Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

No. Just no.

You should read some of the 19th century British Egyptologists. They all believed in evolution and considered the locals to be virtually subhuman AND the result of centuries of improvement to the race.

Yes, scientific racism is real. Taking the word "scientific" out of context isn't even a proper word game and this is the best you've done!!!

 

[cladking]

You have ignored evidences already discovered and experiments that have already tested, so far.

Running around from house to house at night filling boxes with apples is no experiment. Showing that apples can be transferred from a high container to a lower container is not an experiment. Making applesauce is not an experiment. Taking before and after pictures of apple boxes is not an experiment.

Where is your experiment showing a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest? Picture of fossils are NOT an experiment.

 

[gnostic]

The point is, without life there is neither mutation nor selection. Without life there is no evolution.

This is strawman argument. You are making false argument about evolution.

Nowhere do any biologist say that evolution occurred before there were life.

The parent organisms cannot pass on their genetic traits to offspring, if the parent don’t exist.

 

[gnostic]

Running around from house to house at night filling boxes with apples is no experiment. Showing that apples can be transferred from a high container to a lower container is not an experiment. Making applesauce is not an experiment. Taking before and after pictures of apple boxes is not an experiment.

More strawman.

I have presented no such experiment involving apples and boxes.

This is bs fabrication. Why do you lie about things I didn’t write about?

Please, stop lying.

 

[cladking]

I have presented no such experiment involving apples and boxes.

Indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have also produced no experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest.

There is no such experiment but you and Darwin are believers anyway.

 

[gnostic]

Indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have also produced no experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest.

There is no such experiment but you and Darwin are believers anyway.

Not only you continued to lie, you had to come up with the most idiotic example/scenario (boxes of apples) I have ever seen, which I would never use.

You lack imagination and credibility with this example of yours.

 

[cladking]

Mebbe you need to read other posts than your own.

 

[gnostic]

@LIIA

Evidence and experiments (and the all-important DATA) do exist separately for Evolution and for Abiogenesis.

Now, you can say you disagree with the theory of Evolution or disagree with the various models of Abiogenesis hypothesis, and you may say you disagree with the analysis of data, evidence and/or test results of the experiments.

You may disagree all you like, but one thing you cannot say there are "unevidenced" or there are "no evidence" for either fields.

Because to say something what you said about Abiogenesis being "unevidenced" would only make you sounds like one of those hill-billies, who has never study science at all.

Plus, you are lying just like cladking here:

The refutation of all fundamental assumptions of the latest theory the “Modern Synthesis” has absolutely nothing to do with the damaging influence as I repeated so many times.

...you both think that the theory of Evolution have been "refuted". It hasn't.

If it has been refuted, then showed a or some scientific sources, where all premises of Evolution have been debunked.

Neither has Abiogenesis.

No one have refuted or debunked either one of them.

You are making up narrative which don't exist in the science communities.

Plus I don't think you even know what the "Modern Synthesis" is.

It is about incorporating the theory of Mendelian genetics with evolutionary theory of Natural Selection. There are nothing wrong with the Modern Synthesis.

And since 1930s, the Modern Synthesis have been updated further, to include knowledge of molecular biology and the genome biology.

 

[gnostic]

Even if life really did evolve on earth or anywhere it is virtually impossible that it can ever become a theory because it is virtually impossible any evidence could survive anywhere. If it is ever shown that life blew in on the cosmic wind even this would have no bearing on the "theory" of abiogenesis. That life could have arisen naturally through natural processes is more akin to a belief than an hypothesis; an attractive belief but a belief nonetheless.

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different fields of studies.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Evolution is about biodiversity of life (eg adaption, speciation, etc), and the mechanisms that drive the change (eg Mutations, Genetic Drift, Natural Selection, etc).

Abiogenesis is about chemistry and biochemistry, and about the origins of essential biological macromolecules (eg amino acids and the proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids (fatty acids), etc), BEFORE living cells exist about 3.6 billion years ago.

And no matter how many times I have to explain the differences between these two, you keep repeating the same silly mistakes, over and over again.

Beside.

You don’t need to know what the first life is to understand Evolution, because Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the origin of the earliest life.

If you study biology at all, you would know that most studies are only of extant species, not of ancient and primitive life.

Most biology students never touch on paleontology subject - the study of fossils. Paleontology is specialized subject/course, that majority of students never require to learn.

Students can still learn biology without ever touching a fossil of animals or plants.

Biologists can study extant species, not just by comparing morphology of animals or plants; no, biologists can learn about Evolution more frequently they have been studying species of their respective DNA - eg the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in animals, and chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) in land plants and some families of algae (eg green algae, red algae).

The use of mtDNA testing and comparison allow for how closely related one species or subspecies to the other, as well as provide estimated time or period of the last common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should read some of the 19th century British Egyptologists. They all believed in evolution and considered the locals to be virtually subhuman AND the result of centuries of improvement to the race.

Yes, scientific racism is real. Taking the word "scientific" out of context isn't even a proper word game and this is the best you've done!!!

So what if they thought that? They may have. But the fact that some of them may have been racists has nothing to do with "scientific racism".

Let's just add that to the long long list of concepts that you do not understand.

 

[gnostic]

Mebbe you need to read other posts than your own.

Maybe you shouldn't lie about what I didn't say.

I didn't invent this stupid and unrealistic example of boxes of apple experiment.

It is strawman. Only a dishonest person would invent a story and blame story on someone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different fields of studies.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Evolution is about biodiversity of life (eg adaption, speciation, etc), and the mechanisms that drive the change (eg Mutations, Genetic Drift, Natural Selection, etc).

Abiogenesis is about chemistry and biochemistry, and about the origins of essential biological macromolecules (eg amino acids and the proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids (fatty acids), etc), BEFORE living cells exist about 3.6 billion years ago.

And no matter how many times I have to explain the differences between these two, you keep repeating the same silly mistakes, over and over again.

Beside.

You don’t need to know what the first life is to understand Evolution, because Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the origin of the earliest life.

If you study biology at all, you would know that most studies are only of extant species, not of ancient and primitive life.

Most biology students never touch on paleontology subject - the study of fossils. Paleontology is specialized subject/course, that majority of students never require to learn.

Students can still learn biology without ever touching a fossil of animals or plants.

Biologists can study extant species, not just by comparing morphology of animals or plants; no, biologists can learn about Evolution more frequently they have been studying species of their respective DNA - eg the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in animals, and chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) in land plants and some families of algae (eg green algae, red algae).

The use of mtDNA testing and comparison allow for how closely related one species or subspecies to the other, as well as provide estimated time or period of the last common ancestor.

Well said. And one fact about abiogenesis. We are likely to never know the exact path that life took when it formed. This is not due to a lack of evidence, but due to too many choices. When it comes to different parts of abiogenesis there is often more than one possible answer. Without evidence of some sort scientists will only be able to say maybe it took this path here, and that path there. Different processes will have different advocates. But one thing we do know is that the more it is studied the more evidence arises that abiogenesis was how life got here.

There is as of yet no scientific evidence for any other pathway.

 

[gnostic]

And one fact about abiogenesis. We are likely to never know the exact path that life took when it formed.

That's a possibility.

This is not due to a lack of evidence, but due to too many choices. When it comes to different parts of abiogenesis there is often more than one possible answer.

And that's more than likely.

 

[cladking]

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different fields of studies.

And I never said otherwise.

Evolution in addition to its many other assumptions also assumes life had a natural origin, But unlike the other assumptions this one isn't foundational to Evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory.

All "theory" by definition must have experimental support. Since no experiment shows a gradual change in species through survival of the fittest this is not theory at all and is merely a belief under the umbrella of "Evolution" much like abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is about chemistry and biochemistry...,

This is the assumption upon which the hypothesis was created.

You don’t need to know what the first life is to understand Evolution, because Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the origin of the earliest life.

And still you ignore the fact that each times whales "evolve" all of the earlier versions are dead!!!! Nothing anyone says seems to get through your beliefs. You just don't see anomalies and incongruities because you see only what you believe. I can rub Egyptologists' faces in the many things they never noticed but there I can't rub your face in your fantasy. There's nothing there.

Most biology students never touch on paleontology subject - the study of fossils. Paleontology is specialized subject/course, that majority of students never require to learn.

OK. Fine. Maybe the problem is more specifically one with paleontology rather than biology. Obviously there are more experiments and less room for poor interpretation in experiments. But biologists also believe in survival of the fittest (or whatever name has been unnaturally selected over the decades).

Biology does a great deal of work without ever once touching on Evolution or consciousness. I NEVER said biologists are ignorant, stupid, or wrong. I said the "ToE" is no theory at all and is based not on experiment but on false premises.

But you're playing semantics again because this thread is still about Darwin's Illusions that you can understand the nature of life by simply Looking and Seeing. He was wrong and he is still wrong and, I believe, everyone who believes in survival of the fittest and that you can understand life without understanding consciousness is at least nearly as wrong.

 

[cladking]

There are countless possibilities for what is really causing speciation. For instance it's within the realm of reason that coronal mass ejections or other solar events are causing population bottlenecks resulting in speciation. The possibilities are limitless but they are all mostly invisible to reductionistic science. Sure in the future we'll probably develop techniques that can see ever more subtle evidence but in the meantime we need to base science not on assumptions but on experiment. We need to remember the nature of reductionism and the metaphysics of science. We must be cognizant of the fact we see what we believe and not what exists. We need to remember EVERY experiment ALL THE TIME rather than just one. We must reduce reality to experiment but we can still see reality through all experiment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I never said otherwise.

Evolution in addition to its many other assumptions also assumes life had a natural origin, But unlike the other assumptions this one isn't foundational to Evolution.

No, evolution does not make that assumption. Darwin pointed out that life probably arose in a pond. He did not state it as a fact. He did not think that magic was a very likely explanation. But guess what? Evolution works no matter what the source of the LUCA was. It could have arisen naturally, the most likely cause, it could be due do aliens. Perhaps they were emptying their septic tanks. Or a God could have magically poofed it into existence. Evolution only says what happens after that first life form existed.

All "theory" by definition must have experimental support. Since no experiment shows a gradual change in species through survival of the fittest this is not theory at all and is merely a belief under the umbrella of "Evolution" much like abiogenesis.

But you know this is not true. You have been given countless examples of experiments. So why repeat this obviously false claim? One that even you have to know it false?

This is the assumption upon which the hypothesis was created.

Sorry, but that is not an assumption. It seems that the longer that you are here the less that you know.

And still you ignore the fact that each times whales "evolve" all of the earlier versions are dead!!!! Nothing anyone says seems to get through your beliefs. You just don't see anomalies and incongruities because you see only what you believe. I can rub Egyptologists' faces in the many things they never noticed but there I can't rub your face in your fantasy. There's nothing there.

Yes. Most species only last for a limited period of time. But "species" is a dated concept. It is only a photograph of life. What you need to pay attention to are the clades. And those still exist.

OK. Fine. Maybe the problem is more specifically one with paleontology rather than biology. Obviously there are more experiments and less room for poor interpretation in experiments. But biologists also believe in survival of the fittest (or whatever name has been unnaturally selected over the decades).

Biology does a great deal of work without ever once touching on Evolution or consciousness. I NEVER said biologists are ignorant, stupid, or wrong. I said the "ToE" is no theory at all and is based not on experiment but on false premises.

But you're playing semantics again because this thread is still about Darwin's Illusions that you can understand the nature of life by simply Looking and Seeing. He was wrong and he is still wrong and, I believe, everyone who believes in survival of the fittest and that you can understand life without understanding consciousness is at least nearly as wrong.

No. There is no problem with paleontology. It perfectly supports evolution and evolution only. You simply refuse to understand it.

And of course ToE is a theory. Just because you do not understand science beyond a 5th grade level (and that is being generous) that does not mean that others have the same lack.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, evolution does not make that assumption. Darwin pointed out that life probably arose in a pond. He did not state it as a fact. He did not think that magic was a very likely explanation. But guess what? Evolution works no matter what the source of the LUCA was. It could have arisen naturally, the most likely cause, it could be due do aliens. Perhaps they were emptying their septic tanks. Or a God could have magically poofed it into existence. Evolution only says what happens after that first life form existed.



But you know this is not true. You have been given countless examples of experiments. So why repeat this obviously false claim? One that even you have to know it false?



Sorry, but that is not an assumption. It seems that the longer that you are here the less that you know.



Yes. Most species only last for a limited period of time. But "species" is a dated concept. It is only a photograph of life. What you need to pay attention to are the clades. And those still exist.



No. There is no problem with paleontology. It perfectly supports evolution and evolution only. You simply refuse to understand it.

And of course ToE is a theory. Just because you do not understand science beyond a 5th grade level (and that is being generous) that does not mean that others have the same lack.

I have even posted research articles demonstrating evolution and rather recently too. As well as having seen evidence and experiments presented by yourself and many others.

 

[cladking]

You have been given countless examples of experiments.

Refresh my memory; tell me one experiment that shows a species evolved through survival of the fittest.

Why do you keep saying you provide experiments when there are none.

The closest anyone came to answering this challenge was the e coli experiment and I commented extensively at the time about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Refresh my memory; tell me one experiment that shows a species evolved through survival of the fittest.

Why do you keep saying you provide experiments when there are none.

The closest anyone came to answering this challenge was the e coli experiment and I commented extensively at the time about it.

You cannot make demands using bogus phrases.

Try again.

In fact, you cannot make any demands at all. When you refuse to acknowledge corrections you lose the right to make demands. And you only had denial when it came to the E. coli experiment. You had no refutation. But at least you know that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have even posted research articles demonstrating evolution and rather recently too. As well as having seen evidence and experiments presented by yourself and many others.

Of course. We all have at times. And we only see denial and no refutation as a response.