The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

The conversation is about survival of species, not individual frogs or Musk, and I don't know what money has to do with species survival.

The discussions about evolution never have only the character of a discussion about the real scientific theory of evolution. In this case we had not only to discuss about eating and being eaten - we also had to discuss about that every living entity on planet Earth has relations to all other living entities.

If you read what I said then you did perhaps not notice what I said about a wrong universality of the theory of evolution. It's by the way for a species not important "to survive". And it's for a horseshoe crab without any relevance to be a member of an old species who is since hundreds of millions of years the same species. We are a new species and you have a common ancestor with Fiffy, the horseshoe crab. This common ancestor "survived" in you and in Fiffy.
 
Last edited:
Actually it was.

It was banal what Darwin said - and it gave a good - and wrong - explanation for the superiority of the white race.

But you go ahead and show us the prior treatises on natural selection before Darwin's, if you think otherwise. Selective breeding is not natural selection

It's absolutelly the same with only one difference: We on our own define what fits. And what we biologically define is often not able to survive without our help.

and your comment doesn't seem to have any relevance whatsoever.



It's an illustration of survivorship bias. Another irrelevant and inappropriate comment from you.



Again that's nonsense, as shown by the fact that he was the first to name and describe natural selection and the fact that there was rigorous debate over it in the scientific community.

I was very angry a short time ago when I read an article about that Humboldt had been an idiot because Darwin had been a genius. Even if this should be true I would prefer to live in a world full of Humboldts instead to have to do with only one Darwin. Darwin not fits to life.

 
Last edited:
Yes, Darwin was concerned more with the survival of the species. It seems that our species is here to stay so our survival is largely moot. What more could we possibly need to make our species "fitter"?

IMO our species will survive the worst calamities that befell the earth over the last billion years. What we need to consider is the nature of the surviving gene pool.
.

Our species was not in existence a billion years ago.
 
It was banal what Darwin said
Total nonsense. It was a scientific breakthrough and a triumph of the human race. You are trying way too hard. And i think we know why.


It's absolutelly the same with only one difference: We on our own define what fits.
Also total nonsense. The evidence defines that.


What is this anti intellectual nonsense? You go ahead and show us how you fit elephants to the crocodile lineage, for example.
 
Total nonsense.

Absolutelly not.

It was a scientific breakthrough

That is nonsense. No one was able to do anyting with the theory of evolution. It justified colonialism and racism. Later it will even justify the biological "theories" of the Nazs - so they murdered even little children to eliminate the superior race "the Jews" so the superior race "the Aryans" had been be able to rule the whole world alone. Darwinism was not any scientific breakthrough. Even today it is not a breakthrough because nearly nothing has really something to do with the real scientific theory of evolution when most people use the word "evolution". For example exists not any evolution of cars or other machines including computers. Such constructions follow human plans - and plans are teleological.

and a triumph of the human race.

A "triumph" compared with what any other "race"? What the monk Gregor Mendel found out had been a scientific breakthrough. It made the process "selection" for breeding much more effective. This meant also we were able to produce more food in better quality.

You are trying way too hard. And i think we know why.

You think ""we" know" - ¿by calling the god "nationalism" to help you against a foreign idiot like me, suerperior "American"?

Also total nonsense. The evidence defines that.


What is this anti intellectual nonsense? You go ahead and show us how you fit elephants to the crocodile lineage, for example.

Did you ever notice that you say absolutelly nothing except "I am right! I am right! I am right! ... ". Don't forget to stomp on the Earth with your feet, kindergarten baby.

And the concrete elephant "Dudu" has a common anestor with the concrete crocodile "Didi". Crocodiles are about 300 million years old so the common ancestors between them is a little older. And if we should eliminate crocodiles by making it for them impossible to survive in the future then we deny the last 300 million years of life - including us on our own.
 
Last edited:
Absolutelly not.

That is nonsense. No one was able to do anyting with the theory of evolution. It justified colonialism and racism. Later it will even justify the biological "theories" of the Nazs - so they murdered even little children to eliminate the superior race "the Jews" so the superior race "the Aryans" had been be able to rule the whole world alone. Darwinism was not any scientific breakthrough. Even today it is not a breakthrough because nearly nothing has really something to do with the real scientific theory of evolution when most people use the word "evolution". For example exists not any evolution of cars or other machines including computers. Such constructions follow human plans - and plans are teleological.

Evolution is the very foundation of modern Biology.
If someone abused it (like nuclear technology) that doesn't make it bad.
Certainly countless peoples considered themselves 'superior' before 1860.
The Roman Empire did.
Let's blame that on Darwin too.
You clown.


A "triumph" compared with what any other "race"? What the monk Gregor Mendel found out had been a scientific breakthrough. It made the process "selection" for breeding much more effective. This meant also we were able to produce more food in better quality.
Another Dishonest and deflecting reply.
It was and remains a Triumph in understanding life on earth Not vs discoveries on unknown other planets by unknown 'other races.'
What a bizarre deflection and false challenge.


You think ""we" know" - ¿by calling the god "nationalism" to help you against a foreign idiot like me, suerperior "American"?
You indeed are an idiot but not because you're foreign.
It's because your mental processes have been screwed by an illness/defect.
You fancy trying to foist your eccentricity/illness.


Did you ever notice that you say absolutelly nothing except "I am right! I am right! I am right! ... ". Don't forget to stomp on the Earth with your feet, kindergarten baby.

And the concrete elephant "Dudu" has a common anestor with the concrete crocodile "Didi". Crocodiles are about 300 million years old so the common ancestors between them is a little older. And if we should eliminate crocodiles by making it for them impossble to survive in the future then we deny the last 300 million years of life - including us on our own.

Evolution includes some species eliminating others, just as some natural causes have. (climate, collision, etc)
The evolution of the human brain and capability has created something of a 'gene sweep' and even more species will certainly vanish because of it.

Again, you are indeed an idiot but not because you're foreign, it's because you fancy yourself different (actually you probably need more treatment/medication), and think you can foist all sorts of BS.
But not with me you can't.

`
 
Last edited:
Evolution is the very foundation of modern Biology.

Evoliution yes. Darwinism not. Darwinism is an ideology far from real life.

If someone abused it (like nuclear technology) that doesn't make it bad.

Nevertheless is the theory of evolution how Darwin said it not a very important theory. Sure it is interesting that the great magician made birds out of dinos - nevertheless misunderstand the very most people for example that "survival of the fittest" is a very bad description for selective processes within the nature. And also adaption is something what's totally different in biology to the normal use of this word. And this is so with all expressions of the theory of evolution. It needs a good knowledg not to make wrong interpretations of this theory.

Certainly countless peoples considered themselves 'superior' before 1860.

But not superior in sense of a race (=racism). Example: In the Roman empire existed many people and the superior people were the Romans (specially the Roman nobles). It existed laws for Romans and laws for all others. A Roman was for example not crucified - this was a form of execution for inferior people. Bur even in Rome this wrong concept never had been a biological concept. Who was seen as a "citizen of Rome" depended on laws and not on biology.

The Roman Empire did.
Let's blame that on Darwin too.
You clown.

If you had spoken with me here then you had to visit perhaps now a dentist with your handful teeth. If I make a spontanous beat then this is able to have such drastical consequences. be.

Another Dishonest and deflecting reply.
It was and remains a Triumph in understanding life on earth

Buddists, Red Indians and Saint Francis understand "life on Earth" dimensions better than any "evolutionist" ever did do - maybe except Konrad Lorenz, because to find out that genes produce proteins and not to know excactly how this defines also instinctive behavior is still today one of the most irritating modern secrets.

Not vs discoveries on unknown other planets by unknown 'other races.'
What a bizarre deflection and false challenge.

¿That the monk Gregor Mendel and what he found out had been for us all in reality very important and what Charles Darwin found out had been for us less than superflous? The mainstream is often wrong.

You indeed are an idiot but not because you're foreign.

No one would here in my ocuntry say so to a German like me. The loud laughter could damage his ears. It's for me absolutelly not any problem to be a real idiot if I like to be one.

It's because your mental processes have been screwed by an illness/defect.
You fancy trying to foist your eccentricity/illness.

I would wish you had a better culture in using spearwords. Boring.

Evolution includes some species eliminating others,

and what causes afterwards their own downfall?

just as some natural causes have. (climate, collision, etc)

So evolution is the same like a natural catastrophe? Interesting view on this not existing problem.

The evolution of the human brain

Of the human brain? What kind of animal is this?

and capability has created something of a 'gene sweep'

¿What? ... What for heavens sake is a "gene sweep" and what means "create" in this context?

and even more species will certainly vanish because of it.

Okay. You spoke here a death sentence. I would now not be astoinished if god would throw all mankind into hell and not only 72 times more men than women.

Again, you are indeed an idiot but not because you're foreign, it's because you fancy yourself different (actually you probably need more treatment/medication), and think you can foist all sorts of BS.
But not with me you can't.

"Duck and cover" before I will start now to throw with stones as my Jewish-Christian genes never did tell me to do.



 
Last edited:
abu afak

What for heavens sake do you call "funny"? You are boring not funny. "To be funny" is positive and not negative. Interpretations decide how we see the world - and the real scientific theory of evolution nearly everyone misinterprets. Tell me what a "gene sweep" is and what this has to do with a human brain.
 
Last edited:
You're insane/nonconversant
You need to be in an institution.
Maybe the room next to J Bond.

Now back to your gratuitous and Nutty Trolling Youtube music posts I see.
(proof you LOST)

Give the other patients a chance at the keyboard or I'll call the doctors and security to come get you and put you back in restraints.

`
As I said. Boring. Nothing what you say here has any creative moment. Start both videos (they are the same) with 1-2 seconds difference than you can hear what I think about this what you said here.


 
Last edited:

You're insane/nonconversant
You need to be in an institution.
Maybe the room next to J Bond.

Now back to your gratuitous and Nutty Trolling Youtube music posts I see.
(proof you LOST)


Give the other patients a chance at the keyboard or I'll call the doctors and security to come get you and put you back in restraints.

`
 
You're insane/nonconversant
You need to be in an institution.
Maybe the room next to J Bond.

Now back to your gratuitous and Nutty Trolling Youtube music posts I see.
(proof you LOST)


Give the other patients a chance at the keyboard or I'll call the doctors and security to come get you and put you back in restraints.

No comment
 
Absolutelly not.



That is nonsense. No one was able to do anyting with the theory of evolution. It justified colonialism and racism. Later it will even justify the biological "theories" of the Nazs - so they murdered even little children to eliminate the superior race "the Jews" so the superior race "the Aryans" had been be able to rule the whole world alone. Darwinism was not any scientific breakthrough. Even today it is not a breakthrough because nearly nothing has really something to do with the real scientific theory of evolution when most people use the word "evolution". For example exists not any evolution of cars or other machines including computers. Such constructions follow human plans - and plans are teleological.



A "triumph" compared with what any other "race"? What the monk Gregor Mendel found out had been a scientific breakthrough. It made the process "selection" for breeding much more effective. This meant also we were able to produce more food in better quality.



You think ""we" know" - ¿by calling the god "nationalism" to help you against a foreign idiot like me, suerperior "American"?



Did you ever notice that you say absolutelly nothing except "I am right! I am right! I am right! ... ". Don't forget to stomp on the Earth with your feet, kindergarten baby.

And the concrete elephant "Dudu" has a common anestor with the concrete crocodile "Didi". Crocodiles are about 300 million years old so the common ancestors between them is a little older. And if we should eliminate crocodiles by making it for them impossible to survive in the future then we deny the last 300 million years of life - including us on our own.

Only a fool would deny evolution.
 
Only a fool would deny evolution.


Only an idiot would think I deny the natural law evolution. But I never found any sense in the neverending anglo-american pseudo-discussion "creation vs evolution". One reason for is perhaps that I know a lot about religion and a lot about evolution - including evolutionary epistemiology.

I read by the way the book "the selfish gene" from Richard Dawkins. I never saw what he called "selfish" nor saw I any sense to try to find psychological parameters in the chemistry of genes. The title had also able to be "the unselfish gene". The book was not bad and was also not good - but found enthusiastic supporters. I fear most of them never read this book. And meanwhile I would say Richard Dawkins left everything what is rational philosophy and empirical science and is lost in atheism like a sectarian. His idea that agnosticism leads to atheism is one of the most stupid ideas I heard in my life.

That Richards Dawkins says about "they" (=also "me" and some more billions) that we say only "la la la" is more than an impertinence of Richard Dawkins. That's stupidity on a very high level of stupidity.

When I remember now how Richard Dawkins once supported writings on busses with a text like "Be happy - god is not existing" then I remember also what was my first reaction when I heard this: I imagined a man who was waiting for the bus when he came out out of a clinic where just a moment ago his beloved wife did die. There are many possible reactions of this man. And I ask myselve wo gives Richard Dawkins any right to call "an Harvardian" a "disgrace for the human species" only because this man is able to combine religion and science. To make here something clear: Every member of any reltui is able to be an excellent scientist. No one has to convert first to atheism to have the right to be a scientist. Richard Dawkins lives only in his little brain far from the realities on our planet - also the loveful and positive realities.

This here was by the way the favorite song of Mr. Stephen Hawking a relativelly short time before he died. The video remembers me that we all have reasons to be thankful.

 
Last edited:
You think ""we" know" - ¿by calling the god "nationalism" to help you against a foreign idiot like me, suerperior "American"?
Uh, no, I was referring to deviant religious belief.

Your comments about "probability" of life forming on Earth are specious and not useful. I have explained why. We can talk about that, if you like.
 
Only an idiot would think I deny the natural law evolution. But I never found any sense in the neverending anglo-american pseudo-discussion "creation vs evolution". One reason for is perhaps that I know a lot about religion and a lot about evolution - including evolutionary epistemiology.

I read by the way the book "the selfish gene" from Richard Dawkins. I never saw what he called "selfish" nor saw I any sense to try to find psychological parameters in the chemistry of genes. The title had also able to be "the unselfish gene". The book was not bad and was also not good - but found enthusiastic supporters. I fear most of them never read this book. And meanwhile I would say Richard Dawkins left everything what is rational philosophy and empirical science and is lost in atheism like a sectarian. His idea that agnosticism leads to atheism is one of the most stupid ideas I heard in my life.

That Richards Dawkins says about "they" (=also "me" and some more billions) that we say only "la la la" is more than an impertinence of Richard Dawkins. That's stupidity on a very high level of stupidity.

When I remember now how Richard Dawkins once supported writings on busses with a text like "Be happy - god is not existing" then I remember also what was my first reaction when I heard this: I imagined a man who was waiting for the bus when he came out out of a clinic where just a moment ago his beloved wife did die. There are many possible reactions of this man. And I ask myselve wo gives Richard Dawkins any right to call "an Harvardian" a "disgrace for the human species" only because this man is able to combine religion and science. To make here something clear: Every member of any reltui is able to be an excellent scientist. No one has to convert first to atheism to have the right to be a scientist. Richard Dawkins lives only in his little brain far from the realities on our planet - also the loveful and positive realities.

This here was by the way the favorite song of Mr. Stephen Hawking a relativelly short time before he died. The video remembers me that we all have reasons to be thankful.



In fact, you know nothing.
You've diverted because Dawkins gave irrefutable proof of evolution which can be repeated.
I don't care if you can give Chinese sign language in reverse. Evolution is fact and no amount of denial or God or religious threats will change that.

The human race had been conned by fraudulent charlatans who preyed on feeble minded fools like you.
 
Uh, no, I was referring to deviant religious belief.

Your comments about "probability" of life forming on Earth are specious and not useful.

Not any of my arguments is only a little "specious" - you have just simple not any other argument than to say "The universe is big". Sure it is big - but this means nearly nothing. It has to be so gigantic because otherwise we could not exist and are able to ask "What's going on here?".

I have explained why.

Sorry but "to defame others" is not written e-x-p-l-a-i-n-e-d.

We can talk about that, if you like.

We talked about. And I do not discuss endless. I found out that you don't have any argument for the existence of extraterrestrial cultures and civilisations. What you call "useful" means perhaps you like to live in your world of preproduced fantasies. But what if we will wipe out all life on planet Earth - directly (intentionally) and/or indirectly (on reason of stupidity) - and nowhere in the universe exists any extraterrestrial life? Then you destroy perhaps the hope of "the universe" in us to become alive until every quant of the energy of the universe will be part of a living entity in 100 billion years - or earlier - or later.

By the way - if I would be an alien on my own then I would also not know what in your way "to discuss" could had been "useful" and I also would not give a damn for the survival of this weird species who's calling oneself "homo sapiens sapiens" - but is on the other side not sure whether this means to be an aggressive monkey or not. The behaivor of other animals on this planet is not able to be an excuse for the own behavior. We are responsible in the eyes of the Lord for his living creation here - not so any other creature. Also not any alien.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom