Maybe he read Clan of the Cave Bears? There was an interesting gestural language in that book.
I think even cladking agreed with that sentiment.
You’re right.
There are no favorable changes but merely behavior that leads to reproduction and behavior that fails. Since life leads to reproduction we need focus primarily on engaging in behavior that survives.
Darwin wanted to simplify reality into how he imagined human society grew and prospered but human concerns are primarily driven by cognition, not fitness, the great chain of being, or behavior. In all things homo circularis rationatio is the podd man out.
Indeed.
But not like Darwin imagined because there is no gradual change in species. Every individual is unique with unique consciousness and nature sorts through behavior.
Real change in species is largely through mutation but also by bottlenecks that destroy individuals who exhibit typical behavior. When “typical” no longer works the oddballs survive and breed a new species.
But science has yielded an unbelievably positive impact on humanity. We benefit daily from advances in medicine and bioengineering that wouldn’t have been possible without hundreds of years of science, and our understanding of differentiation of species due to natural selection is a core component of that.
What’s your beef, exactly?
How did giraffes get long necks?
I believe our species is at another threshold. The first was 80,000 years ago when complex language was invented and created homo sapiens through a mutation in the arcuate fasciculus. The second was when this complex language began to fail in 3200 BC creating homo circularis rationatio and abstract language.
Abstract language has created a world where it is no longer mandatory because AI can manipulate it. The two species will live side by side this time.
It’s going to be several years before a new science that runs experiment simultaneously with logic and can be performed by computers arises. By that time the world will be awash in wealth created by new efficiencies and technological advancements in disparate areas like fusion reaction, materials science, and superconductivity. As things evolve (reality changes) so too will human beings but in the long run this change will be seen as quite sudden spanning a few generations not epochs and eras.
Not really, Take away the so called “natural selection” and the advances in medicine and bio engineering would reach same levels as today. Theories are just attempts to explain a process, not a rule from which processes happen.
Science isn’t obsolete because it’s wrong and it’s not wrong because of experiment. It’s obsolete because it’s incomplete and lacking a tie to reality.
“It” is reality. It is procedural logic that applies across all domains and represented by the UFT.
Bad theories can sometimes work. If you install windows because bad air gets in from the swamps (malaria) you breath less bad air and have less chance of catching malaria.
Don’t forget our species is the one that reasons in circles so we had to invent experiment to lift ourselves from superstition and ignorance and experiment ties science to reality. Of course modern theory works at least sometimes.
Species mutate in different ways. Let’s say the horse. The former species used to have five digits in the four extremities, today’s species have a hoof with atrophied digits. The current species is of a bigger size including the pony in comparison with the ancient one, but the former species had more molar teeth and aligned denture, today’s species has deformed denture alignment. No one can fully explain the mutations in each species because what is known about their environment is not fully understood, we have ideas obtained from residuals of the former species and things around them, but there is no accuracy but just samples usually mixed with samples from other eras.
So, do we have two nonsense spewing nutbags now, or cladking and his sock?
Whatever behavior allowed the ancestors of our horse to survive a bottleneck was associated with poorly aligned teeth. It could be direct like a different diet or it could be simply coincidental.
Change in species is many many orders of magnitude more complex than Darwin or we imagine.
That or a self-important delusional idiot and an ‘intelligent’ designer.
Either way, even a neutron star can’t compete with density of that magnitude
This is an incorrect take. Understanding that species diverged due to natural selection led scientists to look for a mechanism – they found it in genes. Knowing that there were genes led them to look for where they might be hiding – they found the genes in DNA. Knowing that DNA contained coded genetic information led scientists to learn how genetic information was coded. You don’t get lifesaving mRNA vaccines without first understanding natural selection. You don’t get CRISPR gene therapies without Darwin.
You can argue that different timelines may exist in the multiverse where it’s not Darwin but someone else, it’s not “On the Origin of Species” but some other work, that certain discoveries could have been made in a slightly different order. But it’s all connected.
The tie to reality is obvious, is it not?
All language in complex organisms is probably composed of much more than vocalization. If (when) we study the sounds made by bees we’ll probably find they even buzz differently and hum at the same frequency. There’s a lot more going on in a Waggle Dance than what we can understand.
Ancient Language was primarily vocal but it was also ritualistic and performative. You couldn’t just say “Let’s start work and stay safe” you had to perform a ritual that tied each worker to the same page, the same thought. In every day speech this would surely involve gestures and various other behavior.
WRONG!
The correct answer is that there is no such thing as a “horse” or a “giraffe,” there are only individuals. Categorizing things into groups like “horse” and “non-horse,” or “giraffe” and “non-giraffe” is a grave mistake that renders all proceeding logic moot because it limits our ability to comprehend these topics.
Indeed!
When I said “horse” I was referring to the progenitors of everything we call a “horse” today and (no doubt) some things we do not. If you go back enough generations we all have the same grandparents.
There’s too much knowledge for humans to communicate procedurally (I believe). The best we can do is approximate it.
Don’t forget “a horse is a horse, of course, of course” (even if they don’t talk).