Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

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”?

Darwin did not need to see gradualism in the fossil record to confirm evolution. That is a red herring that you use all of the time. I do not understand your fixation with it. What Darwin saw during his lifetime was the first clear transitional species. But then you probably do not know what a transitional species is either. Archaeopteryx has both clear "bird" features and "dinosaur" features. It has an underdeveloped breast bone and other features that showed that it could have flown it was not as proficient of a flier as modern birds. It till had claws on its arms/wings. It had teeth. It had a long dinosaur tail.

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.

That would be a waste of time since you have no points against evolution All you have is ignorance. But if you want to discuss DNA I am game.

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).

But it doesn't. All it does is to tweak the theory a bit. Just because Einstein showed that Newton's work was incomplete we did not start to float away from the Earth. And just because some there were some changes in details does not mean that life is not the product of evolution. You did not understand your own sources and that was demonstrated to you.

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

Nope. Sorry, posts by ignorant posters are not evidence. You need to do better than that.

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.

LOL!! Oh my! Now there is some massive projection. You do not know what ad hominem is either. I did not use any. Corrections are not ad hominem. Observations are not ad hominem. You have been repeatedly shown to be wrong and simply will not acknowledge it.

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.

I don't have to "win" you already lost. Let's try to discuss this properly. One point at a time. You might get it if we do it that way. You might also want to try to learn what evidence is in the sciences.

If you do not wish to have a proper discussion I will continue to correct you.

You seem to be fixated on gradualism and the fossil record. You will simply not see it with land species. Fossilization of land species is an incredibly rare event. So gradual changes are almost never seen. Nor are they expected. What we do see are changes the fit perfectly into the theory of evolution. They continually confirm it. And we are continually finding new species.

You of course have no scientific evidence for your beliefs. The reason is that to have evidence you need a testable hypothesis. That is by definition. In the sciences one has to be willing to put one's money where one's mouth is.

So, what are your beliefs about how life got to its present stages? What observations support that? And most important of all, what reasonable test based on your model could possibly refute it? If you cannot answer that question then by definition you do not have evidence

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I no longer care what you have to say. I didn't really care that much before. You haven't done anything here and there is no indication you will do anything going forward. Good luck. Have a wonderful day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"We never claimed either that gradualism could not occur in theory, or did not occur in fact"
Stephen J. Gould
Paleobiol. 3(2): 115-151 (1977)

Apparently, Gould and Eldredge never asserted that gradualism was non-existent. But anyone that recognizes creationist agendas and tactics knew that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"We never claimed either that gradualism could not occur in theory, or did not occur in fact"
Stephen J. Gould
Paleobiol. 3(2): 115-151 (1977)

Apparently, Gould and Eldredge never asserted that gradualism was non-existent. But anyone that recognizes creationist agendas and tactics knew that.

When a creationist declares that there is no fossil evidence for gradualism it is obvious that they have only looked at land fossils and understand next to nothing about geology or paleontology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When a creationist declares that there is no fossil evidence for gradualism it is obvious that they have only looked at land fossils and understand next to nothing about geology or paleontology.

They don't understand chess apparently either. Knocking over the pieces with misinformation and logical fallacies isn't a winning strategy.

That pigeon chess analogy really seemed to raise some feathers.

 

[gnostic]

Here is an analogy for you.

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

Huh?

Well, it would seem apparent that you don’t even know what an “analogy” is.

If you think that was an analogy, then you have failed and you need to try a little harder, because that was seriously a pathetic attempt at one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Huh?

Well, it would seem apparent that you don’t even know what an “analogy” is.

If you think that was an analogy, then you have failed and you need to try a little harder, because that was seriously a pathetic attempt at one.

I don't really read those posts, so I had to go back and look. I didn't see any sense in it either, but at least there is a consistency in that from what I have read.

 

[cladking]

Huh?

Well, it would seem apparent that you don’t even know what an “analogy” is.

If you think that was an analogy, then you have failed and you need to try a little harder, because that was seriously a pathetic attempt at one.

But if you understood it you wouldn't respond at all. Believers rarely respond to evidence or argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) is new a way to think about and understand evolutionary phenomena that differs from the conception that has dominated evolutionary thinking since the 1930s (i.e., the modern synthesis). The EES does not replace traditional thinking, but rather can be deployed alongside it to stimulate research in evolutionary biology.
Andrew Buskell
Quotable High Caliber Researcher

Seems like there is some difference of opinion about the EES among quotable High Caliber Scientists and Philosophers and here it is described as a new perspective augmenting and not replacing the modern synthesis.

 

[gnostic]

But if you understood it you wouldn't respond at all. Believers rarely respond to evidence or argument.

I have worked with enough literature to understand what is and what isn’t analogy.

And that wasn’t analogy.

Beside that, what do analogy have to do with “evidence”?

Analogy isn’t evidence for anything, because if you have one iota of understanding as to what analogy is, it isn’t evidence.

It funny how you can ignore theory, but with analogy, you seems to treat it as if it is fact.

 

[cladking]

I have worked with enough literature to understand what is and what isn’t analogy.

And that wasn’t analogy.

Beside that, what do analogy have to do with “evidence”?

Analogy isn’t evidence for anything, because if you have one iota of understanding as to what analogy is, it isn’t evidence.

It funny how you can ignore theory, but with analogy, you seems to treat it as if it is fact.

You're the one, believers are the ones, who want to turn every discussion into semantics.

I don't care what the definition of "analogy" is, especially since it's one of very few words in the English language that has a "single" definition.

Some of us would rather talk about "Darwin's illusions" than play word games and battle straw armies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're the one, believers are the ones, who want to turn every discussion into semantics.

I don't care what the definition of "analogy" is, especially since it's one of very few words in the English language that has a "single" definition.

Some of us would rather talk about "Darwin's illusions" than play word games and battle straw armies.

Darwin's Illusion was refuted a long time ago.. Now we are merely correcting and educating. For example I see at least four different definitions here:

Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin's Illusion was refuted a long time ago.. Now we are merely correcting and educating. For example I see at least four different definitions here:

Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary

I don't get how evidence can be ignored, because it doesn't exist and then people are chided for ignoring the evidence. Sounds like double talk to me. What ya think?

 

[gnostic]

I don't get how evidence can be ignored, because it doesn't exist and then people are chided for ignoring the evidence. Sounds like double talk to me. What ya think?

It is double talk.

Cladking don’t even believe in evidence.

He keep saying the only accepted sciences are those of experiments, not evidence and not observations. He always make remark about the “look and see” evidence as not reality.

And yet, experiments are observations, and experiments are evidence.

But here, he say:

But if you understood it you wouldn't respond at all. Believers rarely respond to evidence or argument.

I just wish he would be consistent. Does he accept “evidence” or not?

He talk about me not to play semantics, and yet that’s all he do, he invent word or meanings to words that are no one else, except him.

 

[Truth in love]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

I take a lot of issues with Darwin’s ideas. However evolution on a micro scale (like horse breading) is very well established. I can find no religious or science objections to this aspect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I take a lot of issues with Darwin’s ideas. However evolution on a micro scale (like horse breading) is very well established. I can find no religious or science objections to this aspect.

Religious objections do not count. What scientific objections do you have? As far as the Old Testament being literally true that was refuted long before Darwin came along.

 

[cladking]

Cladking don’t even believe in evidence.

This is simple. What are you going to do when the metaphysics gets complex? "Evidence" is what you believe or more accurately it's your perception of what's real but every perception is dictated by your beliefs. This is why all theory is founded in experiment or it's not really theory at all. In terms of experiment there are none that confirm Darwin's beliefs of gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. it is delusional because it was what Darw8in wanted to believe. He wanted to believe in the supremacy of English scientists and how evolved they were. He wanted to believe in natural law and mathematics instead of God's law and and His will. He wanted to believe there was a simple explanation for life and how it changes.

This is why he had his illusions; he wanted to believe so he did and then he saw all observation in terms of these beliefs that he called "evidence".

Despite the hundreds of objections I and others have raised in this thread et al none have been addressed. They are handwaved and dismissed for having no proof. Armies of strawmen are raised and semantical arguments crafted from thin air. Instead of argument or addressing the subject only lectures are presented no matter how many times every point in every lecture has been shot down. Believers have nothing. I believe I could defend "Evolution" better than it is being defended here but I DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

He always make remark about the “look and see” evidence as not reality.

Granted. But just to be clear there is such a thing as REAL science but Evolution isn't it. Neither is Egyptology. Science that employs experts to look and see is "Look and see Science". Real science is experiment.

I just wish he would be consistent. Does he accept “evidence” or not?

Evidence exists. It and reason are the only tools we have to invent hypothesis or interpret experiment. Evidence and reason are the sole means for science to progress but all theory depends solely on experiment even where evidence is required both to invent and interpret each experiment. There is more to science than theory. There's also fact, data, and application.

What you believe is evidence to support Darwin I believe is evidence to show he is wrong about everything. Your paradigm is flawed and most of the flaws are caused by what Darwin wanted to believe and by what you want to believe. The little experiment that exists concerning change in species can be rearranged to better reflect experiment, evidence, and logic. But you can't see anomalies so you can't imagine a better fit for experiment.

He talk about me not to play semantics, and yet that’s all he do, he invent word or meanings to words that are no one else, except him.

And I've told you dozens of times that every word in the English language has dozens of meanings and I use them all. It is YOUR job to deconstruct my sentences to properly guess my meaning. If you can't guess it then you should ask because I can't always tell and it's doubly difficult since most people rarely respond to what I write. How can I tell I'm being misunderstood when people break out on tangents instead of directly answering questions and challenges?

Darwin was wrong and no one here is actually addressing most of the arguments that show he was wrong.

Apropos of nothing in particular isn't it interesting that every species of whale is extinct except the big ones that swim in the ocean? What are the odds that every single four legged whale died without reproducing? I've said why this is hundreds of times but it is ignored and it will be ignored this time too.

 

[cladking]

I take a lot of issues with Darwin’s ideas. However evolution on a micro scale (like horse breading) is very well established. I can find no religious or science objections to this aspect.

"Evolution" today is considered "natural selection". There is nothing natural about breeding horses and nothing gradual either. It is a smokescreen. It is caused by the artificial introduction of microbottlenecks. This is the exact same technique used by the inventors of agriculture who didn't believe in survival of the fittest or anything else whatsoever.

 

[cladking]

However evolution on a micro scale (like horse breading) is very well established. I can find no religious or science objections to this aspect.

If you give believers an inch they'll take a furlong.

 

[Truth in love]

If you give believers an inch they'll take a furlong.

Whatever dude