Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: aspagnito on 16/09/2020 09:42:37

Title: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: aspagnito on 16/09/2020 09:42:37
Where on earth did the man come from? If you ask a scientist about it, he'd say you already know everything about it. That the topic has been rolled out so many times from beginning to end, that we already know practically everything and maybe we will get to know some additional details, but only thanks to the recognized authorities of this world and their enormous work. That we will not find out for sure through the way of amateurs who, although they would like to, are not able to break a certain power of authoritarian scientific method and certain achievements of the scientific world. I don't think so. It's no coincidence that a man has two arms, two legs, a head and a brain where he has it all. Such a construction, perhaps not homo sapiens, but humanoid, is the highest form of life in the universe, and if we meet life in the universe, it might not be homo sapiens, but it would be humanoid, or human-like. Even the fact that man, thanks to such a construction, is able to walk, walk a distance, create tools, use them, learn, create social cultures, and so on. etc. - Such a construction is unfortunately not available to, for example, dolphins, fish, birds or other organisms. Neither is man a species, but a genus, a genus among which there are no races and which is divided into ethnic groups. Why? It is very simple - races are connected to the territory, ethnic groups depend on political structures. No animal is capable of creating such a thing, only human. This is forbidden knowledge - neither Wikipedia, nor Uncle Google, nor any other form of the Internet will provide us with some knowledge. Knowledge of Count Lehndorff. Count Lehndorff lived long before he discovered the DNA molecule, whether Darwin or Wallace. However, Count Lehndorff crossed racehorses and came to the striking conclusion that the best genetic results are obtained by alternating inbred and outbred. Not knowing why - we still don't know - it works like a "genetic pump" - giving ever better genetic results in subsequent generations and even improving fertility. Baaa. . . today we know that if we turn this process upside down and make it "on steroids", i. e. using incest-hybrid-incest alternating with hybridization (first incest-hybrid-incest), we get virtually always fertile inter-species hybrids in species that are even a little too far away to cross. However, this knowledge is dangerous, because it means that if it were in the wrong hands - somebody could try to make animal-human hybrids - for example, a chimpanzee/human hybrid, because it makes this mechanism possible. Thus, this knowledge is not disseminated today and is silent about it, and in the common consciousness such hybridization is impossible. But the problem is something very serious. I have learned from the greats of this world to keep rolling things that are commonly taken for granted. Most often, these obvious things are a model that simplifies our lives and perfectly describes reality, but each model is only a model and the truth it describes is always disproportionate to its simplicity. You can always dig through something else by asking for things that others think are long ago invented. For example, how is it that a human being has a membrane between his fingers, our body hair is formed in a streamlined way - so as to put less resistance in water, why does a European have of the Neanderthal genes in him? Why, according to many authorities, has man evolved too quickly to be charged only with Darwinism for this process? Is the theory of supermutants an explanation for the last question? The answer I found to these and most other questions was a genetic pump from Count Lehndorff. Well, the man inherited "war mechanisms" from chimpanzees. Only chimpanzees, and only we make wars in their proper sense and we humans do exactly as chimpanzees do. Living in small groups, people were unfortunately condemned to inbred, i. e. to crossbreeding, or even incest. However, we set out for wars and either took the females with us, or we practiced "soldier rape" and inseminated females of other groups. Man settled all over the Earth, so on large stretches of the Earth humanoids were developing, but they were also mixed for various reasons. Even different species of mankind were mixed, as the incest-hybrid-incest condition was met. From here we have the membrane between our fingers - because in southern Africa there are islands where some of the first human forms have been feeding in the water, but also from here other prey - the genetic pump has another feature - it provides genetic synergy - this is why the genetic results are getting better and better - the genetic code is so big that when two optimally different forms combine - 2 plus 2 will always be a bit more than 4. This is what SYNERGY is all about, not just in biology and genetics. Several hundred thousand years ago there were many such human forms on Earth and some belonged to different species. Some were transitory forms, but more easily, or more difficultly, hybridized. Homo sapiens showed up and he wasn't the strongest and smartest. The neanderthals were stronger, bigger and wiser than us. At first it was very easy for them to beat us. But something happened about 200,000 years ago. Homo sapiens created art, religion, simple tools, including the bow - and he exterminated all other humanoid forms because he considered them a threat. Everything else was the enemy. Of course, if it spread its legs quickly enough and wasn't too ugly, small exceptions were made that made all the difference in the human genome. So, what happened that we developed art, religion and small tools, including the bow? This is because of the genetic caesium, which completely distinguishes us from animals. Even from chimpanzees, which means man can no longer be considered an animal. This is a fantasy. It's funny, it's bullshit, and yet it makes a difference. Imagination is the ability to imagine almost everything, but fantasy is the ability of imagination to react to emotional states of a person. No other organism on Earth has this feature. Fantasy is the "nightmare of Buddhists", who call it "the wild monkey that is buzzing around the brain". Except it has nothing to do with monkeys. For example, every time a crazy idea shoots us in the head under the influence of any emotion - a fantasy is responsible for it - this fantasy gives originality to the thoughts of people who create under the influence of fantasy and do not copy the work of others. An experiment. A woman with a colored backpack enters the bush. Szympansica is interested in a colourful backpack and wants to have it, because the woman puts in and takes out various things. So the chimpanzee comes down from the tree and involves the woman in the fun. They start to have fun, better and even better, until they are both so satisfied with the fun that they are so distracted - then the chimpanzee makes a quick move and steals the colorful backpack - with which she runs away to the tree. This experiment proves that chimpanzees have imagination, can plan and think abstractly. Another experiment. Chimpanzees were taught to play a computer game - small white numbers appear on a black screen - for example, from 1 to 35. In a specific order, although each time each number is in a different place. The chimpanzee sees the screen for a fraction of a second and then has to touch the screen in places of numbers as quickly as possible - in order of example 1 to 35. It turns out that a man is completely incapable of playing it, and chimpanzees are masters in this game. However, it was established that there must be people who play it better than others and it turns out that the correctness has been noticed - people whose profession does not require creativity play it much better (e. g. Accountants), and much worse is played by people whose profession requires creativity (e. g. artists). So this confirms that chimpanzees simply don't have any fantasy and it doesn't bother them ( the last part of this experiment is an unproven hypothesis). It is the imagination that distinguishes us from the world of animals. Thanks to it we have created political structures, so that man is no longer divided into races (connected with the territory) and ethnic groups (connected with political structures). But man inherited from chimpanzees the mechanisms of war. We come from chimpanzees, with whom we are genetically almost identical, because even gorillas or orangutans are much further away from us and from chimpanzees than we are with chimpanzees. It is the mechanism of wars that is responsible for the fact that chimpanzees have hardly evolved. They couldn't get through the mechanism of war. Flies and amoebas also by eons :-) did not evolve, but for other reasons. The mechanism of wars is now responsible for our nationalism - we blunt everything that is foreign, although after the Middle Ages man began to create patriotism - worship for what is own (nationalism - hatred of strangeness). So the chimpanzees were bluntin' everything that was foreign. So if someone weaker or stronger was born among them - a group of them eliminated - they would murder. Cruel, but the very mechanism of wars is an overwhelming prey, without which man would not be man. I mentioned the theory of supermutants - darwinism on steroids. The point is that once in a long time, very rarely, an individual is born who has a specific genetic syndrome - a large genetic change, which is like a genetic syndrome that enables a giant evolutionary leap. However, this is not theoretically possible with chimpanzees - as chimpanzees would eliminate such an entity in particular then. Is that so? Not if it's a kind of Trojan horse. We humans, as well as the first humanoids, are different from monkeys and chimpanzees in that we do something very different. Women do it differently. Chimpanzees
 have sex for a good day, thank you and **** off. They have sex all the time. However, it differs from us that chimpanzees are not selective in this regard - they do not choose the males they want to mate with. All of them can do it, and if somebody decides, it's the males among themselves, but only from time to time. Women (human) choose men for themselves and only allow those who will like them. That's where the first man came in - it was actually the first woman to say no. It sounds funny, but this woman required a huge genetic prey and the chimpanzees didn't understand it and they didn't kill her for being different. This caused the females to also speed up the genetic progress of the human being by selecting males for themselves, because the randomness in human development was eliminated. So the first man was a woman. Although it is believed that the first homo sapiens was also a certain sub-Saharan woman, the first homo sapiens to acquire a fantasy feature was a man. The question that many anthropologists pose today remains, although this question is unjustified - if different forms of human shapes - with different parameters of body size were to hybridize, children and mothers would probably die at birth - because children could not pass through small pelvis, and children would sometimes be too big. This is a frequently repeated argument, although unjustified. Well, "growth is correlated with gender" - that solves the problem. How? It turns out, for example, that large cats, which have to fall in love with each other in order to produce young ones like tigers, panthers or lions, sometimes hybridise. The height is correlated with the sex - if the male is a lion and the female is a tiger, a ligger is formed. If the male is a tiger and the female is a lioness, a tiger is created. While the lion eats 5-7 kg of meat a day, the ligger is much larger and eats 15-20 kg of meat a day. These are huge cattle, and yet there are no problems to be born. A different tigon, which is a complete thumbnail and an ordinary ****. This means that in order to determine whether an inter-species hybrid child would be born larger or smaller, this experiment would have to be recreated and there are no conditions for this. In nature, however, animals subjected to incest for various reasons (human intervention causes the extinction of species, so animals breed cubs with partners from, for example, the same litter - and then such cubs look for partners for hybridization) - such groups of animals hybridize more often and thus we have much greater complexity and colourfulness in the world of organisms. Hybridisation is also a defence against deteriorating conditions (population dulling), as hybridisation causes more vigour and agility and therefore ensures greater invasiveness for subsequent generations - species can survive as hybrids and settle in a more difficult environment more easily.

The Y chromosome in men (people) is not exactly Y. Each such Y has a residual tip in the middle - as if one of Adam's ribs was removed and a tip remained. This apex is very interesting. To practically not evolve at all. The first woman homo sapiens was a certain sub-Saharan, so this is Africa. However, it was noted that the tip at Y, although very poorly evolved, can be distinguished in which ethnic groups evolved more than in others. A researcher (there was a documentary about it) decided to travel the world in search of the most original Y-tip (handed down from father to son - there is no other possibility). He drove around the world until he noticed that when he was going west through Asia from the Pacific Ocean, he was getting more and more satisfying results. Eventually, he came across Mongolia, with a particular family in it. To his surprise, a man with cancer (the researcher was surprised that when he told this young man that he had cancer, it brought him relief) turned out to have what the researcher was looking for. The most original version of the apex at Y. Unfortunately the local Mongols did not have it. So this young man, when asked who is, or was, his father, showed on the wall with pictures and on the picture of a Polish officer - like an anecdote, but it was the fruit of a storm of unrest in the scientific community. Today, it is known that the most primordial Y chromosome is the one that is bestowed upon the inhabitants of Central Europe, and although it may be true that the first chromosomal Adam appeared "more or less at the same time" as mitochondrial Eve (it sounds like "The Apocalypse will come soon"), the first Eve was an African, and the first Adam was an inhabitant of Central Europe. The father says to his son - give me the orange that's on the table, please. The son walks up to the table, takes an orange and brings it to the father - but the father says - not the son. That orange is no longer on the table, and I asked you to give me an orange that lies on the table. This is just a description of a very important philosophical problem. For example, it's about how liquid water on Earth was created, because we still don't know. The point is, she must have come here from outer space, where she was frozen in lumps of ice.
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: aspagnito on 16/09/2020 09:43:21
The problem is, however, that if it would just dissolve - it would evaporate into the cosmos, and in order to become liquid, there would need to be already water on Earth in the liquid state, which would cause changes on Earth that would allow ice lumps to melt into water. It's the same with a man's ear. He has some ankles that used to be part of the jaw of reptiles. Specifically, two teeth. Reptiles have ears, too, but it took millions of years for mammals to make their ears from these cubes - so what? - the ankles guessed and said - listen, we have a long and tedious journey ahead of us, but one day we will reach our ears and make such a revolution that, thanks to us, humanity will go into space? - Nothing like this has happened. The problem is to some extent a kind of "gymnastics". If a person imagines some kind of transition form, for example an animal, about which he has no idea, but this form is a transition form between what was before (and we know about it) and what was later (and we know about it too), then usually we try to draw some kind of mix of one and the other. While most often it is not a mix, but a reality that is different from our ideas, but is simply "normal" under these conditions. It's like in such a situation - today we don't know how mankind and the Earth will look in a million years' time and we can **** something up there - but let's say in a million years' time people will have a reality that exceeds our wildest expectations - they will wonder how we lived today and maybe they will lose any idea about it. However, they will know how mankind still lived a million years before us and they will combine their reality with that of 2 million years ago - a mix - a hypothesis of a transitional form - which we would probably laugh at, but they will not laugh and will say that we today are, according to their idea, a transitional form. It's a matter of some gymnastics - because these genes are gymnastics too. But you can't test the genes themselves in isolation - they're just a string of codons. Nothing saying signs. How they affect reality, including that of the past, is the subject of many studies in various branches of science. Although we've practically prescribed human DNA, the the thesis that we know all about DNA is highly exaggerated. We don't know about these mechanisms even 10%, maybe not even 5% or 3%. They evolved over a long period of time, and the motor of this evolution was life. On our planet, this life is not only related to the DNA molecule, but also to the fact that when the pond dries - the fish die - a problem arises - which organisms best adapt to it. There is also a problem - how to maintain multi-species continuity on Earth if huge cataclysms occur and species die out en masse? You won't explore all this by just staring into the DNA chain, although you can find the answer by observing reality and then finding (for example) something in the DNA - this is the GIMNASTY I'm talking about. This is the father, son, orange and table problem. I haven't written this before, but the film "Wallace in Borneo" and "Wallace in Spice Islands" - now probably only available in English on the BBC website. It's a documentary about Darwin not being the creator of Darwinism. Yeah. . . he wasn't even a traveler. He was such a contemporary Niesiołowski - a scientist of the "stool, desk and door" type. He had a collection of beetles and beetles in his office and, like Wallace, he wanted to develop a theory of life that was not based on the one founded by religion. He has never travelled anywhere either - he has not seen any turtles on the Galapagos or found the Paradise Birds. But he was a man "from the environment" and most likely a Freemason. Wallace knew what Darwin wanted, and he had that ambition too. But he set out on a journey. First he collected a collection of worms and thought he would sell them expensive. He was very disappointed. At the time, paradise birds were something mythical, but Wallace, with his ambitions conquered, said he would do it. He found them and sold them. He made a fortune, which he let go of the scooters on his journey. In poverty, he fell into a painting fever and it was then under the influence of this fever, under the influence of observation of nature (especially of certain frogs) and under the influence of the works of Thomas Robert Malthus (that mankind should develop logarithmically, but due to diseases and wars it develops with constant growth) - he came up with a thesis - that the best adapted (survival of the fittest) will survive. He had a theory. Though previously a Victorian philosopher had run into her independently of him, who did not understand her at all. He developed this theory and sent it to Darwin in a letter. Darwin got angry and desperate - there was someone first. Darwin's colleagues told him to publish a joint paper under two names. Darwin didn't want to, but he had no choice - So Darwin's first book was written by Wallace under two names - Darwin-Wallace. But only the second book was Darwin's. Darwin contributed to it - not only did he give Wallace's thesis in a developed form, but he also stole his whole life and changed it. Unfortunately, today we are not talking about Wallacism, but Darwinism, although it was one of the greatest scams in science. Wallace wrote only one book himself - so far it is considered to be the best travel book in history. He dedicated it to "his best friend Charles Darwin". Some say it was out of modesty and humility, but Wallace was neither modest nor humble. He knew about the reality and knew that someday someone would ask about this dedication. Everyone could look like Darwin staring at beetles or DNA and counting on him to discover America (America is constantly rediscovering itself) and maybe it would even work - but sometimes everyone needs to look around a little bit, even because others have done some kind of gymnastics that only we can know what to do with it. The standards of beauty for Neanderthals were different. Would you **** a chimpanzee? I'd stop, stand and wait, but chimpanzees do it all the time. Count Lehndorff creating a theory about the "genetic pump" (as we would call it today), or inbred-outbred-inbred, and "on steroids" it is incest-hybridization-environment (and ensures the mixing of species) had to do with horses, which hunchbacked fields were flying. Now, when we cross, we are dealing with "pure Arabic blood" or "pure English blood". No such steed, and a horse as anyone can see, would probably not look at this hunchbacked on the flying field anymore. It's no secret that we used to exterminate wolves or foxes or badgers or beavers. Now there is a retreat and these animals are returning to their daily routine. They live between us. Wolves appeared in the woods, all the time you can see how somebody drove a wolf, muskrat, beaver, or something like that. A buddy told us that one guy from a local factory was feeding something that looked funny until it turned out to be a yenot (well - yenot in Poland is really something strange) - even that he lives here now. . . and well. Only that these species reproduce from very small populations and there is probably a lot of inbreeding and incest. A few years ago (maybe three years ago), a fox came to my place, specifically to my house at night. Everyone thought it was for food, but my neighbour told me it was because of the heat. Nobody believed it, but I was just coming back from a buddy at night and it was dark. I go and hear something under the house, I look, and two pairs of four-legged eyes stare at me. The
 fox was mating with the dog. Well, she's right. Except her daughter's doing the same thing (daughter being a cross between a dog and a fox). It's skinny, taller and people say it's a fox that has psoriasis. I don't want to make too much sense, because it's a small town. We have a pond in the park. Full grazing, because renovated from the European Union - the whole big park. Big pond, ducks, sometimes swans and carp. For example, when it comes to carp, somebody came up with the idea that they would give Japanese, that is orange, but to make it more like a full ecosystem, it's still a regular carp - some. And everything was a guitar. For several years. Only this year they started to swim in the pond as if they were Japanese carp, but all white, some with darker spots reminiscent of the colouring of the other carp. . . I don't tell anyone either, because in small towns (4,000-25,000) everyone is very supportive, as long as nobody is leaning out. It wouldn't have been so pink if it weren't for the fact that two "types" of ducks come to our pond. One time, however, I noticed that ducks hatched all black, with slight discoloration - and there were no such ducks here. I didn't say that, either, because I guess nobody connected these facts, that's why I'm leaning out. I'm 42. When I was 11 or 13, I stopped taking care of my aquarium. I had swordswordsmen and molynesses, and these are completely different taxonomic groups, so they don't cross. Both vivid. I didn't know what was going on, I wasn't very interested, or at least not as much as I should, and swordsmen and molynesses have been practicing incest for several generations. I started to get interested when one very lively maroon fish (maroon is a very dark red) caught my eye. I knew it was a crossword puzzle and I wanted to isolate it so I wouldn't eat it. She had such vigour and agility that for a dozen or so minutes I caught her and finally I probably crushed her on the stones. So much. This phenomenon is common. Nature uses them for the rapid evolution of animals, because Darwinism, although I don't rule out that it matters, would take thousands of years to achieve in several generations. All in all, this is how the Polish FERTILE Zubron was created, but it is kept in a certain secret. A bison is a cross between a cow and a bison, but without incest, if a bison covers a cow - such a cross is infertile. Polish scientists probably between World War I and II wanted to develop a new kind of cattle and made a Polish zubron. Unfortunately, this cattle turned out to be too temperamental and today it lives in a certain area of Poland under the watchful eye of a man and is only a "curiosity". "Genetic pump" incest-hybridization-your-life also provides a very important matter in nature. If one of the species is dying out for various reasons and there are several pieces left, for example, there will certainly be some incest. Because the population is too small for gene diversification. This allows such individuals to hybridise and maintain their genes in hybridised offspring - which will have greater vigour, prowess, and more invasive (in the beginning, as the virus will control certain regions and population growth will be almost logarithmic). This is a very important genetic prey - such a genetic pump - because it causes that even after disasters causing the mass extinction of species - life on Earth is reborn in an even more lush form, and there may be even more species after such a period of extinction. It is common knowledge among aquarists that male guppies from incest lose their colour. However, it is enough to take guppies from two different incestuous populations and the males not only recover their colours but also gain very unique ones. Some people consider this to be their passion, hence we buy very colourful guppies, which multiply and die quickly and leave us with colourless guppies. The second thing is something of psychology. Hawthorne effect. There was an experiment at a factory in the USA in Hawthorne. The light intensity in the factory was increased and productivity was observed. This was very interesting for everyone, but immediately afterwards, the light intensity started to decrease - and productivity also increased. This cycle was repeated many times - and once it was increased and once it was decreased - and the productivity of the employees continued to increase. No one was able to explain it at the time. Today we know that there is no such factor in reality that would grow, especially logarithmically, infinitely - such phenomena always go to some point of equilibrium and then there is only a "straight line", but this is not entirely an explanation for this phenomenon. Well, stress has the best effect on humans if it is used alternately with relaxation. That's stress-relief-stress-relief. The question is, does this ever end? And what does that remind you of? Because, for example, it reminds me of a sexual act - which ends. But I'm not going to tell you the point of the sexual act. There's a baby. Age 11 months. He is going through a strange period in which he has to define himself and establish a connection with his surroundings. He behaves terribly - when he's on his hands, he tears his head off and signals that he wants to get on the floor. When he's on the floor, he's doing the same thing, and he wants to be on his hands. How do we solve this problem? When he's on the floor and wants to get his hands on it, we reach out to the child and pretend we're already taking it. The child tears to pieces until it can't stand it and makes a drastic scream. Then we take them in hand and show great support. The child for a moment feels extremely safe, manifests sensitivity and can be seen as if features of the intellect previously absent are revealed. But it takes a while and then it gets tired - he wants to get on the floor. But then we do the same thing - we keep them a little bit on our hands. The child is tearing his or her head off until he or she is screaming drastically. Then we let it go on the floor because it's shaky. Again, he feels safe on the floor and counts on our support, which we show him. Again, he is extremely sensitive and something is growing in him intellectually. This is not the end - the whole thing has to be repeated several times, because the problem does not stop. But at some point something "breaks" in the child - the child suddenly seems to be wise. He stops having this "problem" and goes somewhere else to have fun or to get a polite interest in another conversation. This is a "peculiarity". It's about taking two steps forward and one step backwards - we're heading for something. However, this does not last forever - at some point on this road, it turns out that in our subjective perception we have overcome so "much" of it, that it does not matter whether we will still overcome her step or the infinity of these steps (in humans it is associated with patience, or loss). Then we get something like "enlightenment" (sex is about the Big O) and get back to the starting point. But not quite with anything - every time in such a process we gain a certain prey and with it we come back to the starting point. That's what "peculiarity" is about. Nature also uses this process. Inbred, whether incest is a weakening of the genotype and can be understood as loosening. One of the effects of incest is an increase in fertility, at least initially. In general, something like this makes recessive traits more likely to become dominant - hence the conviction that incest and inbreeding are very harmful. A good conviction. But in the genetic pump it is important - the genotype has to show its weaknesses as a kind of "half talent" when it crosses with a genetically distant individual - the other has the same, such "half talent". The two halves form a single unit, thus creating new, full-value features and hence SYNERGY. Outbred and hybridization is some kind of gene enhancement. It broadens the horizons of the genotype and eliminates errors. However, in the long run, if we exaggerate with outbred, the young are inactive and infertile. It's inbred and incest that activates. An organism that has too strong a gene seeks to weaken it. An organism that has too weak a gene - it seeks to strengthen it. However, "standing still" degrades standards and organisms must, even in small form, follow the path of a "genetic pump". Hence mythurinism. Ivan Michurin, a Russian geneticist, noted that some of the best genetic results are achieved by crossbreeding "wild types" (the most statistical individuals in the population) with hybrids. It is in a way a duplication of Count Lehndorff's genetic pump mechanism. However, hybridisation causes one very interesting phenomenon - apart from supporting the genome in "new achievements" resulting from the aforementioned synergy, the organism partly returns to the common features of both parents who are distant from each other, but in the sense that in young people features resembling those of a common ancestor appear. So let's take a cross between dromedary and camel. How puzzling is the fact that a llama, who is a common ancestor and a dromedary and a camel, came out of such hybridization. Not a hare, though.
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: puppypower on 22/09/2020 13:35:31
Will power and choice is why social Darwinism is not automatic for humans, as it is for plants and animals. Humans see social Darwinism as a lower road. We prefer a different path due to extrapolated choices.

The brain and consciousness, which is connected to biological evolution, is a some level, detached from it. Like in computers, the goal of intelligent computers; IC, is to create a computer that can make choices apart from what is logically expected from its given programming. Scientists assume this is possible, but then deny it is possible for humans.

Artificial intelligence; AI, mimics the program, but offers a magic trick overlay. The goal of intelligent computers extends beyond the magic tricks of AI. In IC, the computer will achieve will and choice apart from the program. 

The organic centric model of current science cannot model willpower and choice. Will and choice requires the water side of the equation to make it rational. This is the fluid side of intelligence.

As far as former VP Biden, maybe his impairment is not technically called Dementia, however, his will power and choice is being restricted by his current neural state, whatever it may be called today. Hollywood and Fake News is trying to run a scam, similar to the magic tricks of automatons and AI, The goal is to fool those, who are easily fooled, into thinking Biden has free will, like he did in his prime. Like in computers, this current state of Biden not an intelligent computer capable of exceeding the programming of its handlers. The concern of many, is that his handlers will be running the AI automaton show if he is president. He will become a prop, which is disrespectful.

Trump is an example of IC. His handlers often cannot keep up with him and many get frustrated or worm out by Trump not being with the expectations of the program. Trump drives AI based people no both sides, batty. However, this is how you exceed the limits of Social Darwinism, within in the bureaucratic state.

Being critical and a cynic is an AI bridge state to IC, but that requires a host for prosthesis. Trump has become a bridge for many in the AI state, especially for fake news. The future needs IC, and not just AI bridges and automatons.



 
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: puppypower on 30/09/2020 12:05:36
How did this devolve into a debate about politics?

The topic is, is there something more significant than Darwinism. Politics is one example where humans no longer see the same reality and therefore they cannot extrapolate the same natural selection, so as to unite and optimize as a species. It has to do with narrow group think superseding species wide think; unnatural versus natural.

The way this works is connected to willpower and choice apart from genetic programming. Natural selection allows optimization under natural conditions. Willpower and choice can optimize one political party, based on opinion, but fall short of all, by ignoring parts of reality. The need to belong or be recognized allows one to justify half brain thinking.

For example, by all rational metrics Trump had one of the best economies of all time. This is based on employment and tax collection. Biden does not see it that way, since this extra truth data will have an emotional impact on his own alternate reality.

The left wing has been soured against Trump, like a woman scorned, who cannot see anything good about her ex, or else that would spoil her scorn. If she started to think of the good times this would tweak her scorn. This was the left wing recipe for an alternate reality that was made easy by feminization and a woman scorned. It has to do with the formation of memory and the emotional tagging of memory apart from full access to reason. Full access sensory data is more natural and is why animals can optimize.

If you consider Bored Chemist he is never positive. This narrow emotional platform impacts what he can see, due to his memory tagging process.
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2020 23:01:51
Are we going to get back on topic soon, or am I going to have to split this thread?
I think you might as well split it.
As far as I can tell, only the OP was actually about anything to do with Darwinism.
To be fair, Puppy Powers comment about the "wall of text" is valid.
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/10/2020 01:51:00
It looks like I missed a few posts when splitting things up.

Regardless, let's keep politics in the correct thread: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80691.0
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2020 09:11:54
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the mods, I still think that this lie


As far as former VP Biden, maybe his impairment is not technically called Dementia, ...

should be called out in this thread since Biden isn't here to defend himself.
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: puppypower on 24/10/2020 12:10:37
One paradox of Darwinism, that shows there is something more, is homosexuality. A homosexual can have selective advantage, however, the very nature of this behavior, does not allow it to reproduce, so as to transfer its selective advantage, biologically. Yet this behavior appears again and again as though there a mechanism that is not biological in nature.

There is a departure from the expected reproductive protocol of biological Darwinism. This observation appears to add up to choice and will power, as some level of the psyche. If this occurs  deep enough and is therefore unconscious, it may feel instinctive or genetic, but really be an induced unconscious subroutine that is not genetic based.

The analogy would be a tall strong man who has selective advantage, but he does not reproduce himself in a biological fashion.  In spite of this, children are born in his village that look and behave like him, generation after generation, with each generation that appear, also not reproducing. However, his features will turn up in children of those who reproduce but not with any of the noted offspring. This looks like osmotic version of sexual reproduction. That observation would void the theory of Evolution or it would suggest that there is a parallel path, based on choice and free will,  that can occur after birth. This could be induced and/or copied behavior based on examples that already exist. This type of reproduction would be psychological; choice.

Indoctrination tries to mold behavior and choice around a desire path that may or may not be natural to the subjects being indoctrinated. They may not even know this change is occurring and is being induced. However, they will eventually appear to be driven by instinct. This can be accelerated via the carrot and stick.

 
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/10/2020 12:29:48
One paradox of Darwinism, that shows there is something more, is homosexuality.
The idea that this is a "paradox" was resolved years ago.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality/

There is a departure from the expected reproductive protocol of biological Darwinism.
The people who actually looked at the question understand it and expect it.
The fact that you don't is your fault.

This observation appears to add up to choice and will power, as some level of the psyche. If this occurs  deep enough and is therefore unconscious, it may feel instinctive or genetic, but really be an induced unconscious subroutine that is not genetic based.

It appears that way to someone who is so bigoted that they post stuff on science sites without bothering to find out if it is true.
It does not appear that way to the rest of us.

The analogy would be a tall strong man who has selective advantage, but he does not reproduce himself in a biological fashion.  In spite of this, children are born in his village that look and behave like him, generation after generation, with each generation that appear, also not reproducing. However, his features will turn up in children of those who reproduce but not with any of the noted offspring. This looks like osmotic version of sexual reproduction. That observation would void the theory of Evolution or it would suggest that there is a parallel path, based on choice and free will,  that can occur after birth. This could be induced and/or copied behavior based on examples that already exist. This type of reproduction would be psychological; choice.
This fairy tale is not science and not relevant.



Indoctrination tries to mold behavior and choice around a desire path that may or may not be natural to the subjects being indoctrinated. They may not even know this change is occurring and is being induced. However, they will eventually appear to be driven by instinct. This can be accelerated via the carrot and stick.
The only significant forces at work "indoctrinating" people have been the bigots and the church seeking to tell people that "homoxesuality is evil" or "homosexuallity is unnatural" or  "homosexuallity is wrong".

So, if indoctrination had a dominant effect (spoiler alert- it doesn't) then homosxuallity would no longer exist.

But, I guess your post is the sort of "logic" we should expect from someone who believes in homoeopathy.
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: puppypower on 04/11/2020 13:59:31
The only significant forces at work "indoctrinating" people have been the bigots and the church seeking to tell people that "homoxesuality is evil" or "homosexuallity is unnatural" or  "homosexuallity is wrong".

So, if indoctrination had a dominant effect (spoiler alert- it doesn't) then homosxuallity would no longer exist.

But, I guess your post is the sort of "logic" we should expect from someone who believes in homeopathy.

Darwinism; natural selection, requires sexual reproduction to pass forward genes to the future. One can have natural selection in your own time, but without sexual reproduction to pass forward genes, this stops in time, since the genes are not passed forward.

Homosexuality; boy on boy or girl on girl, precludes that important step of transferring genes to the future. One can still be selected in your own time, but the future of your genes is cut off. What can still be passed forward may be based on language and memory, but not genes.

This is not a value judgment but a science observation that is conceptually inconsistent with the theory of Darwinism. Darwinism does not make a provision for the transfer of genes by osmosis or by propaganda. Since homosexuality continues to appear in culture, without sexual reproduction, another parallel theory needs to be added to Darwinism, which is the topic of this discussion. They may be formed anew each generation by neural based affects; choice and willpower via induction.

Ironically, the harsh taboos of religion, toward homosexuality, required homosexuals pretend to be straight or else suffer the consequences. This pretending to be straight. allowed for the sexual reproduction of homosexuals, since they had to marry and even reproduce to stay under the radar of social censor. This socially induced situation; outside pressure, would have made homosexuality consistent with Darwinism, since it forced conformity to the full theory using an outside agency. It was connected to choice, based on the lessor of two evils.

In modern times, with reproduction being a choice and not a requirement, and homosexual choice not consistent with the needs of sexual reproduction, one would expect the number of homosexuals to go down with time, as the gene pool, formerly induced by religion, fades with time. If this is not the case, then something else besides Darwinism is at work.

Don't let the politics of wishful thinking cloud your ability to think as a impartial scientist. However, there is a wild card in affect that appears to fool many. As I have stated before, science, as a whole, is beholden to others for resources, since they are not self sufficient that way. Many scientists will compromise the truth, in exchange for jobs, creature comforts and social and political acceptance; mercenary science. If your political benefactors need homosexuality to be consistent with Darwinism, many will contort into pretzels, to keep the gravy train rolling. Statistic makes this easier to do, since it has a watered down standard compared to rational modeling. 
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2020 14:49:49
Darwinism; natural selection, requires sexual reproduction to pass forward genes to the future.
No.
it works fine with esexual reproduction.
Things like antibiotic resistance prove this.

You really do seem to specialise in being confidently wrong about stuff, don't you?
This is not a value judgment but a science observation that is conceptually inconsistent with the theory of Darwinism.
Your post is indeed inconsistent with Darwinism.

Learn the science.

In particular, you need to understand that there isn't a simple on/ off gay/ straight gene.
Don't let the politics of wishful thinking cloud your ability to think as a impartial scientist.
You are letting wishful thinking stop you even finding out what the science is.

You are making mistakes faster than I can correct them.
Title: Re: Is there something more significant than DARWINISM?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/11/2020 17:00:53
Puppypower, there are ways that genes which contribute to the existence of non-reproducing individuals can still be passed on. The exact causes of homosexuality are not yet fully understood, but epigenetics seems to play an important role (such as hormone levels in the womb during pregnancy). This would suggest that an individual can still become a homosexual despite not having any underlying genes that cause it. So that's one way that they can keep coming into existence despite not reproducing.

There are some alleles that are known to be lethal in homozygous individuals but harmless in heterozygous individuals. Since those heterozygous individuals can still reproduce, this allows those lethal alleles to remain in a population through the generations despite the fact that they periodically give rise to dead (and thus non-reproducing) individuals.

I don't have the data on me right now, but I've read that the sisters of gay men have a tendency to have more children than average. If there is indeed a genetic component that was inherited by both the gay man and his heterosexual sister, then it would suggest that it was reproductively beneficial for a female but deleterious for a male. This would allow for the continued sustaining of those alleles in the population that contribute to the existence of homosexuality (at least in men).