Consciousness

[Kharakov]

Degenerates are easy to manipulate. You're welcome.

 

[Subsymbolic]

In this topic the only one who has mentioned a "designer" has been you.

Of course; the fact that evolution explains how you get design without a designer is a difficult one to keep in mind after millenia of getting it wrong. That's why it's important to avoid such a bad habit.

I, on the other side, even laughed of the conclusions made in the link, conclusions based on evolutionary ideas which don't fit with the current reality.

Yeah, we need to talk about consistency: you can't just pick the bits you want and laugh at the bits you don't. You'll end up misleading yourself and not being taken seriously if you do that.

For once, forget "designers" in this issue.

Why would I do that? The fact is that, as a Christian if you just said you had faith then that would be cool, but trying to put together arguments based on evolution and biology in a forum loaded with people who are trained in science just seems a daft thing to do, especially when you make schoolboy errors of the sort I'll be addressing in a moment.

(I started the propagation of DEGENERATION of species since year 2000, and if any religious group is copying it or have found the same process by themselves and uses it to favor their belief in a god or designer, well, I am aside from them. Before finding DEGENERATION I also found a different process which I called it The Recycling Process of Life on Earth. The name of the theory explains it by itself, species do not evolve but recycle. Not to be discussed here, because it's baby food, I prefer going to the big meal, the degeneration of species which is not theoretical but fact)

Yeah, I think I got where you are coming from.

There is a degeneration process in progress.

So you say.

It has always been a degeneration process throughout generations in the species.

Well, actually, it's more been a fitting into a given environment process, But we can deal with this later.

Look at the root of the theory of evolution. It was called "evolution" because Kant and others thought that current species have come from inferior, worst and simpler species. Kant even wrote that we are descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees, to which he considered as inferior.

Yeah, you said this before, and it's an empirical claim. Now I've read a fair bit of Kant, I've even taught Descartes to Kant more than a few times and I've read most of his work at some point or another. And I confess I can't remember him making this claim, any reference to him making this claim and so I'd be really really pleased if you could give me a source for this claim. I confess that it does seem unlikely that he'd say something like this as Kant died five years before Darwin was born. There just wasn't remotely any tradition of thinking like this in Germany at the time Kant was working. Mind you, he was a clever bugger, so I'd be delighted to get chapter and verse please.

This is the idea that Darwin inherited and continued when he wrote his book the Origin of Species. He concluded that his invention "natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps.

Really? I thought natural selection was a process by which the less fit tended not to survive to breed while the more fit did. The notion of things being 'favourable' is putting the cart before the horse. I really would recommend that you get clear about the processes underpinning evolution before making claims like this.

Darwin took mutations as favorable only.

Again, I'd love to see your source for this. This time I really think you will struggle as the very idea of mutations wasn't even proposed until 1900, (By Hugo De Vries) eighteen years after Darwin died.

This is what the theory of evolution has been about, and this is why still is keeping the word "evolution" in its title.

Sorry? What is the theory of evolution about? Mutation?

At one point. in the 70's, when the New-Darwinian theory of Evolution replaced the former one, the whole structure was changed and only the main title and subtitles were saved. The failed theory was told it was "updated", but failed theories can't be updated, failed theories are just discarded.

Of course they can: failed theories are either reduced or eliminated. Reduction involves making connections between the ontology, methodology and attitudes of the old theory and the new. Elimination is self explanatory. That said, what exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure that the central mechanisms of evolution remains unchanged since Darwin. Perhaps you can explain the change you describe.

The current theory of evolution, keeps the word "evolution" as a technical term. As it is accepted, a technical term might mean something completely different to what the same word means in common language.

So you say, perhaps you can explain exactly what changed and describe some of the key changes, with references. Please.

Evolutionists tried to push the idea that also in common language, the world "evolution" solely means "change", implying no arrow.

No, that's simply flat false. Evolution is a series of processes by which change occurs, not change itself.

As you have said above, the theory of evolution doesn't imply any arrow in the changes, and this is because "evolution" on the theory is now a technical term applied in Biology only.

How much arrow there is, generally comes down to the selective pressure. where, for example, food is abundant and predation rare, there's not much of an arrow. When food becomes rarer or predation more extreme there is a powerful arrow towards fitting an environment. If the conditions change the selective pressure changes.

However, at the end of the day, there is an arrow. The changes in species finally show a specific arrow.

Speciation certainly happens, but it's usually about fitting particular environments - that's the selective pressure.

This arrow discards one more time the claims of the theory of evolution.

I don't see it. You just seem very confused about the history, the actual mechanisms and, well, most of it. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier doing theology, you seem a bit lost doing whatever this is.

Degeneration is the arrow.

What degeneration? There's just selective pressure to fit an environment.

Degeneration is the evidence. Degeneration is the path.

Degeneration is the thing you haven't actually argued for, let alone proven. Look, we both know that you will not be able to find the quotes to support your silly claims above. YOu can bluster and look bad or you can actually admit that you have been misinformed and actually start to learn something about evolution.

Regardless of the propaganda and billions of dollars invested to make appear the theory of evolution as valid,

How about we actually start at first principles. There isn't a conspiracy theory. The fact is that the basics of evolution are so simple that it takes half an hour and perhaps a nice pack of biscuits to go with the tea to explain it to anyone.

a simple but harmful change in nature affecting the elements of the universe and the species on earth is prevailing: Decay-degeneration.

I'd really make your case for it before assuming everyone is onside, because frankly I don't think you've convinced anyone. I'm assuming that this is your aim and this isn't just one of those awful hairshirted missions amongst the unclean that involves just shouting a lot.

We must be conscious about this reality of species under degeneration, and we must stop following by inertia of belief the theory of evolution which from its very genesis until today have been proved false.

Well, if it has been proven false, then you haven't given the slightest sign of how. In fact, for someone who has been arguing a case for a while, you are making claims that are simply factually false. You want to prove you rcase to anyone, you are going to need to actually learn precisely what it is you are trying to object to. Perhaps then you might be able to put together arguments that look slightly more convincing.

Because these are not.

 

[Hermit]

Look at the root of the theory of evolution. It was called "evolution" because Kant and others thought that current species have come from inferior, worst and simpler species.

There is no mention of inferior, worst or simpler species in the theory of evolution, not even in Darwin's seminal work. The criterion for the evolution of species is only this: Will a mutation tend to the preservation of that individual, and will it generally be inherited by its offspring? If so, that change will improve the survival chances of a species. That is the principle behind the theory and Darwin gave it a name: Natural selection. The result has been for the most part the evolution of more complex organisms over time, but this is not a requirement. Only the chances of survival are. Inferior, worst and simpler don't enter into it, nor do their antonyms.

[Darwin] concluded that his invention "natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps.

Nowhere did Darwin argue against the existence of unfavourable mutations, though. They simply mean that they are not advantageous to the survival of a species. If a species sufficiently disadvantaged by unfavourable mutations it becomes extinct. Please show how genetic degeneration invalidates the theory of evolution.

Darwin took mutations as favorable only.

No, he did not. What he did say is that "...any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual..." (Chapter III, p. 60, first edition of Origins) In short, only favourable mutations enhance the chances of survival, which is not at all saying mutations are favourable only.

Degeneration is the arrow.

Degeneration is no more an arrow than its opposite. It is one aspect of mutation. You are straining your bow beyond breaking point. Your arrow does not fly.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Ironically, mutations are an infinitely small part of the mechanism of change for any biolological sysstem that engages in sexual reproduction. The most important mechanism of variation is the shuffling of two sets of genes caused by meiosis.

I reiterate, Darwin never spoke of mutations, merely variation. More to the point, Darwin considered variation to occur as a result of interaction with the environment and to be a developmental process, not a heritable algorithmic one. This can be seen clearly in his latter works and in letters that elucidate his position.

There's plenty about it here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004834008068

While Mendel’s work on heritability predated Darwin’s work on variation, there is no evidence whatsoever that Darwin was ever aware of Mendel and plenty of evidence that he wasn’t. It was only when the two theories unified, at the start of the twentieth century, that the genius of both Darwin and Mendel’s work became clear in the unification of process and mechanism, a mechanism that was only fully elucidated well after Franklin, Watson and Crick worked out the shape of DNA.

If ever there is an area where careful consideration of one's language pays dividends it is here. It’s hard enough to clearly grasp Darwin’s work and so it really pays to avoid the historian’s fallacy, especially in discussions with someone who clearly doesn't understand and possibly doesn't want to understand.

Come on Hermit, you know the importance of clear word choices and are more than capable of avoiding this sort of incautious language.

 

[Hermit]

While Mendel’s work on heritability predated Darwin’s work on variation, there is no evidence whatsoever that Darwin was ever aware of Mendel and plenty of evidence that he wasn’t.

Well, Mendel's experiment did not start until 1856, but yes, Darwin is unlikely to have heard of them. It might have something to do with the fact that Mendel did not publicise the (forged) results of his experiments via two lectures at a regional scientific conference until six years after Darwin published his Origins of the Species, and that these were universally ignored until Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and Erich von Tschermak rediscovered them in 1900.

 

[Hermit]

Come on Hermit, you know the importance of clear word choices and are more than capable of avoiding this sort of incautious language.

Oops, I missed that the first time around.

Guilty as charged. I should not have skated over the need of accuracy in my eagerness to use broad brush strokes for the sake of simplifying the issue. In my defence I plead that arguing with people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect demands oversimplification - at least to begin with - though that is intolerable to people who have actually read up on issues they comment on.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Come on Hermit, you know the importance of clear word choices and are more than capable of avoiding this sort of incautious language.

Oops, I missed that the first time around.

Guilty as charged. I should not have skated over the need of accuracy in my eagerness to use broad brush strokes for the sake of simplifying the issue. In my defence I plead that arguing with people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect demands oversimplification - at least to begin with - though that is intolerable to people who have actually read up on issues they comment on.

In this case, I'm not sure if D/K or good old faith is the problem. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[Hermit]

Come on Hermit, you know the importance of clear word choices and are more than capable of avoiding this sort of incautious language.

Oops, I missed that the first time around.

Guilty as charged. I should not have skated over the need of accuracy in my eagerness to use broad brush strokes for the sake of simplifying the issue. In my defence I plead that arguing with people suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect demands oversimplification - at least to begin with - though that is intolerable to people who have actually read up on issues they comment on.

In this case, I'm not sure if D/K or good old faith is the problem. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

The two frequently overlap. What's more, a third component may play a role. I'd put a holocaust denier in the same class as a 21st century flat-earther. Remember Jerome da Gnome? As an owner-operator of a small chain of pet supplies shops you could not exactly call him terminally moronic, but would you regard him as sane?

 

[fromderinside]

As an owner-operator of a small chain of pet supplies shops you could not exactly call him terminally moronic, but would you regard him as sane?

Commenting on the sanity state of one I've only read about is close enough to insanity for me. So I pass.

 

[Subsymbolic]

In this case, I'm not sure if D/K or good old faith is the problem. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

The two frequently overlap. What's more, a third component may play a role. I'd put a holocaust denier in the same class as a 21st century flat-earther. Remember Jerome da Gnome? As an owner-operator of a small chain of pet supplies shops you could not exactly call him terminally moronic, but would you regard him as sane?

Whatever was going on with Jerome had little to do with Dunning Kruger and more to do with an interesting range of passionately held but equally false beliefs. Even smart people believe odd stuff. Once you subtracted the premises, which were definitely odd as fuck, he was actually perfectly rational and often quite a cunning fucker. What he was, however, was endlessly destructive to decent conversation. That I can judge.

 

[humbleman]

Why would I do that? The fact is that, as a Christian if you just said you had faith then that would be cool, but trying to put together arguments based on evolution and biology in a forum loaded with people who are trained in science just seems a daft thing to do, especially when you make schoolboy errors of the sort I'll be addressing in a moment.

I'm not a Christian, not a member of any religious denomination, and what I discuss about religion in the proper topic is a result of studies, not so of worshiping and believing.

You can answer my messages without that kind of prejudice.

It has always been a degeneration process throughout generations in the species.

Well, actually, it's more been a fitting into a given environment process, But we can deal with this later.

Look at the root of the theory of evolution. It was called "evolution" because Kant and others thought that current species have come from inferior, worst and simpler species. Kant even wrote that we are descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees, to which he considered as inferior.

Yeah, you said this before, and it's an empirical claim. Now I've read a fair bit of Kant, I've even taught Descartes to Kant more than a few times and I've read most of his work at some point or another. And I confess I can't remember him making this claim, any reference to him making this claim and so I'd be really really pleased if you could give me a source for this claim. I confess that it does seem unlikely that he'd say something like this as Kant died five years before Darwin was born. There just wasn't remotely any tradition of thinking like this in Germany at the time Kant was working. Mind you, he was a clever bugger, so I'd be delighted to get chapter and verse please.

Anthropology, Kant. In it he initiated the idea of man related with the monkey, having in his thoughts that man is descended from the ape. Of course, his words were as well inherited from discussions made by Lamettrie.

You might add to your reading Critique of the Power of Judgement, where Kant expands himself playing with the flow of all species being "one great family". His thoughts leading to his presumption that current living organisms come from a common primal matrix.

About a little more than half century later, Schopenhauer added that man comes from Asia as born from orangutans, and from Africa as born from chimpanzees.

The idea of man coming from other species is not new from Kant either, the Greek philosophy guided man as descendants of fish.

It was known the discussion between Geoffroy with Cuvier (the catastrophe guy) with his words: "Well, how did it happen, then that the inferior types of plants and animals appeared on the earth first and the most highly organized, including man, came last?"

Darwin grew up in the middle of those thoughts. No wonder why he concluded that his (imaginary) natural selection was to act SOLELY by slight and favorable steps.

You have lots to read.

This is the idea that Darwin inherited and continued when he wrote his book the Origin of Species. He concluded that his invention "natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps.

Really? I thought natural selection was a process by which the less fit tended not to survive to breed while the more fit did. The notion of things being 'favourable' is putting the cart before the horse. I really would recommend that you get clear about the processes underpinning evolution before making claims like this.

RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps.

Charles Darwin.

It can't be more clear.

Darwin took mutations as favorable only.

Again, I'd love to see your source for this. This time I really think you will struggle as the very idea of mutations wasn't even proposed until 1900, (By Hugo De Vries) eighteen years after Darwin died.

Darwin called them variations, he ignored about genetics.

At one point. in the 70's, when the New-Darwinian theory of Evolution replaced the former one, the whole structure was changed and only the main title and subtitles were saved. The failed theory was told it was "updated", but failed theories can't be updated, failed theories are just discarded.

Of course they can: failed theories are either reduced or eliminated. Reduction involves making connections between the ontology, methodology and attitudes of the old theory and the new. Elimination is self explanatory. That said, what exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure that the central mechanisms of evolution remains unchanged since Darwin. Perhaps you can explain the change you describe.

You are talking of TWO different theories as well.

Defending the theory of Darwin is defending a ghost.

He was wrong. Period.

The current theory of evolution, keeps the word "evolution" as a technical term. As it is accepted, a technical term might mean something completely different to what the same word means in common language.

So you say, perhaps you can explain exactly what changed and describe some of the key changes, with references. Please.

Common definition of evolution as change having progress (from inferior to superior, from worst to better, from simpler to more complex). Always with such a determinate arrow.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/evolution

an unfolding, opening out, or working out; process of development, as from a simple to a complex form, or of gradual, progressive change, as in a social and economic structure
a result or product of this; thing evolved

a movement that is part of a series or pattern
a pattern produced, or seemingly produced, by such a series of movements: the evolutions of a fancy skater

Find an old dictionary when Darwin wrote his theory, the word evolution was change with an arrow, from simpler to more complex, from inferior to superior, exactly like Goddfrey said in the quote right above.

Solely in biology won't mean change from inferior to superior, from simpler to more complex

Biol.

the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny
Darwinian theory


Darwin claimed that natural selection is about favorable steps. The "variations" (mutations) must be favorable. Mutations are steps of variation in species, as general understanding.

Lets be practical.

Frogs born with eyes all around their bodies happened as sudden change. They were also born with several legs. Such wasn't by any means favorable. It wasn't a slight accumulation, neither successive thru thousands of years.

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/mystery-freaky-frogs

"In August 1995, schoolchildren found deformed frogs in a wetland near Henderson, Minnesota. Some frogs had extra legs, others no legs at all. Some had missing or extra eyes, toes, or feet. And some also had problems with their internal organs. By the fall of 1996, there were over 200 reports of freakish frogs, from two-thirds of Minnesota's counties. Deformed frogs have since been found in 44 states."

As you have said above, the theory of evolution doesn't imply any arrow in the changes, and this is because "evolution" on the theory is now a technical term applied in Biology only.

How much arrow there is, generally comes down to the selective pressure. where, for example, food is abundant and predation rare, there's not much of an arrow. When food becomes rarer or predation more extreme there is a powerful arrow towards fitting an environment. If the conditions change the selective pressure changes.

What selective pressure?

The losing of male gene chromosomes Y is "selective pressure"? How?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716201127.htm

Explain.

However, at the end of the day, there is an arrow. The changes in species finally show a specific arrow.

Speciation certainly happens, but it's usually about fitting particular environments - that's the selective pressure.

If you read your reply, you can definitively say that you know a lot about the theory of evolution, but unfortunately you know nothing about biology and reality.

The horse loses digits in the extremities, loses a tooth in females, loses its capability of assimilation to solely a 25% compared with the cow at 75%, and you call that "speciation"?

Great, so a disease or chemical causes man to lose fingers and have atrophied extremities, and the environment is mostly dry and sand storms start to cover fertile areas, man can only crawl looking for food and water.

Your conclusion: Man passed to a new phase of speciation, adapting his body to the new environment which won't require legs but man is more fit when he crawl over the sand.

Oh my... oh my... no doubt that wisdom is missing in the theory of evolution and its supporters.

So, having cells never dying and reproducing like crazy is for you "evolution", after all, the cells are experiencing a "favorable" change, which is not dying. Then, to every person with cancer you can state that such a person is passing to a new state in evolution. right?

This is how and why the theory of evolution can't be taken seriously.

At one point, a person asked to evolutionists their "prediction" in base of their theory, of how man will be in the future.

Yes, the question was fair, because evolutionists claim that they can predict in base of their theory.

The answers given were avoiding the question, no answer at all or lots of incoherent ideas.

So, you seem to have a great understanding of evolution, I will ask you the same question

You can ignore the fact of losing chromosome Y, so lets play you don't know about it.

Based on your appearance of man from an ape alike creature, how man will be in the next million years?

You have DNA, you have five to six "human fossils", yes, you have a great "accumulation of evidence", so, please, apply your knowledge based on your theory and give us a rough scenario of man in the future.

My position is, based on the losing of chromosome Y and in base of the trend of degeneration, that the human body will lose more strength, this is to say, will be weaker, will need of more artificial means to survive, and will lose more characteristics, making humans more exposed to greater diseases, and more deformities. which will be fixed according to the new decaying steps -as today with dental braces, wigs, prescribed glasses, new advanced medicine and surgery, etc- .

The ball in in your court.

 

[Kharakov]

It was known the discussion between Geoffroy with Cuvier (the catastrophe guy) with his words: "Well, how did it happen, then that the inferior types of plants and animals appeared on the earth first and the most highly organized, including man, came last?"

Inferior. It's what's fur dinner.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I'm not a Christian, not a member of any religious denomination, and what I discuss about religion in the proper topic is a result of studies, not so of worshiping and believing.

You can answer my messages without that kind of prejudice.

You are on record uncritically assuming that what is said in the Bible is true. Here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10237-Define-God-Thread&p=489975#post489975




Well, actually, it's more been a fitting into a given environment process, But we can deal with this later.

Anthropology, Kant. In it he initiated the idea of man related with the monkey, having in his thoughts that man is descended from the ape. Of course, his words were as well inherited from discussions made by Lamettrie.

Actually, this one I'm reasonably familiar with. Obviously you haven't given a page number, and Kant writes a lot, but from memory, the closest you will get is on page 184 when Kant talks about technical dispositions and compares man walking on two feet to certain primates walking on four. He certainly doesn't claim the two are related. if you want to claim he does, then give a page number or lose any credibility.

You might add to your reading Critique of the Power of Judgement, where Kant expands himself playing with the flow of all species being "one great family". His thoughts leading to his presumption that current living organisms come from a common primal matrix.

I'm less familiar with this one, but again, there's no page number and from one I did know, I can see you are grasping at straws that don't exist.

About a little more than half century later, Schopenhauer added that man comes from Asia as born from orangutans, and from Africa as born from chimpanzees.

Yeah, no page number, not even a bloody book, how do you expect to be taken seriously. References or no credibility.

The idea of man coming from other species is not new from Kant either, the Greek philosophy guided man as descendants of fish.

Now we are not even bothering with a philosopher let alone a book or a page number. Can you be any more vague?


It was known the discussion between Geoffroy with Cuvier (the catastrophe guy) with his words: "Well, how did it happen, then that the inferior types of plants and animals appeared on the earth first and the most highly organized, including man, came last?"

Is that meant to be a quoite, becaus enothing comes up on Google - again book and page number please, because as direct quotation it looks like you just ade it up.

Darwin grew up in the middle of those thoughts. No wonder why he concluded that his (imaginary) natural selection was to act SOLELY by slight and favorable steps.

We all grow up in a lot of thoughts and cherrypicking (or making up) a bunmch doesn't mean that Darwin was influenced by them.

You have lots to read.

Cool, give me proper references and I'll check your assertions....

This is the idea that Darwin inherited and continued when he wrote his book the Origin of Species. He concluded that his invention "natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps.

Really? I thought natural selection was a process by which the less fit tended not to survive to breed while the more fit did. The notion of things being 'favourable' is putting the cart before the horse. I really would recommend that you get clear about the processes underpinning evolution before making claims like this.

RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps.

Charles Darwin.

It can't be more clear.

No, it really can't. You misrepresented Darwin. Compare:

"natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps

natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations

I assume you can see the difference between acting and accumulating? The process of accumulation is the process of surviving in an environment. Natural selection doesn't act, it's the outcome not the agent.

Darwin took mutations as favorable only.

Again, I'd love to see your source for this. This time I really think you will struggle as the very idea of mutations wasn't even proposed until 1900, (By Hugo De Vries) eighteen years after Darwin died.

Darwin called them variations, he ignored about genetics.

Darwin was simply unaware of a genotype. Mutations take place in the genotype, Darwin was only aware of variations of phenotype. You literally couldn't be more wrong.

At one point. in the 70's, when the New-Darwinian theory of Evolution replaced the former one, the whole structure was changed and only the main title and subtitles were saved. The failed theory was told it was "updated", but failed theories can't be updated, failed theories are just discarded.

Of course they can: failed theories are either reduced or eliminated. Reduction involves making connections between the ontology, methodology and attitudes of the old theory and the new. Elimination is self explanatory. That said, what exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure that the central mechanisms of evolution remains unchanged since Darwin. Perhaps you can explain the change you describe.

You are talking of TWO different theories as well.

No I'm defending one massive overarching theory that involves the unification of a phenotypiclka and a genotypoical process, Actually it's more complicated than that, but what's the point.
Defending the theory of Darwin is defending a ghost.

He was wrong. Period.

You know, when attacking what is probably the most agreed upon theory in all of science, you really need to produce better arguments and evidence than that.

The current theory of evolution, keeps the word "evolution" as a technical term. As it is accepted, a technical term might mean something completely different to what the same word means in common language.

So you say, perhaps you can explain exactly what changed and describe some of the key changes, with references. Please.

Common definition of evolution as change having progress (from inferior to superior, from worst to better, from simpler to more complex). Always with such a determinate arrow.

Common on Flat Earth websites perhaps. Not common anywhere else. The fact is that evolution only results in maximising fitness to a given environment. Anyone who doesn't understand this simple fact doesn't understand evolutions.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/evolution

an unfolding, opening out, or working out; process of development, as from a simple to a complex form, or of gradual, progressive change, as in a social and economic structure
a result or product of this; thing evolved

a movement that is part of a series or pattern
a pattern produced, or seemingly produced, by such a series of movements: the evolutions of a fancy skater

Now try finding a definition from a biology textbook...

Find an old dictionary when Darwin wrote his theory, the word evolution was change with an arrow, from simpler to more complex, from inferior to superior, exactly like Goddfrey said in the quote right above.

I rather think that's your job, as you are making the claim. Darwin didn't think that and it wasn't a feature of his theory.

Solely in biology won't mean change from inferior to superior, from simpler to more complex

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Biol.

the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny
Darwinian theory


Yeah, I found a source for that one all (t) right:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Classy.

Darwin claimed that natural selection is about favorable steps. The "variations" (mutations) must be favorable. Mutations are steps of variation in species, as general understanding.

Nope, he claimed it's about the accumulating of slight, successive, favorable variations. It's a fundamental difference

Lets be practical.

Frogs born with eyes all around their bodies happened as sudden change. They were also born with several legs. Such wasn't by any means favorable. It wasn't a slight accumulation, neither successive thru thousands of years.

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/mystery-freaky-frogs

"In August 1995, schoolchildren found deformed frogs in a wetland near Henderson, Minnesota. Some frogs had extra legs, others no legs at all. Some had missing or extra eyes, toes, or feet. And some also had problems with their internal organs. By the fall of 1996, there were over 200 reports of freakish frogs, from two-thirds of Minnesota's counties. Deformed frogs have since been found in 44 states."

As you have said above, the theory of evolution doesn't imply any arrow in the changes, and this is because "evolution" on the theory is now a technical term applied in Biology only.

How much arrow there is, generally comes down to the selective pressure. where, for example, food is abundant and predation rare, there's not much of an arrow. When food becomes rarer or predation more extreme there is a powerful arrow towards fitting an environment. If the conditions change the selective pressure changes.

What selective pressure?

In this case, I'd imagine that there was a chemical released that damaged either the genetic code or the developing creatures. The selective pressure here is simple, such creatures would simply have died, failed to breed and rapidly been eliminated from th4e gene pool - unless there was a selective advantage and then the differences would have survived to breed again. Easy.

The losing of male gene chromosomes Y is "selective pressure"? How?

Well, if it makes it impossible to breed, then the genes of the unfortunate creatures that lost what you call 'male gene chromosomes' (Seriously, if you knew what a chromosome or a gene was,you really wouldn't say things like this) would simply eliminate themselves from the gene pool. It's that simple.

Explain.

Any changes that reduce fitness tend to be eliminated as the berers of them tend not to survive to reproduce. The end.

However, at the end of the day, there is an arrow. The changes in species finally show a specific arrow.

Speciation certainly happens, but it's usually about fitting particular environments - that's the selective pressure.

If you read your reply, you can definitively say that you know a lot about the theory of evolution, but unfortunately you know nothing about biology and reality.

You'd be surprised.

The horse loses digits in the extremities, loses a tooth in females, loses its capability of assimilation to solely a 25% compared with the cow at 75%, and you call that "speciation"?

Nope, I call the inability to breed successfully the defining feature of speciation.

Great, so a disease or chemical causes man to lose fingers and have atrophied extremities, and the environment is mostly dry and sand storms start to cover fertile areas, man can only crawl looking for food and water.

Your conclusion: Man passed to a new phase of speciation, adapting his body to the new environment which won't require legs but man is more fit when he crawl over the sand.

I certainly didn't say that, you said that. It has nothing to do with what I have said. I'm consistently saying that evolution is the process by which creatures achieve a better fit for the local environment they find themselves in. That's it.
YOu might not like it, but that's not my problem.

Oh my... oh my... no doubt that wisdom is missing in the theory of evolution and its supporters.

I don't want to be rude, but you have just put a bunch of words in my mouth that have sod all to do with what I have said and now you are being rude to me on the basis of what you, not I wrote. How seriously do you want to damage your credibility?

So, having cells never dying and reproducing like crazy is for you "evolution", after all, the cells are experiencing a "favorable" change, which is not dying. Then, to every person with cancer you can state that such a person is passing to a new state in evolution. right?

I certainly didn't say that, you are saying that. Quite why is unclear to me.

This is how and why the theory of evolution can't be taken seriously.

Why? because you say a bunch of stuff I didn't say and then respond to it? tht just looks odd. Sorry.

At one point, a person asked to evolutionists their "prediction" in base of their theory, of how man will be in the future.

When? where? who was asking and who was answering? You can't just make this sort of thing up.

Yes, the question was fair, because evolutionists claim that they can predict in base of their theory.

Well, I think I'm qualified to talk about evolution and I guess that makes me an evolutionist (to use your term) and I'd never say that. Until you know the environment that a creature might find itself in in the future, there's not much you can say because evolution is only about fitting the local environment. That's all

The answers given were avoiding the question, no answer at all or lots of incoherent ideas.

I'll ask again, who was asking and who was answering. Can you give a reference to this event? Because anyone can make up anything - and I rather think someone just did.

So, you seem to have a great understanding of evolution, I will ask you the same question

Lucky me.

You can ignore the fact of losing chromosome Y, so lets play you don't know about it.

I made my position on it quite clear earlier. It's there for you to read.

Based on your appearance of man from an ape alike creature, how man will be in the next million years?

I'll say it again, evolution is only about a creature slowly fitting the environment they find themselves in. You are claiming it's a way of predicting the distant future. That's just nonsense.

You have DNA, you have five to six "human fossils", yes, you have a great "accumulation of evidence", so, please, apply your knowledge based on your theory and give us a rough scenario of man in the future.

I'll say it again: all I can say is that evolution will ensure that whatever evolves is a good fit for the environment. If some humans end up living on the moon and others under the sea, you'll eventually end up with two very different creatures as they will evolve to fit the environement they find themselves in. That's it.

My position is, based on the losing of chromosome Y and in base of the trend of degeneration, that the human body will lose more strength, this is to say, will be weaker, will need of more artificial means to survive, and will lose more characteristics, making humans more exposed to greater diseases, and more deformities. which will be fixed according to the new decaying steps -as today with dental braces, wigs, prescribed glasses, new advanced medicine and surgery, etc- .

And here it's clear that you simply don't understand evolution. If you had two children then it would be the one that was better fitted to the environment that would be likely to survive and breed. It's that simple.

The ball in in your court.

Actually, I have responded to everything you wrote.

Now I have a really simple challenge for you:

Here's my personal definition of evolution:

Cumulative genetic change that increases a population's adaption and diversity within an environment.

Here's my take on two of the key processes of natural selection:


Selection

Non random elimination of less well adapted individuals (and their unique genetic mix) within a population.

Drift

Random elimination of less well adapted individuals (and their unique genetic mix) within a population.

If you quite deliberately separate out the three things, evolution, selection and drift, it becomes so much easier to think about them clearly.

So to put it another way:

For evolution to happen you need to have

1) traits that are heritable, varied and confer differential fitness

2) non random elimination of those traits

Random drift tends to increase variation and selection tends to eliminate those traits that are less fit.

That's actually my position. I'll be clear, while the basics are the same as Darwin, most of the details have been filled in to make it a far tidier variation on the basic idea. So now what I'd like you to do is explain how precisely this theory is faulty - don't pretend to quote people you haven't read, because I have, and don't tell just so stories because I'm not ten. Actually read what I have posted and explain what is wrong with it.

 

[George S]

My position is, based on the losing of chromosome Y and in base of the trend of degeneration, that the human body will lose more strength, this is to say, will be weaker, will need of more artificial means to survive, and will lose more characteristics, making humans more exposed to greater diseases, and more deformities. which will be fixed according to the new decaying steps -as today with dental braces, wigs, prescribed glasses, new advanced medicine and surgery, etc- .

Nature, red of tooth and claw, is not our style these days. There are no wolves between here and grandma's house today. The dangers we face in cities today are other people, not wild animals. If we, in general, become less fit to survive in the wild, so what? When populations are close together a new disease can spread more easily than in the country. This is natural selection at work.

A given cell, organ, organism, tribe, gene pool, or species can only die sooner or die later. Before reproducing or after. Mother Nature nurtures Her children and then kills them all.

A chemical replicator creates a copy of itself. Some replicators require a specific chemical environment to work. Not all replicators replicate with the same fecundity.

A replicator that does not replicate is not a replicator. It is a failed replicator. Replicators create copies. Replicators which evolve generate imperfect copies. The crossing over of meiosis deliberately generates imperfect copies from two sets of genes.

A cell is a collection of DNA replicators which carry around an environment in which to replicate. A virus is a DNA replicator which finds a suitable environment in a cell. Over time the survivors in any given population of genes have been good company with the rest of the gene pool -- even those that are not in this given body but could have been.

 

[humbleman]

You are on record uncritically assuming that what is said in the Bible is true. Here:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10237-Define-God-Thread&p=489975#post489975

When I went to a party to celebrate Dallas victory I didn't dress Redskins shirt. When one participates in a religious forum you just participate giving opinions.

In your prejudice you catalogued me as a Christian, not as Jewish, and both of them believe and worship the same god, in different ways but the same god. I won't care at all about what you think about me about beliefs, I know I don't belong to any religious denomination, but it is interesting observing the kind of prejudice deduced from defenders of the theory of evolution as a way of defense.

Actually, this one I'm reasonably familiar with. Obviously you haven't given a page number, and Kant writes a lot, but from memory, the closest you will get is on page 184 when Kant talks about technical dispositions and compares man walking on two feet to certain primates walking on four. He certainly doesn't claim the two are related. if you want to claim he does, then give a page number or lose any credibility...


...I'm less familiar with this one, but again, there's no page number and from one I did know, I can see you are grasping at straws that don't exist...

...Yeah, no page number, not even a bloody book, how do you expect to be taken seriously. References or no credibility...

...Now we are not even bothering with a philosopher let alone a book or a page number. Can you be any more vague?

Long ago, in a discussion about the radiometric method, a guy posted the ages of several organic material using the Carbon 14 method. Of course, like many in the discussions, he posted what he found somewhere else. I asked him who made the measurements, and he mentioned Libby.(the inventor of Carbon 14 measurement method)

Between the discussion was the age of earth, the age of life on earth, the age of petroleum, and so forth.

Why asking him "pages numbers?" A good researcher and a good debater will assimilate the source, and work from it looking at the extensive material at front. In this case, the target was Mr,. Libby.

In order to challenge the other poster, it was necessary to use the same person, the same method, and finally I found in the magazine Science, in an old article (when Mr Libby was alive) the measurement of the Hydrocarbon collected from the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico. It was a great idea, because the age of the hydrocarbon from that place, according to the Carbon 14 method of measurement, was 11,800 to 14,600 +- 1400 years of tolerance.

I found a very good argument to be posted in that discussion.

Hope you understand what I'm telling you.

This is not about "give me give me" but about receiving information and if the other side decides to give more details, then fine, otherwise you must look for yourself about more details IF YOU ARE REALLY INTERESTED.

You must recognize that if I mention something, I have been making my homework, and when is about topics which are not easy to find, or as in many cases happen, books out of print, older documents, and so forth, even if you receive the information in order for you to verify it you might have to work the same as your opponent did.

I will make a few exceptions because there was a little error in my former statement, so in order to correct it I will start first with the quote of Kant.

"da ein Orang-Utang oder ein Schimpanse die Organe, die zum Gehen, zum Befühlen der Gegenstände und zum Sprechen dienen, sich zum Gliederbau eines Menschen ausbildete, deren Innerstes ein Organ für den Gebrauch des Verstandes enthielte und durch gesellschaftliche Kultur sich allmählich entwickelte"”

OK, you don't understand a single sh*t of Kant's words... no problem

"An Orangutang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking - in short, that he may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason."

Now, you ask for the page number... do you know what? you ask too much.

It is online. And the book introducing Kant (which is a different book of course) even says the page number plus the ISBN of the book! You can buy anyone of them and read it. It is online. My original source is a book, but you can find it online.

About Mr. Arthur Schopenhauer. His words are also online, and you can find him on Scribd, See? I didn't make up the words of Schopenhauer, he said the words in his book.... again, do your work. I will write his words the way they are. You can verify them on Scribd, for this book you won't need to subscribe in order to read it. Schopenhauer attacks religion like crazy, the whole book is worthy to read, atheists and skeptical will enjoy Schopenhauer, but religious guys will laugh of Schopenhauer's ideas about men and chimpanzees. By the way, Schopenhauer mentions with great admiration to Kant in this book of his.

" But what can you expect from the masses, when there are men of education, zoologists even, who,instead of admitting what is so familiar to them, the essential identity of man and animal, are bigoted and stupid enough to offer a zealous opposition to their honest and rational colleagues, when they class man under the proper head as an animal, or demonstrate the resemblance between him and the chimpanzee or ourangutan. "

Ah! of course, you were claiming for the Greek legend of man as descendant of fish

Do you know what?

You are lucky! I thought that the references I gave you were found in books only, and that the internet has not much of information from old books, but, you are lucky. It is online.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anaximander

Anaximander held an evolutionary view of living things. The first creatures originated from the moist element by evaporation. Man originated from some other kind of animal, such as fish, since man needs a long period of nurture and could not have survived if he had always been what he is now. Anaximander also discussed the causes of meteorological phenomena, such as wind, rain, and lightning.

Is that meant to be a quoite, becaus enothing comes up on Google - again book and page number please, because as direct quotation it looks like you just ade it up.

No, it doesn't come from Google because I never use that search engine. I use duckduckgo.com

Here you are not so lucky. The conversation between Geoffroy and Cuvier was in the Jardin... Yes, I thought it was the backyard of a bar in Paris but is the historical Jardin, with capital "J".

https://en.parisinfo.com/paris-museum-monument/71304/Jardin-des-Tuileries

The dialogue is long, One believing in catastrophes eliminating species and creating new ones, the another one argument that inferior species came first and evolved into more complex ones. This is in accord of the definition of the word "evolution" in those times which was a common definition for everything developing around.

So, no page number because are notes written from the dialogue, researchers use the notes and might write the location by documents names only, and it is possible someone made a book from those dialogues alone or in the biography of any one of those men. Who knows.

The dialogue is taken by me from a book which won't mention the original source with proper identification, because the book is so old that bibliography was not mandatory. However, at the beginning of the book, there are lots of people with notable credentials who reviewed the writings, and collaborated with the author of the book. The author is a writer, not a scientists. His works describe lots of topics, which even when they are scientific, in those years references as deluge and other biblical events had influence in the writings in general. It was a different era, different years. Like when you watch movies from the 50's.

I might write the whole dialogue in order to have a better understanding of what was the environment surrounding Charles Darwin when he wrote his book. I think I have also a reference from those years where it says that apes come from men. I must go to the attic for this purpose and now is very cold in this area.

The main statement stands.

Darwin inherited the common understanding of the philosophy of those years which was that man was a descendant of apes. No wonder the memes made about him when his book came out, where a chimpanzee appears with the face of Darwin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caric...s_evolutionary_theory_in_19th-century_England

We all grow up in a lot of thoughts and cherrypicking (or making up) a bunmch doesn't mean that Darwin was influenced by them.

Yes, Darwin loved his monkey toy, he called him grandpa!

Darwin can't escape the influence of the philosophy of evolution of those years, he was very cautious in avoiding the straight mention of it, but his attempts are clear, he thought that species "evolve" with the meaning of this word as it was in those years: change from inferior to superior, from worst to better, from simpler to more complex.

Really? I thought natural selection was a process by which the less fit tended not to survive to breed while the more fit did. The notion of things being 'favourable' is putting the cart before the horse. I really would recommend that you get clear about the processes underpinning evolution before making claims like this.

RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION

As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps.

Charles Darwin.

It can't be more clear.

No, it really can't. You misrepresented Darwin. Compare:

"natural selection" acts solely with slow and favorable steps

natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations

I assume you can see the difference between acting and accumulating? The process of accumulation is the process of surviving in an environment. Natural selection doesn't act, it's the outcome not the agent.

At the end of the day both expressions say the same. your semantic issue is laughable.

Darwin called them variations, he ignored about genetics.

Darwin was simply unaware of a genotype. Mutations take place in the genotype, Darwin was only aware of variations of phenotype. You literally couldn't be more wrong.

He ignored about mutations. Everybody have accepted that already, you seem to be an exception.

At one point. in the 70's, when the New-Darwinian theory of Evolution replaced the former one, the whole structure was changed and only the main title and subtitles were saved. The failed theory was told it was "updated", but failed theories can't be updated, failed theories are just discarded.

Of course they can: failed theories are either reduced or eliminated. Reduction involves making connections between the ontology, methodology and attitudes of the old theory and the new. Elimination is self explanatory. That said, what exactly do you mean? I'm pretty sure that the central mechanisms of evolution remains unchanged since Darwin. Perhaps you can explain the change you describe.

You are talking of TWO different theories as well.

No I'm defending one massive overarching theory that involves the unification of a phenotypiclka and a genotypoical process, Actually it's more complicated than that, but what's the point.

You guys with the names you invent in your theory are a good show. To a simple birth defect evolutionists call it "millions of years of evolutionary pressure". Lol.

He was wrong. Period.

You know, when attacking what is probably the most agreed upon theory in all of science, you really need to produce better arguments and evidence than that.

I'm doing it here: the fact called "degeneration".

Darwin claimed that natural selection is about favorable steps. The "variations" (mutations) must be favorable. Mutations are steps of variation in species, as general understanding.

Nope, he claimed it's about the accumulating of slight, successive, favorable variations. It's a fundamental difference

With that argument of yours one and more times, it appears that you are trying to sell me tires...

How much arrow there is, generally comes down to the selective pressure. where, for example, food is abundant and predation rare, there's not much of an arrow. When food becomes rarer or predation more extreme there is a powerful arrow towards fitting an environment. If the conditions change the selective pressure changes....

...In this case, I'd imagine that there was a chemical released that damaged either the genetic code or the developing creatures. The selective pressure here is simple, such creatures would simply have died, failed to breed and rapidly been eliminated from the gene pool - unless there was a selective advantage and then the differences would have survived to breed again. Easy.

It is "simple" Wow, lets see what the expert says.

"such creatures would simply have died, failed to breed and rapidly been eliminated from the gene pool - unless there was a selective advantage and then the differences would have survived to breed again. Easy."

Enough! I'm am astonished with such an explanation clearing up the whole process of "selective pressure".

I must admit that such explanation was indeed "easy".

It reminds me how easy was for medieval fathers to explain scientific things to their children. One day the boy asked his father: "Dad, why the grass is green?. The father looked at him and slapped hard the boy's face. Easy.

Very well, if you don't mind, I would like to read at least the mechanism, how it comes such a selective pressure, when you mention "selective" means something or somebody is choosing what will be the change.

Will you expand your idea?

The losing of male gene chromosomes Y is "selective pressure"? How?

Well, if it makes it impossible to breed, then the genes of the unfortunate creatures that lost what you call 'male gene chromosomes' (Seriously, if you knew what a chromosome or a gene was,you really wouldn't say things like this) would simply eliminate themselves from the gene pool. It's that simple.

Oh, I see. But it happens that is a problem with the whole humans. Are you saying that "selective pressure" is taking humans out of the game and choosing other species to survive? Did you check with other species if they are suffering the same symptoms? In case is yes, then your selective pressure is malfunctioning?

Great, so a disease or chemical causes man to lose fingers and have atrophied extremities, and the environment is mostly dry and sand storms start to cover fertile areas, man can only crawl looking for food and water.

Your conclusion: Man passed to a new phase of speciation, adapting his body to the new environment which won't require legs but man is more fit when he crawl over the sand.

I certainly didn't say that, you said that. It has nothing to do with what I have said. I'm consistently saying that evolution is the process by which creatures achieve a better fit for the local environment they find themselves in. That's it.

But, having man without extremities and crawling over the surface doesn't sound to be "a better fit", on the contrary, it sounds bad luck. It sounds degeneration and desperate survival. Crawling is not a better fit for moving over sand. Your theory is completely wrong.

Based on your appearance of man from an ape alike creature, how man will be in the next million years?

I'll say it again, evolution is only about a creature slowly fitting the environment they find themselves in. You are claiming it's a way of predicting the distant future. That's just nonsense.

Wait a minute. The environment in the past has not been uniform, for this reason you see different kind of species and different kind of classes, etc. From such a different worldwide environment you say -as evolutionist- you have obtained the "models" of the ancient man, and from them you explain the changes. Tell me, is't the environment today similar or completely different that the environment of the first men?

And, you say that thru millions of years men from different parts of the world has changed up to what men are now.

Great, so keep with the arrow: same environment, how man will be a million years from now?

My position is, based on the losing of chromosome Y and in base of the trend of degeneration, that the human body will lose more strength, this is to say, will be weaker, will need of more artificial means to survive, and will lose more characteristics, making humans more exposed to greater diseases, and more deformities. which will be fixed according to the new decaying steps -as today with dental braces, wigs, prescribed glasses, new advanced medicine and surgery, etc- .

And here it's clear that you simply don't understand evolution. If you had two children then it would be the one that was better fitted to the environment that would be likely to survive and breed. It's that simple.

The situation here is that I'm not talking about "ifs" but about current humanity depending of braces to alienate their teeth, prescribed glasses, wigs, surgeries by lots, and not only cosmetic but necessary surgeries for survival, additives in life like vitamins and medicines.

Show me an example of yours without "ifs".

Hope you bring your prediction of humans a million years from now.

 

[humbleman]

Nature, red of tooth and claw, is not our style these days. There are no wolves between here and grandma's house today. The dangers we face in cities today are other people, not wild animals. If we, in general, become less fit to survive in the wild, so what? When populations are close together a new disease can spread more easily than in the country. This is natural selection at work.

A given cell, organ, organism, tribe, gene pool, or species can only die sooner or die later. Before reproducing or after. Mother Nature nurtures Her children and then kills them all.

A chemical replicator creates a copy of itself. Some replicators require a specific chemical environment to work. Not all replicators replicate with the same fecundity.

A replicator that does not replicate is not a replicator. It is a failed replicator. Replicators create copies. Replicators which evolve generate imperfect copies. The crossing over of meiosis deliberately generates imperfect copies from two sets of genes.

A cell is a collection of DNA replicators which carry around an environment in which to replicate. A virus is a DNA replicator which finds a suitable environment in a cell. Over time the survivors in any given population of genes have been good company with the rest of the gene pool -- even those that are not in this given body but could have been.

From your thoughts, men living in the country suffering an epidemic where the disease can't spread too easy but it does anyway, while people in the city suffer of faster spread of the disease because proximity between peoples one with the another, this sounds more a case of location of people by numbers than a case of a phenomenon called natural selection.

No matter where are you located, the disease will catch up with you. The black Death as an example.

When you say as the rule "replicators which evolve generate imperfect copies. The crossing over of meiosis deliberately generates imperfect copies from two sets of genes", such is degeneration.

 

[Hermit]

I will start first with the quote of Kant.

"da ein Orang-Utang oder ein Schimpanse die Organe, die zum Gehen, zum Befühlen der Gegenstände und zum Sprechen dienen, sich zum Gliederbau eines Menschen ausbildete, deren Innerstes ein Organ für den Gebrauch des Verstandes enthielte und durch gesellschaftliche Kultur sich allmählich entwickelte"”

OK, you don't understand a single sh*t of Kant's words... no problem

"An Orangutang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking - in short, that he may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason."

Now, you ask for the page number... do you know what? you ask too much.

You got that totally wrong. Filling in some bits you left out should make that obvious:

Das Geschrei, welches ein kaum gebornes Kind hören läßt, hat nicht den Ton des Jammerns, sondern der Entrüstung und aufgebrachten Zorns an sich; nicht weil ihm was schmerzt, sondern weil ihm etwas verdrießt; vermuthlich darum, weil es sich bewegen will und sein Unvermögen dazu gleich als eine Fesselung fühlt, wodurch ihm die Freiheit genommen wird. - Was mag doch die Natur hiemit für eine Absicht haben, daß sie das Kind mit lautem Geschrei auf die Welt kommen läßt, welches doch für dasselbe und die Mutter im rohen Naturzustande von äußerster Gefahr ist? Denn ein Wolf, ein Schwein sogar würde ja dadurch angelockt, in Abwesenheit oder bei der Entkräftung derselben durch die Niederkunft es zu fressen. Kein Thier aber außer dem Menschen (wie er jetzt ist) wird beim Geboren werden seine Existenz laut ankündigen; welches von der Weisheit der Natur so angeordnet zu sein scheint, um die Art zu erhalten. Man muß also annehmen: daß in der frühen Epoche der Natur in Ansehung dieser Thierklasse (nämlich des Zeitlaufs der Rohigkeit) dieses Lautwerden des Kindes bei seiner Geburt noch nicht war; mithin nur späterhin eine zweite Epoche, wie beide Ältern schon zu derjenigen Cultur, die zum häuslichen Leben nothwendig ist, gelangt waren, eingetreten ist; ohne daß wir wissen: wie die Natur und durch welche mitwirkende Ursachen sie eine solche Entwickelung veranstaltete. Diese Bemerkung führt weit, z. B. auf den Gedanken: ob nicht auf dieselbe zweite Epoche bei großen Naturrevolutionen noch eine dritte folgen dürfte; da ein Orang-Utang oder ein Schimpanse die Organe, die zum Gehen, zum Befühlen der Gegenstände und zum Sprechen dienen, sich zum Gliederbau eines Menschen ausbildete, deren Innerstes ein Organ für den Gebrauch des Verstandes enthielte und durch gesellschaftliche Cultur sich allmählig entwickelte. (Linkiepoo)

Now for the translation:

The cry of a newborn child is not the sound of distress but rather of indignation and furious anger; not because something hurts him, but because something annoys him; presumably because he wants to move and his inability to do so feels like a fetter through which his freedom is taken away from him. What could nature's intention be here in letting the child come into the world with loud cries which, in the crude state of nature, are extremely dangerous to himself and his mother? For a wolf or even a pig would would thereby be lured to eat the child, if the mother is absent or exhausted from childbirth. However, no animal except the human being (as he is now) will loudly announce his existence at the moment of birth; which seems to arranged by the wisdom of nature in order to preserve the species. One must therefore assume that in the first epoch of nature with respect to this class of animals (namely in the time of crudity), this crying of the child at birth did not yet exist; and then only later a second epoch set in, when both parents had already reached the culture necessary for domestic life; without our knowledge how, or through what contributing causes, nature brought about such a development. This remark leads us far - for example to the thought if upon major upheavals in nature might be followed by a third, when an orang-utan or a chimpanzee developed the organs used for walking, handling objects, and speaking into the structure of a human being, whose innermost part contained an organ for the use of the understanding and which developed gradually through social culture.

So much for

Kant even wrote that we are descendants of orangutans and chimpanzees

 

[none]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/03/technology/nissan-brainwave-driving/index.html

Nissan working on mind-reading cars
...

 

[humbleman]

You got that totally wrong. Filling in some bits you left out should make that obvious:



Now for the translation:

The cry of a newborn child is not the sound of distress but rather of indignation and furious anger; not because something hurts him, but because something annoys him; presumably because he wants to move and his inability to do so feels like a fetter through which his freedom is taken away from him. What could nature's intention be here in letting the child come into the world with loud cries which, in the crude state of nature, are extremely dangerous to himself and his mother? For a wolf or even a pig would would thereby be lured to eat the child, if the mother is absent or exhausted from childbirth. However, no animal except the human being (as he is now) will loudly announce his existence at the moment of birth; which seems to arranged by the wisdom of nature in order to preserve the species. One must therefore assume that in the first epoch of nature with respect to this class of animals (namely in the time of crudity), this crying of the child at birth did not yet exist; and then only later a second epoch set in, when both parents had already reached the culture necessary for domestic life; without our knowledge how, or through what contributing causes, nature brought about such a development. This remark leads us far - for example to the thought if upon major upheavals in nature might be followed by a third, when an orang-utan or a chimpanzee developed the organs used for walking, handling objects, and speaking into the structure of a human being, whose innermost part contained an organ for the use of the understanding and which developed gradually through social culture.

"If major upheavals in nature might be followed by a third."

No human baby crying until a development of an inferior species into humans.

The thought can be also interpreted having the upheaval as the vehicle when there is change of the orangutan and chimpanzee into human.

After if, when you want to express the effect, you write then, like, if upheavals then monkey to human.

But, you read after if, having the conditioning of it to a third upheaval when the orangutan developed the organs used for walking, etc...into the structure of a human being.

The conditioning is directed obviously as part of the thought, in those years it was a thought, not a theory.

When you read Kant, you will find in Anthropology the appearance of races, which also portrait inferior and superior, giving superiority to whites and inferiority to blacks.

And, amazingly, Kant said the white race came first and the black race a deterioration of the white race.

In this case, about races, Kant do not connect such inferiority of the black race with "upheaval" but to environment.

On the other hand, Kant's thoughts were later used by Schopenhauer, who gave them more emphasis.

The writings of Kant and Schopenhauer reached the hands of Darwin in one way or another. Darwin didn't create his theory from zero. In those years, there was no TV and other ways but books and teaching in schools. Darwin choice was to study nature, and the thoughts of thinkers like Kant were used for this purpose. These are times when philosophy and science still were married and living together.

As another example how Kant inherited the thoughts of Kant and others, we can check with medicine. Medicine schools used Aristotle in their readings with great admiration up to the 50's, but after the 60's Aristotle's ideas only caused smiles to students. New and way more advanced knowledge in medicine caused to forget about this thinker. However, his influence lasted for many centuries.

http://suneeldhand.com/2012/07/06/aristotles-overlooked-contribution-to-medicine/

Yes, Kant thought that humans are evolved orangutans and chimpanzees.

And Kant's thoughts are the first days in the genesis book narrating the creation of the theory of evolution.

We can't deny it, we must be conscious of such a theoretical beginning.

 

[humbleman]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/03/technology/nissan-brainwave-driving/index.html

Nissan working on mind-reading cars
...

I wonder what the car will do if your brain send signals that you want to have sex with the passenger sitting on your side.