|
Post by jonbain on Jul 1, 2018 22:26:02 GMT
Its vital here to NOT copy-paste links, but to convince me in your OWN words. Of course links that back-up a proper argument are fine. Using jargon to try and BWB proves you are a sophist.
Let me give a starting point. I can accept that something of a parent is passed onto its offspring. That much is obvious. I can also accept that over time, species change. Its also fairly tautological that if a change is not fit for survival, then that creature dies.
Beyond those basic points, I find that absolutely nothing of in-depth gene-theory has any provable application empirically for myself in my own logical positivist world.
Let me give an example of a blatant logical fallacy of genetic theory: Fallacy (1): My individual sense of consciousness is the consequence of common atoms.
The reason being that if I was to be reproduced by a 25th century 3d-printer, atom-for-atom precisely, there are only 3 possibilities: a) We would make a corpse with no mind of its own b) My mind would be somehow in BOTH bodies c) The other body would have a mind of its own
It is clear that my own self would not be contained in one body as a consequence of a particular arrangement of atoms, because if (b) is true then my self transcends the body, and if (c) is true then THAT mind is not MY mind.
So it makes no sense to suggest that my mind is an 'epi-phenomenon' of my body. Thus genetic theory, is at least, mostly wrong, if not entirely wrong.
It goes far deeper than this, but that's enough for now.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 1, 2018 22:37:52 GMT
Species can change even while living. Many start with good eyesight for example and then end up with glasses. This is a change that happens to a living being in their life. So what changed from good eyesight to poor eyesight? People can also shrink when they get old as this link provides more information m.huffpost.com/us/entry/974432Same with something else it can change in us without much that we can do and all in our lifetime. Shrug So who's to say some changes can't take longer? We know that if one granparent has blue eyes for example it can skip their kids having any blue eyes and show up again in their grandkids. Genes aren't always predictable.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jul 1, 2018 22:59:50 GMT
Species can change even while living. Many start with good eyesight for example and then end up with glasses. This is a change that happens to a living being in their life. So what changed from good eyesight to poor eyesight? People can also shrink when they get old as this link provides more information m.huffpost.com/us/entry/974432Same with something else it can change in us without much that we can do and all in our lifetime. Shrug So who's to say some changes can't take longer? We know that if one granparent has blue eyes for example it can skip their kids having any blue eyes and show up again in their grandkids. Genes aren't always predictable. This is what happened with my grandparents and parents; neither of my parents have blue eyes, but both my grandmothers do. My older sister and I both have blue eyes. Out of all my aunts and uncles only two have blue eyes if I’m not mistaken
|
|
treez
Full Member
Finger licking because I burned myself cooking chicken
Posts: 128
Likes: 30
Politics: None
Religion: Scientific
Hero: Nikola Tesla
Age: 21
Philosophy: Laugh at folk, be merry
|
Post by treez on Jul 4, 2018 0:55:19 GMT
It's valid for 2 reasons, mainly.
1. It made ye 2. Its in ye the noo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2018 14:50:49 GMT
Its vital here to NOT copy-paste links, but to convince me in your OWN words. Of course links that back-up a proper argument are fine. Using jargon to try and BWB proves you are a sophist. Let me give a starting point. I can accept that something of a parent is passed onto its offspring. That much is obvious. I can also accept that over time, species change. Its also fairly tautological that if a change is not fit for survival, then that creature dies. Beyond those basic points, I find that absolutely nothing of in-depth gene-theory has any provable application empirically for myself in my own logical positivist world. Let me give an example of a blatant logical fallacy of genetic theory: Fallacy (1): My individual sense of consciousness is the consequence of common atoms. The reason being that if I was to be reproduced by a 25th century 3d-printer, atom-for-atom precisely, there are only 3 possibilities: a) We would make a corpse with no mind of its own b) My mind would be somehow in BOTH bodies c) The other body would have a mind of its own It is clear that my own self would not be contained in one body as a consequence of a particular arrangement of atoms, because if (b) is true then my self transcends the body, and if (c) is true then THAT mind is not MY mind. So it makes no sense to suggest that my mind is an 'epi-phenomenon' of my body. Thus genetic theory, is at least, mostly wrong, if not entirely wrong. It goes far deeper than this, but that's enough for now. Its valid until we observe the basic fact genes can be activated and deactivated by various internal and external factors...and we are left starting at square 1 again.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 9, 2018 14:46:00 GMT
Its vital here to NOT copy-paste links, but to convince me in your OWN words. Of course links that back-up a proper argument are fine. Using jargon to try and BWB proves you are a sophist. Let me give a starting point. I can accept that something of a parent is passed onto its offspring. That much is obvious. I can also accept that over time, species change. Its also fairly tautological that if a change is not fit for survival, then that creature dies. Beyond those basic points, I find that absolutely nothing of in-depth gene-theory has any provable application empirically for myself in my own logical positivist world. Let me give an example of a blatant logical fallacy of genetic theory: Fallacy (1): My individual sense of consciousness is the consequence of common atoms. The reason being that if I was to be reproduced by a 25th century 3d-printer, atom-for-atom precisely, there are only 3 possibilities: a) We would make a corpse with no mind of its own b) My mind would be somehow in BOTH bodies c) The other body would have a mind of its own It is clear that my own self would not be contained in one body as a consequence of a particular arrangement of atoms, because if (b) is true then my self transcends the body, and if (c) is true then THAT mind is not MY mind. So it makes no sense to suggest that my mind is an 'epi-phenomenon' of my body. Thus genetic theory, is at least, mostly wrong, if not entirely wrong. It goes far deeper than this, but that's enough for now. Its valid until we observe the basic fact genes can be activated and deactivated by various internal and external factors...and we are left starting at square 1 again. So what process 'activates' the gene? Most would say that this itself is a gene. If the body is just a complex of electromagnetic forces, we should be able to heal it infinitely. We can repair any device indefinitely. And yet, the age of the oldest person has never changed. Perhaps, its even decreased.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 9, 2018 15:39:44 GMT
So what process 'activates' the gene? Most would say that this itself is a gene. If the body is just a complex of electromagnetic forces, we should be able to heal it infinitely. We can repair any device indefinitely. And yet, the age of the oldest person has never changed. Perhaps, its even decreased. If the gene is what activates the gene, then the gene has some degree of self-referential consciousness to it in the respect it is able to activate itself by measuring or observing itself. The problem occurs that while the gene may be one "part" responsible for consciousness, and this consciousness allows us to form and measure the reality around us (such as creating a change in environment which causes genetic change, ie introducing synthetic chemicals into the environment), with this changing reality causing a change in the genome which in effect repeats the process, the question is point of measurement. Is it the gene changing the environement which changes the gene? Is it the environment changing the gene which changes the environment? Either way we see an inherent frequency, or altneration, where one premise alternates to another which alternates back causing a change in the premise itself...however the starting point of the measurement in turn gives us the altnernating frequency which allows us to define the nature of the problem. The question in effect is where to begin the fundamental measurement, as while we may be able to prove the gene contains a self-reflective capacity for maintanence through change this same argument applies dually to the other variables as well (in this case the environment). Because of this duality between the relation of genes and variable x (environment in this case) we can observe a third medial axiom which gives premise to both through the act of definition: Frequency as alternation. In these respects what we understand of the foundations of being, whether the gene or environement, is an inherent form of alternation which is inevitable with the gene and environement as extensions of this universal alternation embodied the same processes in themselves. The question goes fundamentally back to basic, maybe a meta-version, of geometry in a qualitative respect. That was a great description. Unfortunately most biologists refuse to see this 'mind-body' problem as important, even though it is the very foundation of their entire cosmology which has no logical foundation. Biology typically places this at chemistry and the atom; assuming that no other aspect of the physical world actually exists itself. For instance, when a person selects a mate they are making the conscious choice to perpetuate some or other aspects of life. But materialist biology ignores the consciousness claiming that their own minds do not exist as anything more than a side-effect of genes/atoms. Can we actually disagree with them, as regarding themselves? Is it meaningful to regard materialists as having consciousness? They normally give no inclination that they even have such awareness'inside' them? Trying to have such discussions with some people can be infuriating as they show no regard for the value of logic either. Look at the types of 'odd' behavior popular today. In the past such 'odd' people would be regarded as the epitome of deranged. And yet nowadays they are in such a majority that they heckle their way into power. Its utterly unbelievable what passes for sane in this world. Trying to make sense of it, I reach astounding possibilities. Perhaps most people are clones sent from an alien world to deliberately retard humanity; making us ripe for conquest?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 13, 2018 12:31:52 GMT
So you have those with "ego" and those who are just plain lost picking points to measure reality. Well knowledge as an entity had the same problem 500 years ago. The comparative purity of ancient Greek philosophy coupled with the ethics of Christianity had left a void between them which had been filled by sophistry. So Descartes, Newton, Galileo gave us 'science' which used astrophysics as its benchmark - its epitome of example. But then Einstein came along and stirred up the epistemological waters thereby eroding the very concept of science and returning academia to medieval sophistry. The benchmark of knowledge had been undermined by belligerence and corporate bureaucracy. The 'textbook' is simply a means to a monopoly of sales - its mob-mentality which can only result from trying to mass-produce innovation - an awful oxymoronic concept at its most moronic. So this is where the internet makes its entrance. A free-for-all opportunity for the sophists to be exposed for what they are. But this itself becomes bogged down in technical issues, spam, viruses, false-virus-reporting and outright propaganda to try and bolster the crumbling fascade of materialism. So in the melee of information overload, it is prudent to focus on the benchmark study. The way in which to replace false gene-theory is to lay the foundation of astrophysics properly. And that has to be the decimation of the pseudo-science of Einstein for once and for all. So they give the Nobel prize to the Relativists...
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Jul 17, 2018 8:38:33 GMT
Species can change even while living. Many start with good eyesight for example and then end up with glasses. This is a change that happens to a living being in their life. So what changed from good eyesight to poor eyesight? People can also shrink when they get old as this link provides more information m.huffpost.com/us/entry/974432Same with something else it can change in us without much that we can do and all in our lifetime. So who's to say some changes can't take longer? We know that if one granparent has blue eyes for example it can skip their kids having any blue eyes and show up again in their grandkids. Genes aren't always predictable. it happens that the brother writes with his right hand, and the other brother is left .. they must have a grandfather left-handed
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jul 17, 2018 9:18:32 GMT
Species can change even while living. Many start with good eyesight for example and then end up with glasses. This is a change that happens to a living being in their life. So what changed from good eyesight to poor eyesight? People can also shrink when they get old as this link provides more information m.huffpost.com/us/entry/974432Same with something else it can change in us without much that we can do and all in our lifetime. So who's to say some changes can't take longer? We know that if one granparent has blue eyes for example it can skip their kids having any blue eyes and show up again in their grandkids. Genes aren't always predictable. it happens that the brother writes with his right hand, and the other brother is left .. they must have a grandfather left-handed Not true. I have 1 cousin who is left handed with 2 right handed siblings and her parents and grandparents are all right handed. And my niece seems like she will be left handed and her parents and grandparents are right handed Shrug
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 9:37:28 GMT
Species can change even while living. Many start with good eyesight for example and then end up with glasses. This is a change that happens to a living being in their life. So what changed from good eyesight to poor eyesight? People can also shrink when they get old as this link provides more information m.huffpost.com/us/entry/974432Same with something else it can change in us without much that we can do and all in our lifetime. So who's to say some changes can't take longer? We know that if one granparent has blue eyes for example it can skip their kids having any blue eyes and show up again in their grandkids. Genes aren't always predictable. This is what happened with my grandparents and parents; neither of my parents have blue eyes, but both my grandmothers do. My older sister and I both have blue eyes. Out of all my aunts and uncles only two have blue eyes if I’m not mistaken my wife's mother's mother' mother had hazel green eyes. And my younger brother in law, when he took birth, had those eyes, along with golden hairs but it got changed to dark brown and black hairs. My father too had straight, silky hairs, but I don't have. So, I don't know, when we end up losing certain traits. May be, external factor plays lot of things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 9:44:15 GMT
it happens that the brother writes with his right hand, and the other brother is left .. they must have a grandfather left-handed Not true. I have 1 cousin who is left handed with 2 right handed siblings and her parents and grandparents are all right handed. And my niece seems like she will be left handed and her parents and grandparents are right handed My two cousins, and i am left handed. And my younger brother is part left handed, though, my uncles, dad, no one is left handed. I would agree with Διαμονδ here, definitely, some of my old ancestor must be left handed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2018 9:47:10 GMT
Its vital here to NOT copy-paste links, but to convince me in your OWN words. Of course links that back-up a proper argument are fine. Using jargon to try and BWB proves you are a sophist. Let me give a starting point. I can accept that something of a parent is passed onto its offspring. That much is obvious. I can also accept that over time, species change. Its also fairly tautological that if a change is not fit for survival, then that creature dies. Beyond those basic points, I find that absolutely nothing of in-depth gene-theory has any provable application empirically for myself in my own logical positivist world. Let me give an example of a blatant logical fallacy of genetic theory: Fallacy (1): My individual sense of consciousness is the consequence of common atoms. The reason being that if I was to be reproduced by a 25th century 3d-printer, atom-for-atom precisely, there are only 3 possibilities: a) We would make a corpse with no mind of its own b) My mind would be somehow in BOTH bodies c) The other body would have a mind of its own It is clear that my own self would not be contained in one body as a consequence of a particular arrangement of atoms, because if (b) is true then my self transcends the body, and if (c) is true then THAT mind is not MY mind. So it makes no sense to suggest that my mind is an 'epi-phenomenon' of my body. Thus genetic theory, is at least, mostly wrong, if not entirely wrong. It goes far deeper than this, but that's enough for now. Well, to be honest, the DNA based theory picked up momentum in the last 10 years, and in the last 3 years, this got splurge. This evolution , in reality, was based on linguistics, and languages. That's what , at least, Max Mueller had said, when he did his indological studies. He had said that long time back, certain people invaded subcontinent, who were speakers of a family, which bears close affinities with the latin, greek. This was the basis for the Indo-European civilization. For me, it is mostly linguistic.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 19, 2018 20:54:23 GMT
lamburkI'm a great lover of 'linguistic archeology'. But consider this: If a person could walk 10km per day in a straight line without hindrance. They could walk to the moon in a lifetime. Thus the human race has been mixing it up so rapidly, that we are all related easily within 1000 years of our ancestry.
|
|