|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nature's innate intelligence. Does it exist? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
For a bit more background on this there is an open access article on these foxes by Trut et al. (2009).
They conclude ...
We proceeded on the assumption that regulatory changes in gene activity may generate the remarkable level of diversity and its similar patterns among domestic animals. These regulatory changes were presumably caused by selection animals for specific behavior, tameability as a marker of tolerance and successful adaptation to the human social environment. The experimental model of domestication, as a kind of forced evolution, was developed by systematically applying selection for tameability on silver foxes. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
No, you view the world through a lense of childish wonder that imagines the most amazing things being true.
But everyone can imagine loads amazing of things. I can imagine EM fields being affected by intentional thought. But. You need to give a reason (not your ridiculous website, please) for anyone one to believe what you assert. You have not done this. That is why nobody takes you or your ideas seriously. Does this surprise you? Edited by Larni, : Oh, you know.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You need to give a reason (not your ridiculous website, please) for anyone one to believe what you assert.
No. I expected it. You have not done this. That is why nobody takes you or your ideas seriously. Does this surprise you?But try to understand this. A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. BUT I HAD TO GET IT KNOWN. I want to believe it will be proved, at least in some aspects, right. Read the work about domestication by Trut et all suggested by W.K in message 286.you will see there where biology and new knowledge leeds to, very near to what i am saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
zi ko writes: A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. Yes, it is insane. And a waste of time, too. This is yet more evidence that lack of competence highly correlates with inflated estimations of said competence. All you've done is employed lack of comprehension as a debate tool. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. BUT I HAD TO GET IT KNOWN. If you really cared about this issue you do go to university, study a biology honours degree, do a masters to get some research skills and then do some research. What point to write on a debate site when you cannot support your points with evidence or reasond arguement? That's part of the site's rules!
Read the work about domestication by Trut et all suggested by W.K in message 286.you will see there where biology and new knowledge leeds to, very near to what i am saying. It is nowhere near what you are saying: you say there is intelligence/empathy (which don't mean what the words actually but your own definition of those words) behind evolution. The paper says that it takes about 20 year to domesticate foxes. I'm sorry to be harsh but you lack the expertise in the correct field to be debating this. Everything you say has the properties of fantasy. There is no corroberating evidence but you cling to it like a drowning man. I used to have some pretty wacky ideas about how the world worked. I used to think that time was expanding. But this I asked some questions and let go of that idea because I could not support it and others provided evidences to debunk my ideas. Have you ever watched a program called 'Dragons Den'? People tout their business ideas to a bunch of investors in the hope of getting some start up cash. Many times their ideas are so poor that the investors say "your idea is going nowhere, don't waste your time with it". Your idea is going nowhere, don't waste your time with it.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But try to understand this. A man practically living alone with only his PC, poor knowledge of english languadge, no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. BUT I HAD TO GET IT KNOWN. What you have just admitted is that you are a crackpot. A somewhat endearing crackpot, but a crackpot nonetheless. What I would suggest is that you learn about Darwin's life history. He didn't write Origins on a whim. He spent years studying as a naturalist before he even felt comfortable writing that book. If it were not for Alfred Russel Wallace he probably would have waited another few decades before publishing. The difference between you (the crackpot) and a scientist is that scientists work hard to support their ideas before publishing them.
I want to believe it will be proved, at least in some aspects, right. This belief seems to be very weak. This belief does not even compel you to construct a testable model. You don't even feel it necessary to learn the fundamentals of genetics and molecular biology. If this belief does not even compel you to put forth a minimum amount of effort to show that it has promise, why should other scientists feel compelled to check it out? Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
And a waste of time, too. This is yet more evidence that lack of competence highly correlates with inflated estimations of said competence.
It was not a waste of time. All thread's comments were very usefull to me to form an idea of what is going on, what the general climate is, and to test some of my ideas and also to change some of them. So i really i am very gratefull to all participants. My revised form of my hypothesis can be found on http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com. About my competence don't hurry to make a verdict.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I think you are right in general. But i am not a scientist in the field. I have no the means to support for my ideas or even discuss about them,besides a forum like this, where changing ideas is so handicapted because of preconcieved beliefs. So the best thing i can do is to put the questions and expect the real scientists will give the anwers. I hope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
you say there is intelligence/empathy (which don't mean what the words actually but your own definition of those words) behind evolution.
The issue of intelligence is not essential to my hypothesis. It can work without it. (See my revised edition of http://www.sleepgadgetabs.com). The empathic issue could become my falsification area. It is a question i put to the scientists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Science is not advanced by someone who begins by saying, "I don't understand the science," nor by making up new word definitions. Your efforts are forever doomed because you are driven by a need to find support for what you want to believe instead of by what the evidence tells you.
Until you make learning as much as you can about the science your highest goal you'll continue to just entertain your fantasies while wasting our time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3640 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Also science does not advances by someone who feels safe under the knowledge of others and not being able to offer or discuss a single new idea, or even worse he is afraid of any such idea.
Edited by zi ko, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Science advances by scientist who do research.
You are neither and your contribution to science is zero.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
zi ko writes: I consider this to be a honest confession of the invalidity of the Innate Intelligence hypothesis. ...no previous studies on the matter, not any kind of help or guidance, trying to formulate a comprehensive new theory of evolution , anew paradigm of it. It is really insane. BUT I HAD TO GET IT KNOWN. I want to believe it will be proved, at least in some aspects, right.I cannot say anything that could undermine the claim of legitimacy more than zi ko's own comments. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1524 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
To be intellectually brave means one must accept the fact that sometimes our questions lead to unsavory answers. To dismiss previous study based on good science and replace it with contradicting, unfounded speculation to prop up some anthropomorphic ideas on innate intelligence is nonsensical at the least.
Science does not fear the truth, but rather seeks it out. imo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Also science does not advances by someone who feels safe under the knowledge of others and not being able to offer or discuss a single new idea, or even worse he is afraid of any such idea. The falsification of a long standing theory is one of the most exciting things I can think of. You are wrong. We are not protecting a tightly held belief. We are protecting reason and logic, something which you cast aside on a regular basis. We would absolutely love it if you could actually challenge modern theories with something that resembles evidence, reason, and logic. Sadly, you lack all three.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024