By taking a consensus of the various pitches at which the word "Evolution" is used, I could do what?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Revisit that post.

I repeat: my reply is still the same.
You argue from a point of ignorance, and you seem to revel in it. You revel in your refusal to learn that which you argue against.
That's not a good attitude.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I repeat: my reply is still the same.
You argue from a point of ignorance, and you seem to revel in it. You revel in your refusal to learn that which you argue against.
That's not a good attitude.

Why engage in an exercise of futility?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why engage in an exercise of futility?

Yeah, why do I talk to you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah, why do I talk to you?

Good question.

 

[Gottservant]

Wait, wait, wait - before this thread gets derailed, I am interested.

Somehow, turning a bed lamp is a change that is not an "Evolution", but the instinct to utilize the lamp for survival is Evolution - because more that use artificial light survive than those that don't...

I think this is interesting; as I said "there is a selection pressure for Evolutionists to make Evolution interesting" (because the ones that can't make it interesting are forgotten) - somehow instinct develops about which is a valid way to determine "Evolution" (as here, is the instinct as to how to say Evolution - which would be, if it survived, a more popular way of saying it, depending on how interesting it was made).

I think you are on the verge of making sense, that choices about instinct made over a lifetime, influence the epigenome of a given species, never to abandon their kind, but to make more of it (that kind); it's sort of a way of saying "learning is not uniformly universal".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Wait, wait, wait - before this thread gets derailed, I am interested.

Somehow, turning a bed lamp is a change that is not an "Evolution", but the instinct to utilize the lamp for survival is Evolution - because more that use artificial light survive than those that don't...

I think this is interesting; as I said "there is a selection pressure for Evolutionists to make Evolution interesting" (because the ones that can't make it interesting are forgotten) - somehow instinct develops about which is a valid way to determine "Evolution" (as here, is the instinct as to how to say Evolution - which would be, if it survived, a more popular way of saying it, depending on how interesting it was made).

I think you are on the verge of making sense, that choices about instinct made over a lifetime, influence the epigenome of a given species, never to abandon their kind, but to make more of it (that kind); it's sort of a way of saying "learning is not uniformly universal".

... you're still not making any sense. Utilizing a modern lamp is not a thing for survival or evolution. It's just a commodity we do in the modern period.

 

[Tom 1]

Hi there,

So this is simple: words can be repeated in different pitches - correct?

If I took a sample of the pitches used to pronounce the word "Evolution" - I could work out a consensus about which species and where, was most likely to be believed "evolved"?

Further, I could take a survey over time as to who was evolved and I could determine who is most likely to understand a certain pitch being evolved??

This is a scientifically verifiable proposition, is it not?

Thoughts?

Do you mean:

1) The different range of pitches used would indicate something about the level of evolution of the person speaking?
2) The range of pitches would relate to what people believe about evolution in general/about the evolution of particular species?


Also, what would your survey of 'who was evolved' include? What would the questions or criteria be?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Economists speak nonsense. It's a requirement in all their degree courses.

AHH now it makes sense.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes. Words can be spoken in different ways. They can be spoken quickly or slowly, high pitched or low pitched.

However, that does not alter the concepts that the words are used to describe. It doesn't matter howq a person says the word "evolution", it will still mean the same thing.

Unfortunately, words can be made to mean whatever one wishes them to mean if one gets enough people to support one or one can coerce any dissenters into submission. So , though you are correct that tonal variance is irrelevant in that process, the concept the word is meant to describe can be and often is altered to fit some social , economic or political goal. It may be that the word is given an additional meaning so that the concept, activity or thing may be normalized or demonized or it may be that the meaning is completely changed so that the original meaning no longer applies or is contradicted by the new meaning.

 

[driewerf]

Wait, wait, wait - before this thread gets derailed, I am interested.

Somehow, turning a bed lamp is a change that is not an "Evolution", but the instinct to utilize the lamp for survival is Evolution - because more that use artificial light survive than those that don't...

I think this is interesting; as I said "there is a selection pressure for Evolutionists to make Evolution interesting" (because the ones that can't make it interesting are forgotten) - somehow instinct develops about which is a valid way to determine "Evolution" (as here, is the instinct as to how to say Evolution - which would be, if it survived, a more popular way of saying it, depending on how interesting it was made).

I think you are on the verge of making sense, that choices about instinct made over a lifetime, influence the epigenome of a given species, never to abandon their kind, but to make more of it (that kind); it's sort of a way of saying "learning is not uniformly universal".

I have two lamps on my desk. Does this mean I am more evolved?
If a install a third lamp, will I evolve a third arm, to handle my third lamp?
Can we get grants to investigate this?

 

[Gottservant]

I just mean, typically when you say the end of a word with an upper pitch, it means you are questioning it.

So if a lot of people, were ending the word "Evolution" in a lower pitch, it would mean that more people (at least believed) they understood Evolution (enough not to question it).

So a lot of people believing in Evolution, would establish whether they were actually evolved, by creating measurable evidence between what they believed and what they did (how they sounded).

It's not a hard concept, its just about the saturation level of a particular belief.

 

[Tom 1]

I just mean, typically when you say the end of a word with an upper pitch, it means you are questioning it.

So if a lot of people, were ending the word "Evolution" in a lower pitch, it would mean that more people (at least believed) they understood Evolution (enough not to question it).

So a lot of people believing in Evolution, would establish whether they were actually evolved, by creating measurable evidence between what they believed and what they did (how they sounded).

It's not a hard concept, its just about the saturation level of a particular belief.

Ah ok, so you're asking if the intonation a person uses when saying the word 'evolution' might indicate whether or not they are really convinced by the ToE?

 

[Gottservant]

Ah ok, so you're asking if the intonation a person uses when saying the word 'evolution' might indicate whether or not they are really convinced by the ToE?

Yes, that, or conversely, whether being convinced, meant that they expressed Evolution more greatly...

 

[Radagast]

but the instinct to utilize the lamp for survival is Evolution

No, that's not evolution.

I'm beginning to think that you don't know what "evolution" means.

 

[Tom 1]

Yes, that, or conversely, whether being convinced, meant that they expressed Evolution more greatly...

Would be pretty difficult to investigate I reckon. Some kind of knowledge based approach would be more reliable, no?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I just mean, typically when you say the end of a word with an upper pitch, it means you are questioning it.

So if a lot of people, were ending the word "Evolution" in a lower pitch, it would mean that more people (at least believed) they understood Evolution (enough not to question it).

So a lot of people believing in Evolution, would establish whether they were actually evolved, by creating measurable evidence between what they believed and what they did (how they sounded).

It's not a hard concept, its just about the saturation level of a particular belief.

You really need to stop now.

Rising pitch as an indicator of a question is at the end of the sentence, not at 5he end of a word. Compare hoe you say these 2 sentences:
1. Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
2. Is evolution proved to have happened?

In the 2nd sentence evolution does not end with a rising tone.

Then you have to deal with regional accents and speech patterns. In New Zealand, non questioning sentences often end with a rising tone. Same for Norfolk & Suffolk in UK.

Please just accept thay your idea is unsupported. Move on, nothing to see here.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I just mean, typically when you say the end of a word with an upper pitch, it means you are questioning it.

So if a lot of people, were ending the word "Evolution" in a lower pitch, it would mean that more people (at least believed) they understood Evolution (enough not to question it).

So a lot of people believing in Evolution, would establish whether they were actually evolved, by creating measurable evidence between what they believed and what they did (how they sounded).

It's not a hard concept, its just about the saturation level of a particular belief.

You really need to stop now.

Rising pitch as an indicator of a question is at the end of the sentence, not at the end of a word. Compare how you say these 2 sentences:
1. Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
2. Is evolution proved to have happened?

In the 2nd sentence evolution does not end with a rising tone.

Then you have to deal with regional accents and speech patterns. In New Zealand, non questioning sentences often end with a rising tone. Same for Norfolk & Suffolk in UK.

Please just accept that your idea is unsupported. Move on, nothing to see here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I just mean, typically when you say the end of a word with an upper pitch, it means you are questioning it.

So if a lot of people, were ending the word "Evolution" in a lower pitch, it would mean that more people (at least believed) they understood Evolution (enough not to question it).

So a lot of people believing in Evolution, would establish whether they were actually evolved, by creating measurable evidence between what they believed and what they did (how they sounded).

It's not a hard concept, its just about the saturation level of a particular belief.

... you're reading far too much into your own thoughts. As bungle-bear pointed out, intonation comes at the end of a sentence not the end of a word.

 

[Kylie]

I just mean, typically when you say the end of a word with an upper pitch, it means you are questioning it.

So if a lot of people, were ending the word "Evolution" in a lower pitch, it would mean that more people (at least believed) they understood Evolution (enough not to question it).

Perhaps, but that doesn't change anything about the concept of evolution itself.

So a lot of people believing in Evolution, would establish whether they were actually evolved, by creating measurable evidence between what they believed and what they did (how they sounded).

No, a person does not need to believe in evolution in order to be the result of it.

 

[Gottservant]

You could compare sentences that ended in an up pitch - you are basically being quick to catch the argument, but missing the point.

If I took all the sentences related to Evolution, that resulted in a questioning tone of voice, I would know what was believed to be in contention with Evolution?

So for example, "Some people treat Evolution like a religion?" and "Mastering Evolution takes more than a word?" taken together would suggest that religion and words in general have the capacity (notice I am saying 'capacity' not "power") to be related to Evolution - through that question?

The point is, if Evolution is taken as a constant, the bearing of that constant, with things around it, informs the power of Evolution, as pertains to Evolution's response to them.

Like if I say "the weather is sunny?" and "the weather is windy?" I am able to visualize a sunny windy day, that stays relevant to the weather in general - by being related to each other?

Maybe what I am asking for is a perfect circle, or something - but I think its fair that Evolution not claim that the perfect circle does not exist, before the evidence is in...