in the Middle Ages. It was probably, in part, responsible for the development, by Linnaeus, of the biological classification system, which is inherently hierarchical. One could select more examples from the past couple of centuries. I'll throw in one more. Nikolaas Tinbergen's work in the 50s and 60s, wherein he helped develop ethology, was essentially a recognition and investigation of biological hierarchies.

 Well ,I must say , you appear very learned in the subject as it stands today . I cannot compete on mainstream knowledge of the areas you cover . 

However , I feel I have something to offer , on the area you seem very sensitive about , namely the presence of a superior set of beings ,  to man ! 

I would take as my source threefold  things .

1. In any documentry comments about ' life bearing ' creation , that are to hand .  

2 . Any extrapolated reasoning on today's technology , that could prove beneficial now in this 21 st century , toward a possible current insight into " how a set of high brow engineers/ scientists ,/experienced beings " could possibly go about seeding a world. As we have today .

3. Any imaginative ideas. Which could support the proposal for the origin and structure of life (living things ) on Earth . 

 

As an introductory mention of these three aspects 

1. In any documentry comments about ' life bearing ' creation , that are to hand , it speaks about " Let us create man in our image . " Several things there :  'US  ' clearly referring to a numberless set of designers, experimenters , constructors , who are not unlike us in some way . Which is heartening .

2. By our experience to date a set of well equipped laboratories or the equivalent would be required. Also our experience with transplants and the like shows a requirement to the living being , kept alive, but unconscious , while final touches or constructional surgery take place . 

3. If you imagine this going on for both the animal , fish , flying creature population , the facility would be quite vast. 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Area54]

18 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 Well ,I must say , you appear very learned in the subject as it stands today . I cannot compete on mainstream knowledge of the areas you cover . 

However , I feel I have something to offer , on the area you seem very sensitive about , namely the presence of a superior set of beings ,  to man ! 

I would take as my source threefold  things .

1. In any documentry comments about ' life bearing ' creation , that are to hand .  

2 . Any extrapolated reasoning on today's technology , that could prove beneficial now in this 21 st century , toward a possible current insight into " how a set of high brow engineers/ scientists ,/experienced beings " could possibly go about seeding a world. As we have today .

3. Any imaginative ideas. Which could support the proposal for the origin and structure of life (living things ) on Earth .

Mike, you really do frustrate me. I am not "very learned" in the subject. If you are going to be talking about hierarchies that's just a smattering of the foundation you need to have. I wouldn't run around pontificating on the subject with only these few morsels to feed my thinking, yet with even less you are ready to build an entire world view. Forgive me, but that just strikes me as silly.

Now, I see you have moved the goalposts. I have not at any point in this thread suggested that I do not consider the possibility there may be superior beings. But in nearly every instance, in talking of superior beings you have been

a) Placing them in a hierarchy.

b) According them supernatural powers, refering to them as angels and the like.

Now as to your three points, I have no idea what point 1 means.

Actually, all three of your points make no sense to me. I've tried multiple ways of parsing them and they either make no sense, or are ambiguous, or contradictory. Do you want to try again.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Sure . But I would ask you to let me sleep on it , as I have had a rather heavy day , and I am ' bushed ' at this moment . 

But , I will get back on the case , shortly ! 

 

Mike 

[Moontanman]

30 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

 Well ,I must say , you appear very learned in the subject as it stands today . I cannot compete on mainstream knowledge of the areas you cover . 

However , I feel I have something to offer , on the area you seem very sensitive about , namely the presence of a superior set of beings ,  to man ! 

I would take as my source threefold  things .

1. In any documentry comments about ' life bearing ' creation , that are to hand .

 

 

 

Mike, seriously dude, you are starting to embarrass yourself, I've read a great many posts by you and you never seemed to be that far out of the ball park. What original documents do you have, do we have? None, absolutely none, not a single document that is anything more than the ramblings of men about their favorite gods and not a single one of those texts is an original much less evidence of any kind. They carry no more weight than "The Lord Of The Rings"  in fact Lord of the Rings was at least written recently and we have original copies. Oh, and it's a far better story as well... 

 

 

Quote

2 . Any extrapolated reasoning on today's technology , that could prove beneficial now in this 21 st century , toward a possible current insight into " how a set of high brow engineers/ scientists ,/experienced beings " could possibly go about seeding a world. As we have today .

Again, you have a data point of one, nothing can be supported by a data point of one except that data point... We have plenty of evidence that life is naturally occurring phenomena and evolution by natural selection fully explains the diversity of life. If you want speculation along those lines I would suggest John Varley's quite good series "Titan", "Wizard", and "Demon" very entertaining and quite on the point with what you are suggesting..  

 

Quote

3. Any imaginative ideas. Which could support the proposal for the origin and structure of life (living things ) on Earth . 

It's called Abiogenesis, it's a mesmerizing subject, one that I greedily read everything I can get my hands on. The structure of life is, again, explained by evolution via natural selection. 

I honestly do not know how to state these things more clearly. If you require links to that information I know you have access to the same search engines I do. However I do have a serious of very good videos both by prominent scientists (very long and dry for the most part) and lesser known individuals (very entertaining and accurate as well) who explain these things both verbally and graphically.  

Quote

Mike 

Your choice to believe what you want but reality cares not about what you believe... Let me know and I'll start you down a trail you might spend a very long time on, these videos are fascinating.. 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Moontanman

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Like my dog , I need to sleep just now , catch you tomorrow . Mike 

[Baron d'Holbach]

20 hours ago, Area54 said:

Whoa there!. Certainly there are Hierarchies of various kinds within the universe at large and life in particular. My objection to Mike is that he has failed utterly to justify the kind of hierarchy he claims exists, or to counter evidence that calls it into serious question. Strange appears to be rejecting the same specific hierarchy of Mike that Moontanman, myself and probably others have questioned in this thread.

That hierarchy has two essential components. Man is above all other terrestrial life forms and their are others entities above man. Mike has failed to offer a cogent argument for the first (though one could be made) and failed to provide evidence for the latter (perhaps because nothing substantial exists).

Further, your suggestion that the concept dates from the 1980s is simply wrong. The Great Chain of Being, the prototypical hierarchy, derived from the writings of Plato and Aristotle was fully established in the Middle Ages. It was probably, in part, responsible for the development, by Linnaeus, of the biological classification system, which is inherently hierarchical. One could select more examples from the past couple of centuries. I'll throw in one more. Nikolaas Tinbergen's work in the 50s and 60s, wherein he helped develop ethology, was essentially a recognition and investigation of biological hierarchies.

Wait a minute.

The concept of the date was not the period of how we discover this process! Of course I know the Greeks knew this! And over time through theological belief of God and hierarchy we thoroughly ponder on it more. And than the middle ages theologians/philosophers developed a better understanding of it but not as scientific of it untill the 19th century. 

I did a poor job in mentioning that I was quoting a professor from the 1980. 

Eminent paleontologist and evolutionist Niles Eldredge since the 1980’s, came up with the hierarchy theory 

And it's fascinating 

I am bad at citation 

http://hierarchygroup.com/home/hierarchy-theory-of-evolution/

And I wanted to add more to this base on Niles Eldredge hierarchy theory.

 I think he nails it. 

"Hierarchy theory identifies two different hierarchies: one is named ‘economic’ or ‘ecological’, and it is based on matter-energy transfers and ecological processes. The other is named ‘genealogical’ or ‘evolutionary’, and it is based on information and replication".

I think this is where people need to get at. And try to pin point what area of interest is the most dominant aspect of hierarchy. 

btw I believe there is a hierarchy. Not a mystical one but a common sense natural one. 

 

Cheers

Edited August 22, 2017 by Baron d'Holbach

[Area54]

8 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Wait a minute.

The concept of the date was not the period of how we discover this process! Of course I know the Greeks knew this! And over time through theological belief of God and hierarchy we thoroughly ponder on it more. And than the middle ages theologians/philosophers developed a better understanding of it but not as scientific of it untill the 19th century. 

I did a poor job in mentioning that I was quoting a professor from the 1980. 

Eminent paleontologist and evolutionist Niles Eldredge since the 1980’s, came up with the hierarchy theory 

And it's fascinating 

I am bad at citation 

http://hierarchygroup.com/home/hierarchy-theory-of-evolution/

And I wanted to add more to this base on Niles Eldredge hierarchy theory.

 I think he nails it. 

"Hierarchy theory identifies two different hierarchies: one is named ‘economic’ or ‘ecological’, and it is based on matter-energy transfers and ecological processes. The other is named ‘genealogical’ or ‘evolutionary’, and it is based on information and replication".

I think this is where people need to get at. And try to pin point what area of interest is the most dominant aspect of hierarchy. 

btw I believe there is a hierarchy. Not a mystical one but a common sense natural one. 

 

Cheers

Thank you for the clarification. It would definitely have been helpful if you had said something like "Although hierarchies have been part of religious and scientific thinking for centuries, Niles Eldredge came up with an interesting take on these in the 1980s." And so on.

I'll still take exception to your last statement (which based on what you have said earlier, I suspect is just a slip of the fingers). There are many hierarchies depending upon point of view and contex, not just one.

Cheers

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Well , you all seem to say , Many people have commented and done research on 

HEIRACHY AMONG LIVING SPECIES.

Before I started this thread . , I was unaware of this . I coined the HIERACHY idea apparently after a long period , where others had used this Classification. 

HOWEVER ,  I do not see much so far which list , GOD ... HUMANS... FISH as a distinct HEIRACHY. This is perhaps because I am deliberately trying to forge a link, across these three species . Because they are there ...and I have access to all three. Two by dint of Birth and one by (Records , observation and Experience.) Or at least that is the proposal ! 

So , although I can recognise these other HEIRACHY 's represent a lot of research by scientists over the years . I am particularly interested in establishing the specific HIERACHY which I have personally been discussing . This so because it at least uses evidence produced by at least 2 , layers in the HIERACHY, and using much of Human History ' en mass', can establish the third member of the HIERACHY , beyond reasonable doubt, IF ONE IS PREPARED TO TAKE THE WHOLE EARTH SYSTEM AS THE PROOF , RATHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL ENTITY . This we do with some of the other members of Heirachies , say the human being . Where we take individual cells , liquids , systems , to come together to make an individual human being ? 

This could be likened to a biological research establishment . Doing deep research and development over a number of years. Finally coming up with a drug that is used in treating xxxxxxxx. 

Similarly , I am saying a research and development organisation of immense proportions ( called GOD ) many , many years ago produced , amongst many other things , a species called MAN . After a great deal of brainpower, effort and manufacture . (Similarly with FISH , amongst many other things ) . Having previously done a lot of other work on atoms  , minerals , and particles. 

Mike 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Moontanman]

30 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

.

Well , you all seem to say , Many people have commented and done research on 

HEIRACHY AMONG LIVING SPECIES.

Before I started this thread . , I was unaware of this . I coined the HIERACHY idea apparently after a long period , where others had used this Classification. 

HOWEVER ,  I do not see much so far which list , GOD ... HUMANS... FISH as a distinct HEIRACHY. This is perhaps because I am deliberately trying to forge a link, across these three species . Because they are there ...and I have access to all three. Two by dint of Birth and one by (Records , observation and Experience.) Or at least that is the proposal ! 

So , although I can recognise these other HEIRACHY 's represent a lot of research by scientists over the years . I am particularly interested in establishing the specific HIERACHY which I have personally been discussing . This so because it at least uses evidence produced by at least 2 , layers in the HIERACHY, and using much of Human History ' en mass', can establish the third member of the HIERACHY , beyond reasonable doubt, IF ONE IS PREPARED TO TAKE THE WHOLE EARTH SYSTEM AS THE PROOF , RATHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL ENTITY . This we do with some of the other members of Heirachies , say the human being . Where we take individual cells , liquids , systems , to come together to make an individual human being ? 

This could be likened to a biological research establishment . Doing deep research and development over a number of years. Finally coming up with a drug that is used in treating xxxxxxxx. 

Similarly , I am saying a research and development organisation of immense proportions ( called GOD ) many , many years ago produced , amongst many other things , a species called MAN . After a great deal of brainpower, effort and manufacture . (Similarly with FISH , amongst many other things ) . Having previously done a lot of other work on atoms  , minerals , and particles. 

Mike 

 

 

I am more than willing to entertain the idea of god, fairies (and all the other pagan things), angels, demons,  the supernatural in general just as soon as someone offers some evidence a bit more substantial than "what else could it be" or feelies, or a hunch. Mike, be serious, I can make a much better case for aliens visiting the Earth than your "feeling of connection" Would you be willing to believe such an improbable thing as the Hollow Earth just because I said I had a feeling it was true? 

Your idea of god sounds quite a bit like the idea of ancient astronauts crossed with magic. I cannot in good faith even meet you .1% of the way on this Mike...  

[Baron d'Holbach]

2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I am more than willing to entertain the idea of god, fairies (and all the other pagan things), angels, demons,  the supernatural in general just as soon as someone offers some evidence a bit more substantial than "what else could it be" or feelies, or a hunch. Mike, be serious, I can make a much better case for aliens visiting the Earth than your "feeling of connection" Would you be willing to believe such an improbable thing as the Hollow Earth just because I said I had a feeling it was true? 

Your idea of god sounds quite a bit like the idea of ancient astronauts crossed with magic. I cannot in good faith even meet you .1% of the way on this Mike...  

Lol that is a little harsh.. I meet him at 25% the bare minimum. Why? Well his view points are basic theological belief system. And my assumption he and most likely you and others here not familiar with jewish kabbalah.

Long time ago I study the logos system and he's getting to somewhat to those types of points. It's pointless and useless now these days but in a mystical sense it's attractive. Not to me thou. I consider it folly. 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

.

Well , you all seem to say , Many people have commented and done research on 

HEIRACHY AMONG LIVING SPECIES.

Before I started this thread . , I was unaware of this . I coined the HIERACHY idea apparently after a long period , where others had used this Classification. 

HOWEVER ,  I do not see much so far which list , GOD ... HUMANS... FISH as a distinct HEIRACHY. This is perhaps because I am deliberately trying to forge a link, across these three species . Because they are there ...and I have access to all three. Two by dint of Birth and one by (Records , observation and Experience.) Or at least that is the proposal ! 

So , although I can recognise these other HEIRACHY 's represent a lot of research by scientists over the years . I am particularly interested in establishing the specific HIERACHY which I have personally been discussing . This so because it at least uses evidence produced by at least 2 , layers in the HIERACHY, and using much of Human History ' en mass', can establish the third member of the HIERACHY , beyond reasonable doubt, IF ONE IS PREPARED TO TAKE THE WHOLE EARTH SYSTEM AS THE PROOF , RATHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL ENTITY . This we do with some of the other members of Heirachies , say the human being . Where we take individual cells , liquids , systems , to come together to make an individual human being ? 

This could be likened to a biological research establishment . Doing deep research and development over a number of years. Finally coming up with a drug that is used in treating xxxxxxxx. 

Similarly , I am saying a research and development organisation of immense proportions ( called GOD ) many , many years ago produced , amongst many other things , a species called MAN . After a great deal of brainpower, effort and manufacture . (Similarly with FISH , amongst many other things ) . Having previously done a lot of other work on atoms  , minerals , and particles. 

Mike 

 

 

Hello Mike,

What you are trying to get at will not be in science sadly. I have a feeling with the the absolute hard evidence of science will not convince your conscious. Even if I produce the best possible scientific research and evidences to you, you will look the other way because you won't be fully satisfy. I think you reach a certain level at your age you don't want empirical evidence anymore. But a spiritual awakening of some sort? 

You might be at the wrong place than. 

I can show you another path. A path I long abandon but is tattoo into my brain. It will take you deep down the hole. And it's full of opposite evidence that is found in this forum. I have a feeling this is the path you want to get into.......

You can start here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah_mysticism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Heavens

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar  - I wasted 10 years in this category!!!! 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefirot - couple of years on this !!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seder_hishtalshelus - here comes the rabbit holes of 1 out of a million

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(Kabbalah)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hekhalot_literature

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throne_of_God

 

This is the path I have a feeling you want. This is where you want to be at. Science has the answer. But science dose not have these mystical strange answers. 

 

Good luck. Best of luck. This stuff is not easy to decipher. I wasted a decade on this sadly 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by Baron d'Holbach

[Area54]

Mike, you possibly know the expression "He sleeps with the fishes". It relates to an incident in Mario Puzio's Godfather novel where one of the characters has his body disposed of in the sea.

If this were to happen to you and the fishes consumed your remains, I think that rather screws up the hierarchy you are trying to assemble. As I have argued from the outset, you have failed, thus far, to justify elevating this particular hierarchy over the many other exist. In those other hierarchies the fish are typically level with, or even above us.