Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

@ScuzzaMan@asomd2021@voxday I attached the paper that’s the most recent explanation of the history of the evolution of the underlying argument (which remains true), despite the imprecision of the evidence the general theory is simply true. (as evidenced by the attached images).

I can explain (because I know, the process of development from a fertilized cell to an adult animal. Becauese it’s actually pretty simple beginning with the neural tube formation. There are plenty of scientists who can. What we didn’t understand was the importance of regulatory chemitry upon the dna strands, vs the number of sequences we can identify. This means the dna is responding to chemical composition in either cooperative or competitive form supplying and depriving the growth process.

For example the primary axis of variation in human evolution turns out to be relatively simple – neotenic evolution or paedomorphism – but just as we have found with intelligence, the number of genes affecting that growth combined with regulatory differences and biochemical composition at the moment result in far more complexity of development than we originally imagined.

This lack of a recipe for humans, and instead, a spectrum of variation within which we remain recognizable as and behaviorally within the category we call human and still surivive as a living creature, provides our genetics with an large surface area of computational possibility for the discovery of superior mutations from those mutations that at first may have been random or even deleteirious.

The most awsome mutation was clearly the one that vastly increased our neurlogical capacity. However since neurology is eleven times as costly as muscle mass, we have to sacrifiece energy consumption from digestion and instead increase energy conversion at lower cost (from fruits to meats to cooked meats).

Evolution is fascinating, and relatively simple. The hard part for us to understand was the development of a carbon based proto-bio mass that captured elctrons by a chemical difference the way batteries do today.

The only really surprising outcome and the one that led to complex life because it allowed scaling energy without scaling genetic mass was the consumption of one single cell by another resulting in the separation of respiration by mitochondria from the nucleus of the cell and its production of protiens. This allows mitochondria to specialze, and increase in number without the need to increase and duplicate nuclear dna.

But with the advent of sexual reproduction life could vastly increase reproduction and create an extraordinary new pottential for specializtion in new evolutionary computation as great as the difference between positive and negative charges had been in the pre-biological world.

This is still why the major difference between humans is the sex axis of development. Because it is the primary axis of maximization of evolutionary computation.

@WhitesAdvocate@voxday Very smart people are smart enough to know they shouldn’t argue with me. They learn from a few interactions then evade all contact and discussion. It’s only stupid and intellectually dishonest people who keep arguing with me despite my rather detailed exposition of their dishonesty and deception. But that’s to be expected. Because as we move down the IQ curve we rapidly increase the inability to infer and deduce causal relations, and enter into the realm of random free association as a subsitute for causal relations. And worse, the pretense of knowledge that is required for those who rely on autoassociation instead of causal relation.

@impenitent@Weber_Kettle Very Well Done. Excellent and proper response!

@Autisticone1@voxday (Necessity drives investment.. Now, wait till some idiot, including vox, tries to demonstrate that they understand the math… or the research for that matter. )

@voxday VOX: You aren’t intellectually capable of making that statement, and for those of us who are, it’s one of the dumbest possible statements one could make.

So quite the contrary, evolution is mathematically deterministic because the first principle of the universe is equivalent to the term ‘evolve’.

In fact, the interesting thing about life on earth is that it occurred so quickly in the history of the universe, since it takes so much time to evolve the elements necessary, by generations of stars’ life cycles. And extinction events caused rapid evolution by creating punctuated equilibriums. One of which is ‘humans’ over the past three million years.

No more of your lies.

Boost of @curtd@voxday VOX: You aren’t intellectually capable of making that statement, and for those of us who are, it’s one of the dumbest possible statements one could make.

So quite the contrary, evolution is mathematically deterministic because the first principle of the universe is equivalent to the term ‘evolve’.

In fact, the interesting thing about life on earth is that it occurred so quickly in the history of the universe, since it takes so much time to evolve the elements necessary, by generations of stars’ life cycles. And extinction events caused rapid evolution by creating punctuated equilibriums. One of which is ‘humans’ over the past three million years.

No more of your lies.