Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh poop. Just some of the many examples. But they will all be denied. Which is why I deny deniers the right to demand evidence.

I don't pay much attention to Believers anymore. I leave it to them to be Peers in their own minds, since the evidence strongly indicates they cannot reach that status anywhere else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have not tricked anyone. I do not need such tactics when the evidence, logic and reason is on my side.

It is interesting that when confronted by the explanations of trained and skilled experts in science using evidence, logic and reason, Believers are flummoxed and become irate.

Evidence, logic and reason are the enemies of those attempting to be Peers forcing the installation of their redefined reality that bears no relationship or similarity to reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again I'm tricked into following a link that does not support the contention that there is evidence for gradualism.

Instead of evidence, logic, or argument I am again told for the 1ooth time I've lost an argument that has never even been addressed. Believers have nothing but belief.

This is why you are not allowed to demand evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

A human isn't God was a humans teaching.

Human Theists are liars.

Egotism peer group by human control says the group demands complied human agreement. I then given by human law my own enforced human teaching whether it's right or wrong.

Known discussed as false human behaviours. By group behaviour a human condition and problem. Termed a cult behaviour.

Thinking humans.

Now the inventor human says my science invention taken from earth mass conditions. I've proven correct. Isn't any argument.

Yet to own science they destroy natural anything in its natural position. By human only choices.

So science is destruction. Wisdom.

Then that Inventor using his humans past science memories knows. He mutated origin nature himself. Yet it survived and lived mutated. Yet went back to having its same healthy babies.

Knew he'd caused it as sacrificed holy origin baby life. He wrote about it. In his humans presence. A human thinker. A storyteller about anything topic subject he chooses. Humans all the time.

Even talks about dead humans not any truth as intent we are just living.

As origin human is origin its highest healthiest. Like all origin species is as it's one first form.

So there isn't a real topic in science about when it hadn't existed. He just pretends it doesn't exist by thoughts. In natural law he argues against it himself. It always had existed first. Everything.

In an earth planets legal teaching human as natural man versus human Theist destroyer self. Humans.

Now water is water first and not salted.

Earth chemicals erupted salted water.

Ground bared naked nature first from a fixed ground position. The garden. Not in salt water....the garden. Grew on top of bare naked earth mass.

In that exact position. Fresh water biology was living. Salt water biology was living.

We know we see it exactly today.

In earths past cold blooded creatures nothing like us as skin type or blood type lived in the garden. No comparison.

With fresh water life. With salt water life.

All died.

Is a scientists human told story.

Huge earth attacks conversions destruction was involved. Isn't any science theory today.

After ice on earth men as humans became machine inventors as earth God mass theists. Terms historic science of men about earths mass with machines.

Exact.

He salted the earth's mass heavens himself by above sun dust mass UFO fallout gas burning mass to ground water fresh and sea water evaporation.

Told you he had caused it to shift.

Changed nature's in healthy water heavens natural origin DNA.

Which he discussed in modern man's review...why mutated life biology nature's and ours had come out of salted water. Lying. Wasnt origin at all.

As science was only men living on earth changing via machine mass converting of the earth. As the origin of man's science as science was of the earth.

Is why all of your past theories are fake.

You were once told by humans legal mutual equal rights representation that theorising about dead past life on earth is illegal. As it's a fake subject as men in the past had interfered with origin. All of it.

As the bible was mans first legal written document against man just the theist scientist. First enforced cult group human history. In cohorts with rich man cult group who paid him.

 

[LIIA]

"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.

Do you understand what you quote? Let me explain to you.

This quote by Gould and Eldredge was in defense of their punctuated equilibrium theory, their intent was to avoid making a universal claim that’s why, directly after this quote, they said, " Nature is far too varied and complex for such absolutes; Captain Corcoran’s ‘hardly ever’ is the strongest statement that a natural historian can hope to make. Issues like this are decided by relative frequency.”

When they said, “We never claimed that gradualism could not occur in theory” means that even so real world evidence as they know it don’t support gradualism, but they don’t rule out the possibility of gradualism in theory. Do you understand the difference between “theory” and the real-world evidence?

When they said, “We never claimed that gradualism did not occur in fact”, it doesn’t mean that real world evidence confirm gradualism, it only means they don’t rule out gradualism as a possibility (in theory) and that evidence of gradualism may possibly emerge in the future. But it never did.

The fact remains “gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record” see below.

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

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.

That is actually absurd. My argument is specifically against gradualism in the general sense not merely some evidence subject to interpretation and it’s absolutely not my declaration; it’s the declaration of prominent PALEONTOLOGISTS. Why is that difficult for you to understand? Didn’t you acknowledge in # 2001 that " gradual changes are almost never seen”?

Gould and Eldredge said, "Issues like this are decided by relative frequency”, in other words, how often a specific observation/evidence occurs within the total number of observations decides with or against the hypothesis. Exceptions (even if perceived as legitimate) don’t constitute a rule.

The fact remains that real world observations of the fossil record don’t support gradualism. See below.

 

[LIIA]

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.

The comparison of different things based on their similarities was used to convey/explain the target idea, but you are not concerned about the structure of the analogy, are you?

Your real issue is the meaning that you did understand but didn’t like. I’m sorry if talking about “the sleeping dinosaurs” was offensive to you.

 

[LIIA]

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.

Hopefully my post didn’t interrupt the consistency of your sleep.

 

[LIIA]

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.

As I explained before, I’m not advocating for the EES or whatever new theory/myth that may replace the ToE in the future. My argument/concern is specifically the current status of the ToE TODAY.

The current evolutionary concept that is being taught and accepted blindly by the proponents of the ToE is the modern synthesis. All central assumptions of the modern synthesis are proven false. Yet the blind followers (the sleeping dinosaurs) cannot wrap their heads around it.

The modern synthesis is an obsolete theory, neither mutations are random, nor natural selection has any way of explaining speciation.

See # 781 & #1864.

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

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.

I don’t need you to care. That’s your business. I convey a message for whoever could benefit from it. If you couldn’t, it’s unfortunate but it’s your call. I did my part, and you made your choice, it’s on you.

 

[LIIA]

Darwin's Illusion was refuted a long time ago..

You wish.

 

[LIIA]

Now as to "experimenting on God" That was not what I asked of you.

Great, your being logical here, it's important not forget this principle. You cannot experiment on God (see # 2029). It’s illogical and ridiculous.

What we can do experiments on are claims that are found in the Bible. The Bible is not God. It is a book. It is a book written by men. Now you believe that it was inspired by God. I do not believe that. Testing the Bible is not "testing God". Testing your personal beliefs is not "testing God'.

Again, you’re being logical here with respect to experimentation or verification of claims found on religious scripture/holy books. But it’s important to understand that even so the claims can/do prove authenticity but it's not intended as a compelling authority that takes away your freedom of choice.

Yes, I believe the Bible includes traces of truth, but false human deviations/alterations found its way to the Bible, that’s why Islam came to purify the original message and restore the pure message, which is essentially the same message previously conveyed by all messengers/prophets.

You’re talking about “Testing the Bible”, how about testing Quran? Quran includes many claims that prove its authenticity. But again, Quran is neither intended to be a scientific book nor a compelling authority that takes away your freedom of choice. Per the Islamic view, this kind of compelling authority exists in other realms (the realm of angels) but in our realm as humans, everything is designed around granting us the freedom of choice in our domain.

There are claims in Quran that we can verify and other claims that we can’t (supernatural). All verifiable claims are true/consistent with modern science. The knowledge of it was not attainable to humans 1400 years ago. The verifiable claims prove the credibility of the overall message including other supernatural claims beyond direct verification.

 

[rational experiences]

A human thinking as an adult legal claim 21 years old.

As family said we had to make new family verbal topics a legal verbal term agreement for humanity also.

That adult lives about 100 years thinking observing is human stated.

I observed gradual humans owned biological re emergence into A better healthier body than what they were born with.

Hence it must own a heavenly cause!

Yet god is by two bodies as science.

Ground water mass radiated heated into the sin hole....mass caves in spirit fusion gets melted removed. Machines fault. Known advised biologies change.

Fills up with water as proof the flood saved sciences caused ground burning position.

Earth ground changes constantly cooled in flooding.

Any human national DNA would change sporadic. Witnessed. Holy people's human idea. Yet natural was changing they re emerged into what they should own. Origin parent health.

Same result water stops leaving too by mass ground evaporation. Ice the saviour mass then stops melting. Can become cooler as ices mass. So any extra not returned evaporated water comes back to ground also from above.

As heated gases cool higher colder ice temperature cold. Water returns holy life is oxygenated by oxygen amount no longer present.

Three conditions science said changed life's biology sometimes..not always ...it's sporadic. Said it legally. Not every human changes the same.

Said hence earths cooling was a non nuclear science position that should gain a genetic response. Future predicted in no science practiced terms only.

And it did. Less plagues Inherited. Brain mind behaviours improved.

Natural observation is science only by man humans natural position. Healer medical biology scientists wisdom.

Three causes he stated. Inherited biologies seen life change causes.

 

[LIIA]

there will not be any gradualism of land fossils. Do you understand this?

Agreed. Thanks for the acknowledgment.

And why do you only talk about fossils when it comers to evolution?

I did talk about many things, see # 1864, yet gradualism is the most fundamental principle when it comes to evolution. And as I said numerous times, the predictions of gradualism are not limited to the fossil record, there are predictions that must be seen among living organisms if gradualism is true, yet we don’t see it.

Let’s stop arguing about the fossil record since we both agreed that we neither see or will see gradualism in the fossil record (just don’t forget your acknowledgment of it).

Now, why don’t we see the predictions of gradualism among living organisms? Why don’t we see the predictions of numerous emerging random (non-beneficial) mutations among living organisms?

Simply if the predictions of a hypothesis are not consistent with real world observations, the hypothesis is necessarily false.

 

[LIIA]

Right, because that has no direct implications to your religious beliefs.

No, because its logical, isn’t it? “Facts/data do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." I agree with it because it’s simply logical. My agreement with a logical statement has nothing to do with any religious beliefs.

Right, because that directly conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Thus you are doing exactly what I described....cherry picking from your own experts (based on how their "declarations" mesh with your religious beliefs).

Not at all, you’re the one who is evidently cherry picking right now, I gave you my logical reason for my disagreement, but you intentionally ignored it and focused only on my disagreement as if I didn’t provide any justification in # 2034. If you don’t agree with my justification, state your reasons rather that playing a fallacious trick.

IOW, when he says it didn't happen by Darwin's mechanism, he's not saying it didn't happen via evolution, he's saying it happened via a different set of evolutionary mechanisms than what are considered "Darwinism".

Of course, he means “it happened via a different set of evolutionary mechanisms” and again, THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM, not only with Gould but with all proponents of evolution such as yourself, they hold evolution as an axiom. Even if all fundamental assumptions/mechanisms or predictions are proven false, (see #781) they simply insist that it’s still somehow an evolutionary process; whether the mechanism is not known or if assumed mechanism is false, it doesn’t matter to them. They simply hold tight to a false axiom.

Their notion is "it’s evolution/must be evolution before the evidence, then let’s search and find the evidence that prove us right”, and if they don’t or if they are proven wrong, it doesn’t matter, it's still evolution. Do you understand?

 

[LIIA]

Theories explain facts. And you have no evidence for your claim that "gradualism is totally false'. In fact it is already refuted since there are examples of gradualism. And of course there is quote a bit of scientific evidence for gradualism, but you of course refuse to learn the basics of science.

Relative frequency of evidence in the fossil record (and more importantly among living organisms), not only refutes gradualism but also refute the false interpretations of alleged examples.

 

[LIIA]

"Outside of the theoretical framework and the evidence it explains, what evidence is there?"

No, theoretical framework doesn’t explain evidence; it explains world's data.

If world's data/facts are perceived/interpreted to be consistent with theoretical framework, then it gets accepted as evidence. The problem is the determination of that consistency, even if some data appear consistent, it's not a sufficient determination, the determination is based on the relative frequency of evidence not examples even if the examples appear consistent, do you understand?

From day one, the ToE was held as a false axiom, which led to false interpretation of data as explained below.

See #1252 for some EVOLUTIONARY NONSENSE (Orce Man & Nebraska Man) that got refuted by scientists.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

See # 422 for the alleged evolution of tetrapods (Tiktaalik)

Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums

See #1217 & #1298 for the alleged evolution of whales

Darwin's Illusion | Page 61 | Religious Forums

See #1298 for the alleged evolution of horses

Darwin's Illusion | Page 65 | Religious Forums

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed. Thanks for the acknowledgment.



I did talk about many things, see # 1864, yet gradualism is the most fundamental principle when it comes to evolution. And as I said numerous times, the predictions of gradualism are not limited to the fossil record, there are predictions that must be seen among living organisms if gradualism is true, yet we don’t see it.

Let’s stop arguing about the fossil record since we both agreed that we neither see or will see gradualism in the fossil record (just don’t forget your acknowledgment of it).

Now, why don’t we see the predictions of gradualism among living organisms? Why don’t we see the predictions of numerous emerging random (non-beneficial) mutations among living organisms?

Simply if the predictions of a hypothesis are not consistent with real world observations, the hypothesis is necessarily false.

Yes. gradualism is rather fundamental to evolution. But it is not expected to show up in the fossil record so once again, why are you endlessly nattering about gradualism and the fossil record? There are some examples of it. @Dan From Smithville posted some up above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Relative frequency of evidence in the fossil record (and more importantly among living organisms), not only refutes gradualism but also refute the false interpretations of alleged examples.

No, it doesn't. It confirms evolution. Once again, we do not expect to see gradualism in the fossil record. That it is not to be found does not matter.

What we expect to see if the theory is true is a systematic development of new species and that is observed. The fossil record confirms the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, theoretical framework doesn’t explain evidence; it explains world's data.

If world's data/facts are perceived/interpreted to be consistent with theoretical framework, then it gets accepted as evidence. The problem is the determination of that consistency, even if some data appear consistent, it's not a sufficient determination, the determination is based on the relative frequency of evidence not examples even if the examples appear consistent, do you understand?

From day one, the ToE was held as a false axiom, which led to false interpretation of data as explained below.

See #1252 for some EVOLUTIONARY NONSENSE (Orce Man & Nebraska Man) that got refuted by scientists.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

See # 422 for the alleged evolution of tetrapods (Tiktaalik)

Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums

See #1217 & #1298 for the alleged evolution of whales

Darwin's Illusion | Page 61 | Religious Forums

See #1298 for the alleged evolution of horses

Darwin's Illusion | Page 65 | Religious Forums

I tell you what, instead of running a Gish Gallop that is just a load of dingoes kidneys why not discuss these properly. Let's go over them one at a time and I will gladly show why you are wrong in each and every case.