Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

That's not a fact. It's an error. Also, I don't know why you keep repeating that.

But nobody can show fossils showing a gradual change!!!!

This is because no gradual change exists and there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest" driving it.

...big role after the climate change correction that I expect will thin the herd considerably and result in a dystopic world with crumbled infrastructure much like the Dark Ages...

Such a thing is more likely caused by leaders who believe in climate change or who tilt against a windmill that doesn't exist than it would be the result of changing weather patterns. If the weather changes people will adapt. It's what all life does.

Why didn't leaders begin addressing this in 1959 when it became widely known what we were doing?

Experiment is experiencing reality.

Absolutely unequivocably not. Science is ONLY reductionistic therefore it's IMPOSSIBLE to see any reality at all through science except the typically digital results of experiment.

How can you read what I'm saying and then say this as though it is self evident. It might not be self evident to you if you understood my words.

What you see is extrapolation of experiment. everything you see is part of some paradigm you've assembled in your mind to deal with known reality. It is unreal. Other species see reality, we see our beliefs instead and this is true no matter where we get our beliefs. You got yours from a textbook (and years of experience) but I'm telling you what is believed about change in species does not stand up to experiment nor does it stand up to 40,000 years of ancient human science. In many ways this science was far more advanced than ours because it directly app-lied to and derived from the human animal and consciousness itself. You might think 40,000 years of ignorant savages thinking about reality wouldn't get very far but the reality is science in the long term is almost as much about how long it's been worked on than the means to work on it. The only limitations were metaphysical. Just as we're stuck on the unified field theorem they got stuck on metaphysical complexity.

It is entirely possible humanity is at the very end of experimental science. I believe not but I also believe we won't progress with current beliefs. I don't believe there is an experiment that can necessarily resolve the impasse.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Everything is relevant.

Not to me. One valuable skill is identifying what is relevant and what is not.

We each believe we know almost everything through science or religion

That doesn't describe me.

Our beliefs thereby become so fixed and moribund that everything can only change when the old dies off.

Same answer. My thinking evolves. So does my behavior.

What Darwin believed after hos study was the same thing he believed before his study and this is just about always the case unless EXPRERIMENT shows us to be wrong.

I disagree again, but you say that like it's a bad thing. The most parsimonious narrative that accounts for all relevant evidence is the preferred one, and shouldn't change until new evidence arises that requires a modification to that narrative.

nobody can show fossils showing a gradual change!!!!

The fossils themselves aren't changing much. Collectively, they reveal evolution (change).

it's IMPOSSIBLE to see any reality at all through science except the typically digital results of experiment.

You keep returning to science, by which I think you mean what I called formal science above. Most of my understanding comes from informal science - the trial-and-error accumulation of useful ideas about how reality works, also called daily life.

I'm telling you what is believed about change in species does not stand up to experiment nor does it stand up to 40,000 years of ancient human science.

I disagree as do most biologists.

What you see is extrapolation of experiment. everything you see is part of some paradigm you've assembled in your mind to deal with known reality.

OK. And it works for me. That's what the senses and intellect can do for us. I would word it as assembling a map of reality through mindful, observant, contemplative living which one uses to navigates life more or less successfully. Really. That's all there is, and it's enough. Here's where it's taken me:

=======digression. if you'll indulge me with some personal stuff:

What role do you think science played in this? This is last night, on the terraza, listening to a Grateful Dead concert with the wife and wine, cheese, and candlelight:

The stained glass is from Cats Down Under The Stars:

And here's an excerpt from Terrapin Station, one of their beloved songs. Maybe it will resonate with you, too:

Inspiration, move me brightly
Light the song with sense and color
Hold away despair
More than this I will not ask
Faced with mysteries dark and vast
Statements just seem vain at last ...

Counting stars by candlelight
All are dim but one is bright
The spiral light on Venus
Rising first and shining best
Oh, from the north-west corner
Of a brand new crescent moon
Where crickets and cicadas sing
A rare and different tune: Terrapin Station ...

And this is our garage door - Terrapin Station (Google it to see the original cover art this was taken from). They're singing a rare and different tune:

And this was our Grateful Dead cover band (ELC = Eddie, Lumpy, and The Cleavers) playing Terrapin (I'm singing and on electric guitar, and my wife is on electric bass). You can see why we're still listening to this stuff at age 70. It's been such an important part of our lives for decades, and it never gets old for us. The cited lyrics above begin around 4:34 if you're interested:

 

[cladking]

You keep returning to science, by which I think you mean what I called formal science above.

It doesn't matter what something is called. i am describing how it works and why it works. In the light of metaphysics Darwin's conclusions simply do not work.

 

[cladking]

OK. And it works for me. That's what the senses and intellect can do for us.

I'm not suggesting you tear down all your models, jettison all your beliefs, and start over from scratch.

I am merely suggesting that there are other ways to see biological evidence in which Darwin is wrong and will generate more technology and more ability to make prediction. I'm trying to tell you not only why Darwin was wrong but why it is invisible to us.


Terrapins are cool. Garcia even played funicular very often.

It doesn't make me right. Absent disease I'm comfortable most of the time and am surrounded by things that support my beliefs and my models. I'm surrounded by my many experiments and inventions most of which are somewhat enigmatic to other people and often referred to as rube goldberg devices.

Such is human life. We choose our beliefs and then experience reality in terms of our beliefs before in the long run becoming our beliefs. I often tell children to be careful what they believe or they can become something very ugly.

 

[gnostic]

But nobody can show fossils showing a gradual change!!!!

This is because no gradual change exists and there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest" driving it.

As I have been telling you repeatedly, survival of the fittest isnt evolutionary mechanism.

Natural Selection is the evolutionary mechanism - one of 5 mechanisms known in the theory of Evolution.

The expression “survival of the fittest“ was coined and used by Herbert Spencer in the 19th century, which started in 1864 when Spencer wrote Principles Of Biology. But this same expression was also used in sociology works.

the meanings differed between biology and sociology usages, and you have often misused it by applying sociological context into something that is purely biological.

This is why you don’t how the expression being used in biology, because you keep using sociological version of “survival of the fittest“.

and we keep going nowhere because you cannot learn from your mistakes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It doesn't matter what something is called. i am describing how it works and why it works. In the light of metaphysics Darwin's conclusions simply do not work.

You've done nothing here but repeat errors, empty claims and unsupported belief. Back to the ignore pile for you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I also like several different Belgian beers. Not all at once.

I'm Belgian. Beer makes me puke


Literally... There's something in it that my biology simply rejects. Put a glass under my nose and my stomach turns instantly.

Apparently it's a shame. I hear belgian beers are worth it

 

[gnostic]

I'm Belgian. Beer makes me puke


Literally... There's something in it that my biology simply rejects. Put a glass under my nose and my stomach turns instantly.

Apparently it's a shame. I hear belgian beers are worth it

I have never had Belgian beer before.

i have had Belgian chocolate before.

Does that count?Does that make me honorary Belgian?