Well, art is subjective. Here is the tale of a young lady who allegedly managed (and had photographed at regular stages during excretion) a 26 foot long shit:
Unfortunately for connoisseurs, and art galleries throughout the world, this story is not true. The artist, Michelle Hines, was not, in fact, “pushing putty”, her genre is basically “shock”.
But she has established a lead for others to follow… and here we all are, contemplating a simllar performance.
Word. I just scrolled past seven (!) of their posts in a row. The only consolation is that they had to put up with the algorithm scolding them for posting so many times.
They’re not working with the other people they’ve dealt with, either; not according to cladking’s own description. Those people have just decided cladking’s not worth dealing with and walked away.
What word would you suggest I use to describe how individuals differ from their own ancestor in definable and repeatable ways? We use language and our language comes with a great deal of baggage such as the assumption that everything that looks and hops like a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit is a rabbit. We call it a “species” because this is the term by convention. I could use another word but then you might not understand when I referred to Darwin’s “Origin of There’s no such Thing As Species”.
Just because “rabbits” don’t really exist does not mean that there is no actual referent for the abstraction in some instances. Those things we call “rabbits” are all equally fit and they change as a group change suddenly because nature (physical constraints) sort them by behavior at bottlenecks.
No fitness, no evolution, not even any “species”. Reality looks so alien because we categorize everything but neglected to categorize everything important; volition, reality, and life.
I keep reading “bottlenecks” as “packets” in Mike Lindell’s voice. 
I keep wondering if the Time Cube is involved.
“Bottlenecks” are population crashes. It’s because these tend to wipe out typical behavior that species change. If every bee that lived in a hive died the new species would be very very different. Bottlenecks are ongoing as well because even when individuals die it’s the entire population of individuals with that exact DNA and a very large percentage of the population with extremely similar DNA. Reality is always sorting individuals by behavior. If your car car goes into a skid and you turn the wheel away from it then you are likely to be sorted out of the population. Those with similar DNA have lost a representative. Species don’t much change unless there’s a large decrease in populations but there is necessarily a little shift with every bottleneck. There ids no linear progress or survival of the fittest so this shift forms a random walk rather than species change.
C’mon people … this is funny.
yes. Yes it is.
Am I stupid or is Cladking just posting nonsense?
I keep looking at this thread title and seeing “change in spices”, and wondering who is changing what spices, and whether that might be tasty.
Oh, and no, you aren’t stupid.
And I see it correctly, but think someone is being pitted for changing species. Like maybe they changed the name of a species, perhaps for some unscientific reasons.
The latter does not necessarily preclude the former 
, but any stupidity on any of our parts is irrelevant compared to the density of nonsense on display
It’s the latter. Cladking is the exact opposite of a scientist. He’s lacking in subject matter knowledge, holds opinions that are completely delusional, and rejects objective evidence in preference to crazy internalized fantasies. He may actually be a nice person IRL for all I know, but he’s not completely sane.
Okay, thanks. I’m not a biologist, but I’m a fairly well read person for a Finance/IT/Stats guy and this word salad thing was making me feel like I had gotten dense in my middle age.
It is jumbled and self-contradictory. I would call it gibberish but he uses real words, they just aren’t arranged in a sane way.
Taking just a small segment of nonsense from his keyboard spew:
“Species don’t much change unless there’s a large decrease in populations”
As you might expect, besides his being completely wrong, speciation is a complex process, which he clearly knows jack-shit about. You might be interested in reading a little on, for example
and
I think I am being pitted because I was a rabbit, but I’m now a bee.
Which kind of makes sense when you consider the basic premise that everyone
else is wrong.
It’s pretty standard pseudoscientific behavior, including the urge to foist “the Truth” on an unappreciative audience. 50 years ago they’d probably be badgering some well known biologist to help popularize their groundbreaking insights instead of trying a forum.