Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

IOW, it's reciprocal mud slinging.

Well, largely yes. But if you'll read the post again I did say that "NOW" there are more people being killed in Darwin's name than for religion.

It's the here and now murdere that has immediacy even if it weren't about to accelerate again because more and more people believe in Darwin and KNOW there is no God.

That's certainly an interesting set of empty assertions. I'd ask to see some support, but I've been around this particular merry-go-around far too many times to have much interest.

I'm guessing that like all believers you're all talk. You don't debate or argue, you lecture and refer to 9th grade textbooks or wiki.

You support your argument and I'd be happy to do as few minutes research to support mine.

I'm trying to find input or argument but all I get are games and claims I've already lost.


Oh, and I'd remind you that if you want to try a discussion that even religious people often believe in Darwin and believers sometimes believe in religion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NO

Yes.

. AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY YOU'RE WRONG INSTEAD OF JUST GAINSAYING IT LIKE BELIEVERS DO.

It's because in each stratum the earliest and latest versions of fossils are usually almost identical. This COULD NOT be true if Evolution existed.

Another bare claim.
I'm not interested in you just "telling" us things. You do enough of that all day long.
I'm interested in what you can support with evidence.

Bare claims aren't evidence.

Meanwhile, look above. Just as I said: the older the fossil of the whale ancestor, the more to the front the nostrils are.
The younger they are, the more to the top of the head the nostrils are located.

Derp di derp derp.

No.

Yes.
If aging is gradual, then the older the pictures of the man, the more child-like his face will be.
The younger the pictures, the more middle-aged-man-like it will be.

Off course, we can't for obvious practical reasons show you a picture of his face of every second of his life, so that you can see the exact series of gradual change from second to second.

Just like we can't show you a fossil of every generation of whale ancestors from 50 million years ago till today.

Nor is it required. Like @Subduction Zone has told you several times already (yet it keeps falling on deaf ears): evidence are those things that support the thesis under review and / or which match the predictions of said thesis.

The fossil record perfectly matches the predictions and expectations of gradual change.
Just like Cruise's picture match the predictions and expectations of gradual aging.

You? You have yet to share a SINGLE thing you expect to see in the world under your very weird thesis. You have yet to mention a SINGLE testable prediction naturally flowing from your thesis.
We can't even BEGIN to talk about potential evidence for your bizar thesis until you share such expectations / predictions. You have yet to do so.

So far, all we got from you are bare assertions, like in this post which amounts to nothing more then:
"NO! ME RIGHT, YOU WRONG, PERIOD".

Even if people still lived for 986 years one generation does not constitute "gradual change". I have repeatedly defined "sudden" as three or more generations so you are creating strawmen and moving the goal posts.

Please provide a single example of something akin to a land walking mammal giving birth to a sea dwelling creature with flippers over the course of "3 or more generations" - which is equally ridiculous as 1 generation btw.

Now you can just say "nuh uh" like that's an actual argument.

I'm not saying "nuh uh", nor have I ever done so. In fact, I invest quite some time and energy in trying to build a case with evidence and references, specifically geared to NOT just saying "nuhuh" or making bare assertions, because I consider that to be very dishonest and actually rather insulting to the people I converse with.
Instead, I'm asking you to provide evidence and examples of your still bare assertions.

What expectations does your thesis have?
What are the testable predictions?
What data matches those expectations and predictions?


Now you can just repeat your bare assertion and pretend as if you saying so is all the evidence required.

 

[Jose Fly]

I did say that "NOW" there are more people being killed in Darwin's name than for religion.

Yes, you made that empty assertion.

The moon is made of cheese.

See? Anyone can go online and make empty assertions.

It's the here and now murdere that has immediacy even if it weren't about to accelerate again because more and more people believe in Darwin and KNOW there is no God.

I'm guessing that like all believers you're all talk. You don't debate or argue, you lecture and refer to 9th grade textbooks or wiki.

You support your argument and I'd be happy to do as few minutes research to support mine.

I'm trying to find input or argument but all I get are games and claims I've already lost.


Oh, and I'd remind you that if you want to try a discussion that even religious people often believe in Darwin and believers sometimes believe in religion.

I'm suddenly reminded of why I don't bother with your posts.

 

[gnostic]

Here is mathematical and scientific proof;

"I don't need to present evidence because all observation and experiment support the contention. It is your duty to yourself et al to show evidence, observation, or experiment to the contrary.

cladking, Yesterday at 3:47 PM"

"Great!!! Now all I have to do is prove I didn't spend 20,000,000 years in bed and that I did roll over and you'll see the errors of your way, eh?

cladking, Today at 8:09 AM"

I did not spend 20,000,000 years having my life change from awake to sleep and then awake again.

even though I slept and feel refreshed and my brain chemistry has changed as a direct result of this this is proof the change was not gradual.

Now you show something for which you have proof, evidence, logic, or experiment that ANYTHING to do with any living thing or any living rtype of thing did not change suddenly.


Like (almost) every other argument I won this one too, because believers have nothing but a belief in gradual change in species. All observed change in all life at all levels is sudden. there are simply NO exceptions.

Good grief.

A)

I didn’t ask for proof; I have continued to ask for evidence.

That’s not evidence of anything. But you did prove one thing to me: you are utterly clueless as to what constitute as observations, experiments and evidence.

I cannot believe just how lame your example is.

B)

All you doing is made a whole lot of conjectures about what you did in the last 24 hours, which have no evidence, and that have nothing to do with Evolution.

You are still not grasping that none of this example of yours don’t even relate to Natural Selection, since it has nothing to do with any physical changes to your dna, and you didn’t have any children after last night, and your children didn’t have of their own children after tomorrow night.

You have to show evidence BETWEEN ANCESTORS AND DESCENDANTS that “changes”, some physical changes have occurred that were passed on to descendants, “GENETICALLY”.

The changes don’t relate to what a single individual person did. Evolution focused on population, not a few individual persons.

Evolution isn’t about what you did or didn’t do in your life, like “you” -

• growing up, growing old,
• becoming short sighted,
• gaining weight at 55, or losing weight at 20,
• going bald,
• lose tooth at 7, losing another one at 12,
• getting married or staying single, having a daughter at 25, another at 29,
• going to work every weekdays for 12 years, losing your job at 40,
• sleeping with your best friend’s wife,
• going senile at 66,
• died at 72

I could go on with examples about your life and they have nothing to do with Evolution, as these are not changes that the Theory of Evolution talking about.

And you have no understanding what Natural Selection is, nor know what empirical evidence pertaining to Natural Selection.

Did you bloody hell forgotten the part of “GENETICS” and “DNA” playing roles with the CHANGES?

Did you forget the parts about ancestors and descendants also play role involving Evolution?

Did you after last night have children and children’s children, and so on, that exhibit the changes in your utterly absurd example.

This example of yours is one of the idiotic examples you have provided, that have neither logic (proof), nor evidence, nor show you have any understanding of biology in general or Natural Selection more specifically.

If you seriously think your example of sudden change vs gradual changes, you’d seriously need to go back at studying biology, because your example is absolute daft!

LOL

 

[gnostic]

It's nothing more than mud slinging. That's why whenever I see a creationist start talking about evolution, eugenics, and Hitler my first question is always "What exactly is your point".

he or she is a Muslim creationist.

“Creationists”, whether they be Christian creationists or Muslim creationists, they think alike: they use the same tactics and propaganda, use the same misinformation, misunderstand the same things about Evolution, and when they have no evidence they will shift the burden of proof on everyone else instead of supporting their claims.

Did you notice how LIIA use the same Social Darwinism and the Nazi Holocaust argument, trying to pin the blame on Darwin, as Christian creationists do, which have nothing to do with Natural Selection?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Simple, variables at play in nature follow rigid natural laws. Mutations are directed as explained numerous times.

See #781.
Darwin's Illusion

If #781 is very long to read, then see this short YouTube video.

If you don’t trust a short video and want to see the entire lecture, here it is. See 7:09 about non-random mutations.

The claim of randomness is with respect to being functionally relevant. The modern synthesis assumes random changes with respect to physiological function. See 6: 21, 6:57 of the lecture below

2013 Birmingham, UK, Professor Denis Noble delivers the IUPS President's Lecture.
Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology - YouTube

If you want the written version of the lecture, here is the link.
https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134



Yes, it’s definitely religiously inspired but not mandated. With respect to evolutionary biology, I don’t provide opinions or claims; these are not my claims as numerously substantiated.

Again, a tactic could be a means of deception but why would I need that? If I don’t see the legitimacy of my argument, why would I bother to argue in the first place? On my end, I see widespread misinformation that needs to be cleared up.

Mutations have not been demonstrated to be directed. What you are doing is declaring it as fact when it is not. You are twice wrong.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't need to sleep on this for 20,000,o00 years to see what's wrong here.

You have fallen for Darwin's beliefs and your belief in science. You believe so strongly that you are right because Peers say they are right that you now believe they are right until I prove them wrong.

Your belief that you are right by definition couldn't be more wrong or more illogical.



Great!!! Now all I have to do is prove I didn't spend 20,000,000 years in bed and that I did roll over and you'll see the errors of your way, eh?

You appear to be doing the same thing that you claim this hypothetical global conspiracy peer does. You are defining reality for us and telling us to accept it and not ask questions or point out flaws.

All you have to do is provide some kind of evidence to back up your claims. That is all there is to it. You seem completely unable to do this. Why are you making this so difficult?

 

[cladking]

You? You have yet to share a SINGLE thing you expect to see in the world under your very weird thesis. You have yet to mention a SINGLE testable prediction naturally flowing from your thesis.

Everything we see is exactly what we'd expect to see if I am right.

There's plenty of new experiments that can be run to show that like all change in life change in species is sudden as well.

I'm not saying "nuh uh", nor have I ever done so.

Well... ...you do a much better job of actually addressing an opposing argument than most believers. Yes, that is damning you with faint praise but most of the actual evidence and attempts that have been presented to counter my arguments have been by you or one other poster.

Most of the other "arguments" aren't really arguments at all but are gainsaying and word games.

 

[cladking]

Please provide a single example of something akin to a land walking mammal giving birth to a sea dwelling creature with flippers over the course of "3 or more generations"

Usually the child species bares significant resemblance to the parent species. It does not have to be so. Even when differences are extreme I believe there will usually be a strong superficial resemblance. This is a corollary of the idea that all individuals are fit and function follows form. If only fit individuals produce a new species then one would expect that new species to strongly resemble the parents.

Bare in mind I know virtually nothing about any change in species other than theoretical and experiential knowledge. This is exceedingly shallow because change in species is orders of magnitude even more complex than even "consciousness". It is believers who know everything about "Evolution", not me.

 

[cladking]

I'm suddenly reminded of why I don't bother with your posts.

You say that a lot without ever addressing what I say.

 

[cladking]

You appear to be doing the same thing that you claim this hypothetical global conspiracy peer does.

Do you believe in a conspiracy?

I'm citing evidence but you are not. I'm saying all observed change in all life is sudden and no one has ever cited an exception except those based on opinion and belief. If all observed change is sudden then it takes some pretty powerful evidence to counter this. The fossil record is most assuredly NOT evidence to the contrary because a gradual change is an interpretation of the fossils.

You are defining reality for us and telling us to accept it and not ask questions or point out flaws.

No. I'm not defining reality as telling you how I define things like consciousness, reality, math, metaphysics etc.

I believe all things are founded in logic. This is the paradigm that I believe explains all experiment and observation. It derived from both modern reductionistic science and ancient science. Where I could b wrong since I'm only human Peers can not be wrong because believers all believe they are Gods. Never mind peers have always been wrong in the past because this time it is different and we really do know everything.

 

[cladking]

Homo omnisciencis!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you believe in a conspiracy?

I'm citing evidence but you are not. I'm saying all observed change in all life is sudden and no one has ever cited an exception except those based on opinion and belief. If all observed change is sudden then it takes some pretty powerful evidence to counter this. The fossil record is most assuredly NOT evidence to the contrary because a gradual change is an interpretation of the fossils.

You ARE NOT citing evidence. That is the problem.

Do you know the difference between claims and evidence? Is that the problem?

You are saying it. You ARE NOT showing us that all observed change in all life is sudden. You are the one that is supposed to be citing evidence to support this claim. You don't. YOU NEVER HAVE.

No. I'm not defining reality as telling you how I define things like consciousness, reality, math, metaphysics etc.

You define reality and declare it is so. Don't look behind the curtain is the ever present adjuration.

I believe all things are founded in logic. This is the paradigm that I believe explains all experiment and observation. It derived from both modern reductionistic science and ancient science. Where I could b wrong since I'm only human Peers can not be wrong because believers all believe they are Gods. Never mind peers have always been wrong in the past because this time it is different and we really do know everything.

This is just meaningless word salad.

Are you going to cite evidence that shows that all change in all life at all levels is sudden? Are you? YOU HAVEN'T yet.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You say that a lot without ever addressing what I say.

All you do is make claims and everyone has tried to get you to explain, support and defend them with evidence.

Sadly, you never have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The pyramids were tombs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everything we see is exactly what we'd expect to see if I am right.

You aren't.

There's plenty of new experiments that can be run to show that like all change in life change in species is sudden as well.

There aren't.

Well... ...you do a much better job of actually addressing an opposing argument than most believers. Yes, that is damning you with faint praise but most of the actual evidence and attempts that have been presented to counter my arguments have been by you or one other poster.

Acceptors are not believers in the same sense that you are a believer in things that you cannot support. People that accept evolution do so on the arguments and evidence. Not on belief in magic instant change or 4 billion year old languages with no words.

Most of the other "arguments" aren't really arguments at all but are gainsaying and word games.

More handwaving.

Asking you for evidence for your claims is not argument and not gainsaying.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"The extended evolutionary synthesis does not replace traditional thinking [he means neo-Darwinism], but rather can be deployed alongside it to stimulate research within evolutionary biology. The new perspective retains the fundaments of evolutionary theory -- genes and natural selection remain central, for instance -- but there are differences in how causation in biology is understood." Kevin Laland., ES Project Leader for the John Templeton Foundation and colleague of Gerd Müller.

Seems that there isn't even agreement in the EES camp.

If appeals to authority are counting, this should do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Usually the child species bares significant resemblance to the parent species. It does not have to be so. Even when differences are extreme I believe there will usually be a strong superficial resemblance. This is a corollary of the idea that all individuals are fit and function follows form. If only fit individuals produce a new species then one would expect that new species to strongly resemble the parents.

Bare in mind I know virtually nothing about any change in species other than theoretical and experiential knowledge. This is exceedingly shallow because change in species is orders of magnitude even more complex than even "consciousness". It is believers who know everything about "Evolution", not me.

All individuals in a population do not have equal fitness. How can populations have genetic diversity and equal fitness?

Let's face it. On the evidence of your posts, you do not know or understand biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Usually the child species bares significant resemblance to the parent species. It does not have to be so. Even when differences are extreme I believe there will usually be a strong superficial resemblance. This is a corollary of the idea that all individuals are fit and function follows form. If only fit individuals produce a new species then one would expect that new species to strongly resemble the parents.

Bare in mind I know virtually nothing about any change in species other than theoretical and experiential knowledge. This is exceedingly shallow because change in species is orders of magnitude even more complex than even "consciousness". It is believers who know everything about "Evolution", not me.

Are you claiming to have experience with speciation? Really? Seriously?

Don't tell me. The flies. That wasn't speciation. That was crude, insignificant, artificial selection. You don't even know what species of fly you were pestering or even if it was one species.

No one here is claiming to know all about evolution, but clearly many know much more than you do.

 

[rational experiences]

The human condition. Civilisation and rich man poor man imbalances.

Natural man is first. Conscious of self. A self named deity human by a man.

Word owner word user theist storyteller. Just a human.

Who by human only life egotism tells stories. Depending on cult group behaviour to enforce beliefs ....with a threat as the human or else personal living repercussions are acted out by group.

Not natural and not reality and lying coercion as human only choice. Behaviours of a human. Chosen group behaviours only. Agreed.

How cult behaviour took over natural family life. Science itself.

Forced. Slavery first. Then new designed human theism. Invention. Life's destruction attack by science machine causes. Changed heavens support of only our living type biology.

A human man consciously Idealised all memory advised naturally human science before him had caused it.

So we are reminded consciousness first aware is advice without seeing advice. Ignored. As humans never studied human origin spirituality before science.

All against natural mans presence. Theist today.

As his thesis is to never own or I agree upon and in my natural owned first human only position. Life.

His thoughts unnaturally wander. Choosing subjects of his personal non existence. His human warnings.

Ice was by law agreed to be human and nature's biology in modern times saviour. A law itself. Not to be theoried.

So law said talking about dead ideas involves nature's mutations too. Outlawed.

Not allowed to use any theories that discussed life's changed body as sacrificed but survived mutation. Not natural.

As attack and mutation is involved in the detail.

Not inferring natural life's perfection natural and balanced. First.

As all stories are taught by using humans by subjective chosen reason. Most topics should no longer be allowed.

For a future humans life to be owned and lived.

Machine reactive thesis today have been aligned to all human sciences medical biologies themes.

Natural science for humans was mineral only nature herbal. Human medical.

Not about genesis.

Medical science and machine science studies thesis now entwined.

Goes back to just a human as a man telling stories. His claim a theory.

Yet theory was first thought first exact to a man's machine position Ai term.

Why theory of anything is fake.

All wrongs of human...by metals that in earths nature belong first deep inside the body of earth in a melt cooled seam.

Why theory isn't correct as it's a human told story.