Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Stephen Gould passed away in 2002, Niles Eldredge is still alive. Their status as a highly influential paleontologist/biologist remains the same.

Paleontologists have found many new fossils but it's not about new fossils, it's about “GRADUALISM”. With respect to “gradualism”, the assertion of Gould and Eldredge that gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record remains the same.

No. There is evidence for gradualism in the fossil record. This has been pointed out to you . Waving your hands in denial is not evidence that it isn't there. But do continue.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a simple analogy.

Whooosh!

Whoosh indeed.

 

[cladking]

I have seen nothing offered by creationists in this thread that I have not seen provided many times over to the same avail.

Wholly untrue.

My theory is my own. Any similarity to any others is superficial and coincidental. The reason it doesn't look anything like Darwin, is... ...wait for it... ...Darwin was wrong.

It bears some relation to creation because creation was based on ancient science and ancient science was... ...you got it... ...partially correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again nothing based in reality has been presented to confound the conclusions of science.

 

[cladking]

Again nothing based in reality has been presented to confound the conclusions of science.

And again there are no conclusions in science and every experiment and o0bservation supports a different interpretation than Darwin, who was very very wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wholly untrue.

My theory is my own. Any similarity to any others is superficial and coincidental. The reason it doesn't look anything like Darwin, is... ...wait for it... ...Darwin was wrong.

It bears some relation to creation because creation was based on ancient science and ancient science was... ...you got it... ...partially correct.

You don't have a theory. You have a terribly flawed ad hoc explanation that has not supporting evidence at all.

 

[cladking]

You don't have a theory. You have a terribly flawed ad hoc explanation that has not supporting evidence at all.

If you understood how science works or ever read one of my posts then you'd know you don't need evidence when every experiment supports your theory.

How many times have I told you that "evidence" is just your expectations. You can't directly observe reality so "evidence" is interpretation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you understood how science works or ever read one of my posts then you'd know you don't need evidence when every experiment supports your theory.

How many times have I told you that "evidence" is just your expectations. You can't directly observe reality so "evidence" is interpretation.

You need to warn people before making such posts. Tell them that you are going to be making rather foolish statements and that they should disconnect their irony meters from everything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You need to warn people before making such posts. Tell them that you are going to be making rather foolish statements and that they should disconnect their irony meters from everything.

I thought this thread was pretty much dead. Most of the claims I have seen over the last 24 hours or so are divorced from a reality of evidence and based purely on personal opinion, belief, ideology and what appears to me to be delusion. If it isn't dead, it should be allowed to die. I'm outta hear.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think it was an excellent example of what has been described as pigeon chess.

Sometimes the best strategy is to give the other person the mic and let them discredit themselves. No population evolves, or has ever evolved? "Speciation" isn't the evolution of new species? God deliberately causes every mutation? God gives babies cancer?

Sure, go right ahead and tell everyone you believe those things.....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sometimes the best strategy is to give the other person the mic and let them discredit themselves. No population evolves, or has ever evolved? "Speciation" isn't the evolution of new species? God deliberately causes every mutation? God gives babies cancer?

Sure, go right ahead and tell everyone you believe those things.....

Nothing like the self-refuting opponent to do all the heavy lifting.

 

[LIIA]

It is a simple analogy.

Whooosh!

I can and it’s extremely obvious. Simply the predictions of gradualism are not supported by real world observations, neither among living organisms nor in the fossil record.

1) Living Organisms:

a) There is no evidence of enormous scale of accidental/non-beneficial or harmful changes that supposedly keep emerging randomly among living organisms and then gets eliminated by natural selection. In other words, there is no evidence that observed beneficial adaptations of organisms (such as the adaptation example of the peppered moth in #1968) are filtered out from millions of random/accidental “trials and errors". Mutations are not random. See #1245.

b) the emergence of a variant through speciation (loss of interbreeding ability) is never a reason for original species to go extinct. Variants can very well coexist. In that sense, gradualism predicts enormous scale of variants not only in the fossil record but also living transitional variants for every single species alive including Homo sapiens. We don’t see that in nature. All the 8 billion humans on earth, even at the most geographically isolated areas belong to the same Homo sapiens species.

2) The Fossil Record:

a) There is no evidence for the predicted enormous scale of accidental non-beneficial/harmful changes that supposedly emerged randomly and got exterminated by selection.

b) There is no evidence in the fossil record for an enormous scale of gradual/intermediate variants (that supposedly got filtered out by selection from a much larger scale of accidental changes) as entailed by gradualism to constitute the necessary steps along the alleged evolutionary route of gradual transformation from ancestral species into every single species living or ever lived on earth.

Gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record; real world observations do not support it, neither among living organisms nor in the fossil record.

 

[LIIA]

It is a simple analogy.

Whooosh!

Yes, it’s an analogy. Is there any reason why an analogy can't be a product of hallucination especially if the analogy is that ridiculous?

So, you think pigeons are bad chess players but if we give a pigeon enough time, maybe a million year and as many random trials as it takes, don’t you think that they will eventually get to checkmate? It’s just a theory; we may call it “the evolution of pigeon chess”.

Sure, it may be a ridiculous theory but much less ridiculous than the ToE.

 

[LIIA]

Nope. Darwin knew that the fossil record was incomplete and not well explored. But he saw confirmation in the geological record in his lifetime.

If the fossil record is merely incomplete and Darwin saw confirmation in his lifetime, how come Gould and Eldridge after more than 100 years made the assertion that gradualism is NONEXISTENT in the fossil record? Were they aware of that alleged confirmation? Was it relevant to their assertion? Do you understand the difference between “nonexistent” and “incomplete”?

By the way, why do you only discuss the geological record? I know, it is because you have a middle school level of scientific literacy.

Really? Do I always discuss the fossil record only? It’s another ridiculous claim of yours, go back and review older posts on the thread. It’s not going anywhere. #1864 is a summary that covers the major points of my argument against the ToE.

Yes, the fossil record is extremely important as clear evidence against gradualism, but my emphasis was always about the 21st century scientific finds of Molecular Biology that disproved all the central assumptions of ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism).

“Molecular Biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”. See #753 and #781.

You were responding to my post #1976, but as usual, whenever you fail to think of anything rational, you rely on a typical escape tactic of directing your reaction against the person rather than addressing the specific points of the argument. ‘Ad hominem’ is your typical fallacious smoke screen to cover your inability to engage in a rational argument.

If you do come up with something of value, I would attend to it. Otherwise, I’m not interested in wasting my time addressing fallacious nonsense, it wouldn’t benefit anyone. That is why I ignored your posts #1951, #1952.

You may be on this forum to have some fun and waste some time, I’m not. It’s not about winning a game or an argument. Even if your only goal is to win, more importantly is how you win. If you don’t debate ethically, you can never win. Do you understand?

Just an advice, if you can’t think of anything rational/beneficial, it’s better for you to stay quiet. you don’t have to say anything.

 

[LIIA]

Nothing like the self-refuting opponent to do all the heavy lifting.

You keep imagining things, any more chess games with pigeons lately?

 

[LIIA]

No, I don't agree. There is no reason for me to agree to such a ridiculous conclusion in light of evidence to the contrary.

evidence to the contrary? What evidence? Do you mean evidence that the person playing chess with pigeons is not hallucinating? a medical report or something? Or maybe evidence that you do play chess with pigeons.

As pointed out by others, it is analogy and a very apt one given what I have seen and what you add.

The pigeon in the analogy doesn't play by the rules and responds in a manner consistent with what I have seen displayed. That is the point and it is has been ground so finely to the declaration of winning and bragging about that win to others.

Here is the quote that so readily distills this thread down and defines it.

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

I know it's an analogy and I know where you copied it from, do you think a person giving an analogy is evidence that the person is not hallucinating? Especially if the analogy is that ridiculous?

I have seen nothing offered by creationists in this thread that I have not seen provided many times over to the same avail.

You have seen nothing! Is that because there was nothing or because you don’t have the ability to see?

Logical fallacies, claims without support,

I’m sorry, but here I see evidence of real hallucination. Let’s forget about the numerous posts and everything we discussed, go back to a single post #1864 and provide a rational response. Try to avoid fallacious nonsense if you can, keep it rational, objective and ethical. Can you do it? Is that beyond your ability?

the attack on science under the premise that victory rules a specific version of creationism as the default.

It's not attack on science, it's attack on the ridiculous "Geisteswissenschaften" imposed as science. (See # 331).

My goal is not to win an argument. My goal is to convey a message and no; victory doesn’t rule any specific version of creationism as the default, it only rules out the ToE (Modern Synthesis/Neo-Darwinism) as false.

See #753 and # 781.

Never any evidence that supports supporting any claim of creationism of any sort.

See # 1029
Darwin's Illusion | Page 52 | Religious Forums

See # 1851
Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

See #1854
Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

See #1861
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

You have a wonderful day and as others have said, get that last word in by all means.

It's very unfortunate. yes, we are at the opposite ends of the argument but why is that a problem? You don’t have to adapt my perspective and I don’t have to adapt yours. You’re entitled to your view, and I’m entitled to mine. Can we view things differently without being opponents?

Exposure to different perspectives is beneficial to all. On my end, I share my view to benefit others and convey a message, you don’t have to embrace it, it’s your call. On your end, you’re playing a game with an opponent and what matters to you the most is to win the game whether you deserve to win or not.

I’m not an opponent to you or anyone but if you want me to be an opponent, I can be one. This very post (the pigeon argument) is an example of an argument of opponents wasting time on nonsense that doesn’t benefit anyone. This is neither my goal nor I have time for it. It’s unfortunate.

Have a wonderful day

 

[LIIA]

Whoosh indeed.

Here is an analogy for you.

A sleeping dinosaur is always behind, even if he wakes up, he remains a dinosaur.

Those are the followers of obsolete science who can’t wrap their heads around the fact that science is ever changing. What they lived by, they simply persist on, nothing else matter. It’s their call. They’re free.

See #753, #781 and #1864

 

[LIIA]

Sometimes the best strategy is to give the other person the mic and let them discredit themselves. No population evolves, or has ever evolved? "Speciation" isn't the evolution of new species? God deliberately causes every mutation? God gives babies cancer?

Sure, go right ahead and tell everyone you believe those things.....

If you neither know or believe in God, are you in a position to defend God or explain to others what things God should or shouldn’t allow/cause and why? Do you see the irony?

You neither understand nor even need a cause for why things are happening. For you “the forces at play do it” but what is the nature of these forces at play? Why it exists and how/why it does what it does? For you it’s just a law. Why there is a law? Why there is order? Why/how there is anything at all? What is the reference? What is the origin of everything that exists?

I explained in # 1908, #1960 and #1969 but you didn’t understand or more precisely you don’t want to understand. It’s your choice.

Being closed-minded only hurts you not anyone else. You can’t see unless you allow yourself to see. If you don’t, don’t blame it on anyone but yourself. By the end of the day, you’re free.

But sure, the day will come when you will be no longer free, and you will clearly see what you freely chose to deny. From this point, there is no going back.

Antony Flew, the British philosopher and one of the world's preeminent atheists who wrote, "Theology and Falsification", which is considered as one of the most popular atheistic papers, in 2006, he co-wrote a book titled, " There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind".

He stated that his rule of life had always been to follow the evidence where it leads. And he said he followed that evidence, and it led him to the conclusion that God exists.

He said, "when I finally came to recognize the existence of a God, it was not a paradigm shift, because my paradigm remains..'We must follow the argument wherever it leads'.” (There is A God. p 89)

If we logically follow the evidence (wherever it leads), it only leads to God.

God is not a relative explanation to an individual system; God is the absolute explanation to the relative existence in its entirety. The absolute is the only explanation that must exist to give rise to every probable. See #1851 & #132 on page 7 of the thread “Necessary Being: Exists?”
Necessary Being: Exists? - Mainly addressing atheists | Page 7 | Religious Forums

If the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, any atheist can.

 

[LIIA]

@ Subduction Zone

My post # 1992 is the response to your #1977 below. Sorry, don’t have much time now.

Yes, but you insist on quoting their older work. And no, you cannot properly support your claim about gradualism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can and it’s extremely obvious. Simply the predictions of gradualism are not supported by real world observations, neither among living organisms nor in the fossil record.

1) Living Organisms:

a) There is no evidence of enormous scale of accidental/non-beneficial or harmful changes that supposedly keep emerging randomly among living organisms and then gets eliminated by natural selection. In other words, there is no evidence that observed beneficial adaptations of organisms (such as the adaptation example of the peppered moth in #1968) are filtered out from millions of random/accidental “trials and errors". Mutations are not random. See #1245.

b) the emergence of a variant through speciation (loss of interbreeding ability) is never a reason for original species to go extinct. Variants can very well coexist. In that sense, gradualism predicts enormous scale of variants not only in the fossil record but also living transitional variants for every single species alive including Homo sapiens. We don’t see that in nature. All the 8 billion humans on earth, even at the most geographically isolated areas belong to the same Homo sapiens species.

2) The Fossil Record:

a) There is no evidence for the predicted enormous scale of accidental non-beneficial/harmful changes that supposedly emerged randomly and got exterminated by selection.

b) There is no evidence in the fossil record for an enormous scale of gradual/intermediate variants (that supposedly got filtered out by selection from a much larger scale of accidental changes) as entailed by gradualism to constitute the necessary steps along the alleged evolutionary route of gradual transformation from ancestral species into every single species living or ever lived on earth.

Gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record; real world observations do not support it, neither among living organisms nor in the fossil record.

Of course they are. Examples have been given to you. We can see it in chalk beds where one traces the evolution of coccolithophores as one goes up. We can see the same with other micro-organisms.

All of your claims have been refuted and all you have is denial. Remember, you are barely at high school level when it comes to the sciences. You believe that one outlier making claims in the sciences is a "refutation". That is not how science works. If he has not convinced others you can be very sure that there is a very good reason for it. Scientists are the opposite of dogmatic as you are. People have to be able to support their claims and then others have to be able to confirm those claims.

You always bring in these nonsensical non sequiturs to. Can you please try to stick to one point at a time?