Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

No, sorry, you are very wrong. I was an observational scientist/ generalist/ nexialist/ metaphysician/ "ancient scientist"/ intuitor/ etc even before I knew what all of these terms meant and even before formally studying modern science. More importantly it was many years before I began reading science fiction which was one of the few sources of real culture back in the 1940's to 1970's. You know, back when culture still existed. I didn't read science fiction because it was "true" merely because it was actual culture in those days. I "never" claimed to be smarter than other people or more enlightened, just different.

I have not deluded myself into believing I've made any important discoveries but rather made a major rediscovery and laid the ground work for a new paradigm that will require the hard work of people way "smarter" than me to bring to fruition. Anyone could have made any "discovery" I have. I merely took a route that is less traveled.

Just as this thread is about the way things change science changes as well; as one wise man said "time don't fly, it bounds and leaps". That's what we have here is bounding time because everything is going to change at once just like real life. And just like real life it changes one birth and one death at a time and has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" and everything to do with what works in the here and now. All of reality is hopelessly intertwined and every part necessary to the whole. Every part is dependent on every other part at all times and "science" is a microcosm of the exact same thing because science is an attempt to understand reality itself. When you cast off all the important characteristics of change in species you should hardly be surprised when it turns out you are wrong. When you use reductionistic science it behooves you to at least use all the evidence and all the experiment to draw conclusions or develop paradigms and theory. You can't understand life without some understanding of its most fundamental characteristic. Peering at fossils is not science at all whether it is done today or was done by Darwin.

" observational scientist"

 

[cladking]

What the Nazi did to the Jews were criminal behaviors and great tragedy, but none of that have to physical and biological diversity. Germans and Jews are humans.

You learned nothing from WW II so we'll have to do it again.

Aside from the fact you already lost this argument, you learned nothing from WW II so we'll have to do it again. "Germans" nor "nazis" killed millions of people They were killed by evil. They were killed by individuals who were seeking solutions to the continuing life of those they didn't like because they were told not to like them. They were told cripples were an albatross around the neck of society and had to be eliminated. They were told the mental defectives and whole classes and races of people needed death. Every murderer wasn't a nazi or a German just most of them. They all listened to Hitler who had a better idea about how to run a country so they started taking over and killing their neighbors and then killing themselves and many less fit people were naturally then selected to dies as well. How much less fit can an individual be than a wounded Russian in the hands of the nazis? WW II didn't happen because Germans or nazis were evil, it happened because evil was let loose. This evil had at its base that people weren't responsible for their actions because they were driven by the id and that the weak and less fit were going to be eliminated anyway. It had beliefs at its root just like the actions of every single homo omnisciencis who ever lived. Adopt evil beliefs > do evil things. Decide there are too many people on a fragile planet then begin eliminating those deemed superfluous like those in fly over country or squatting on indian land.

This isn't really about whether you call what drives "Evolution" survival of the fittest or natural selection because such a mechanism exists by no name at all. It is a concoction dreamed up to remove the devine from what was the last bastion of religion; life itself. But this attempt wasn't misguided because it attempted to explain life in terms that required no Gods, it was misguided because "change in species" is not what make individuals unique which is what actually changes species. It was misguided because consciousness is far far more fundamental to life than the nature of time on groups of individuals. It is so fundamental that it is impossible to understand life or the change in life without first having a working definition. "Consciousness" is a gift bestowed by nature/ God/ smoke 'em if you got 'em on every single individual to better succeed and reproduce. Consciousness lies at the heart of life not fitness. Consciousness is paramount and intelligence doesn't even exist. This is what every experiment ever performed by man is telling us. All other species already know this. We had to learn it the hard way with science and hard work.

Don't worry about having to give up your place at the crown of creation since you can just do like me and be smarter than the average picinic basket. The important thing is that you still get your lunch and have the opportunity to have some fun and make the world a little better place. So buck up, nobody is ever really right about anything and all we can do is try to have good beliefs and build our models such that thy can generate good prediction sometimes.

 

[cladking]

As a woman realising man's historic behaviour of our human female abuses.

Until you right that wrong as a human in men's society. I understand you will continue to behave as if an adult man is a God.

And not just a natural mutual equal human.

As a basic question you can ask is why did you thesis teach a human is closest in living biology to a monkey in our life?

Human behaviour dictated it.

Humans as just men as life's equal but in monetary control stated what I believe I control as belief.

Ordered it. If you contested the advice they just murdered you.

Isn't humans truth.

So the man's behaviour to act as a biological authoritarian emerged as a scientific human behaviour.

Bio truth is far more important a teaching than self idolisations. Pretending by man only theism you created life ...all of it by talking.

The exact reason for theories was about dominion as a human owning position place evolution.

Highest greatest now status knowing no more evolution growth of a human cell into a higher body not human was real.

By all stated living evidences.

Types of constant heavens gases.
Water oxygenated life forms.

If evolution was a science they'd expect a human would by law then emerge into a different higher life form not human.

So humans said I am position evolution.

Dominion on earth conscious awareness does not actually rationally support any other bodies abuse.

Man has relatively little to be proud of in historic times and men have even less.

I agree that if we weren't so damn full of ourselves we could do far better and have far more of which to be proud.

 

[cladking]

" observational scientist"

"Observational scientist": An individual who uses Logic and Observation to understand reality rather than Experiment and Observation. The term is really very similar to what many "Peers" do today which I call "Look and See Science" and the only difference is trying to keep all modeling internally consistent and based either on experiment, deduction, or unstructured observation. This requires conscious effort and a continual reexamination of premises and methodology so it is distinct from just looking an seeing or a reliance on experts.

Of course when I began I could not fully define it as my knowledge and experience were highly limited.

 

[Audie]

"Observational scientist": An individual who uses Logic and Observation to understand reality rather than Experiment and Observation. The term is really very similar to what many "Peers" do today which I call "Look and See Science" and the only difference is trying to keep all modeling internally consistent and based either on experiment, deduction, or unstructured observation. This requires conscious effort and a continual reexamination of premises and methodology so it is distinct from just looking an seeing or a reliance on experts.

Of course when I began I could not fully define it as my knowledge and experience were highly limited.

Still is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

" observational scientist"

Look and see.

 

[gnostic]

" observational scientist"

That's what I thought, the irony of him being observational scientist.

A) He isn't scientist. At best, he can call himself a "philosopher", but his philosophy isn't something that anyone follow except himself.

B) He often scoff off "evidence" and "experiment" as being "look and see science", NOT UNDERSTANDING THESE (evidence & experiments) ARE BOTH "OBSERVATIONS".

C) Another claim - "ancient scientist" - is a empty claim, as his "ancient science" (40,000 years old science) left no "writing" or scientific "treatise".
​

What he call "scientist" isn't scientist as he has no qualification and no experiences in any field, so it is just word game.

 

[Audie]

That's what I thought, the irony of him being observational scientist.

A) He isn't scientist. At best, he can call himself a "philosopher", but his philosophy isn't something that anyone follow except himself.

B) He often scoff off "evidence" and "experiment" as being "look and see science", NOT UNDERSTANDING THESE (evidence & experiments) ARE BOTH "OBSERVATIONS".

C) Another claim - "ancient scientist" - is a empty claim, as his "ancient science" (40,000 years old science) left no "writing" or scientific "treatise".
​

What he call "scientist" isn't scientist as he has no qualification and no experiences in any field, so it is just word game.

I usually don't read the posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Observational scientist": An individual who uses Logic and Observation to understand reality rather than Experiment and Observation.

So.... someone who doesn't test his ideas.

 

[cladking]

Wow!!!

Nobody seems to want to discuss any of the subjects here. Currently you are not discussing this subject;

"No, sorry, you are very wrong. I was an observational scientist/ generalist/ nexialist/ metaphysician/ "ancient scientist"/ intuitor/ etc even before I knew what all of these terms meant and even before formally studying modern science. "

I doubt the real problem is reading comprehension unless you are all Egyptologists so I assume you are merely trying to further cloud the issues.

Since this subject you are currently not discussing is also not the subject I will avoid responding further unless we get back to Darwin's beliefs and the numerous ways in which he was wrong.

 

[rational experiences]

A human says I'm living. To a theist who writes some data on paper claiming it represents life. Human says why I know I'm correct.

He says next in bio life living as full body of many cells and various cell tissues bio chemicals bone and blood types. Is a monkey ape baboon type.

As a human.

Acting as a human god is as scientists do. It's their behaviour. He says natural selection caused humans not to be a monkey.

As my god type within is human man genesis I'll tell you I'm with my man's god. Human.

Compared to humans who claim Satan cloud angels or Jesus man images in clouds began life.

Two types of theists. In science. As men.

No God did it he says. Eternal crop circles Jesus...fall of man. Themed Satan terms machines sciences. All data terms exact about data when no human life body type even existed.

Data states when no biology existed clouds.

Okay wasn't the pierced in side God body type rocks flesh God of science mountain when angel fell said men?

Yes. Caves. As UFO ark was hot not transmitters melted mountain in false man's gold idolisations. Causing rock melt. The God body and not man's. It was sacrificed too ignored today.

Okay yet man's body sacrificed gained stigmata he saw visions heard voices?

Yes.

Oh so he was man already then?

Yes.

He must have received the cloud mass bodily he says. Theists idea I wanted that body type myself. First theist thinker position. Human man.

Why he was changed bodily. He theoried for it. As no machine even exists in any law anywhere.

Oh I thought you said you were saving eternal life as a human bio type who hence never decomposed. Yet they are dead.

No. It wasn't my human intention. I wanted just Eternal. Not for myself. Yet he's the theist of it. Man.

No eternal human he says if I use machines I'll might bring them back from the dead.

Oh you want clouds for your human equals human bodies yourself? Yet you aren't any cloud mass.

No for my machine he says. I brought it out of the dead mass entombed God of science body rock. By burning gases. Light.

As gas spirit in light is earths first sacrifice.

I'll use hot transmitters like old days first as end. I need clouds to cool the transmitters after. As I know my machine blew up.

As he's a God you know our brother the scientist self Idolating.

Why man's theisms destroy all life on earth when he practices machines thesis.

Why no looking back was said to theist man life's destroyer. Human legal stand.

Why the theories of men were not accepted. It's exactly known why already.

 

[LIIA]

So why do you base your arguments solely one the fossil record?

I’m not. See # 1864

Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

See # 753 & 781.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 38 | Religious Forums

Darwin's Illusion | Page 40 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

Yes, there are long periods of stasis.

I’m not concerned how long are the periods of stasis, it's irrelevant. The point is that gradualism is nonexistent in the fossil record both before and after the periods of stasis. Do you understand?

But if you change things too quickly mass extinctions occur

What is the point? Mass extinction is not a concern for a mindless random process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not concerned how long are the periods of stasis, it's irrelevant. The point is that gradualism is nonexistent in the fossil record both before and after the periods of stasis. Do you understand?

But it is not. You do not know where to look for gradualism and why. Examples have been given.

What is the point? Mass extinction is not a concern for a mindless random process.

There are results from mass extinctions, that is the point.

Jumping Muhammad on a tricycle! Why did you edit my post? Using the back arrow I found that the answers to the questions you ask were in that post:

"No, sorry, you merely do not understand the difference between geological time and biological time. Yes, there are long periods of stasis. But if you change things too quickly mass extinctions occur. Changes will appear to be quick in the geological record, but a million years is almost a blink of an eye in most depositional environments. Look to sea life if you want to see gradualism. There is no reason to expect it in terrestrial life at all."

 

[LIIA]

Why? Because no creationist position
matches the data.
You might like to review a few sites that discuss scientific integrity/ intellectual honesty.

The items you mentioned have nothing to
do with the accuracy of ToE.

There is intellectual dishonesty though
on the part if those who chose to
misrepresent the science and use it
to justify their racism.

Again, that has nothing to do with
integrity-on my part or on that of people
who understand and accept ToE.

It's much the same with morality.
In this, you misrepresent evolution
with "survival of the fittest", and
IF that's merely that you don't know
any better, we can steer you right.
Otherwise, it is dishonesty on your part.

And, as with the racism thing, evolution,
like religion, politics, or any ad hoc excuse
can be used to justify any behaviour one
chooses.

Intellectual dishonesty is excused by
Creationists by their religion.

Such ill behaviour does nothing to detract
from whatever reality there us to God,
no more than racists can affect the validity
of evolution.

You committed the fallacy of
overgeneralizing, that all who accept
ToE are dishonest, when in truth it's a
small deviant subset who misrepresent and
misapply it.

The creationists are the deviant subset in
religion.

You conflated the whole issue and turned it into some meaningless emotional accusations. I’m talking about the adaptation of a specific concept and the implications of such adaptation, not merely some empty accusations or even the accuracy of the theory. I never claimed that the "moral implications” of the ToE is a scientific refutation of the theory, do you understand?

In your post # 3187 you agreed with others and accused creationists to be dishonest. My point here is “Honesty” as a concept/moral value, what defines it and how if fits in one concept or another.

As I said in #3194, the concept of the ToE eliminates all references of morality/values and doesn’t make distinction between being human or animal. The conduct of Homo sapiens as any other animal is merely derived from random natural processes instilled in its genes as a natural response to the need of survival, the only principal that remains in effect is the struggle for survival and survival of the fittest. Honesty/Morality is meaningless in that concept.

Creationism defines a reference for morality. In absence of that reference, what would define something to be moral or immoral and why? All what is left are interactions of matter governed by natural laws that yield a dictated outcome. Can you call the outcome of a chemical reaction to be moral or immoral?

Morality is always associated with a choice, if interactions of matter and your specific genes dictate your conduct and action, is there still a choice? Can the natural outcome of natural processes be moral or immoral?

If struggle for survival and survival of the fittest is the only law of nature to move forward, then why is the Nazi selective breeding of the “Nordic” race with better biological “Aryan” traits would be wrong? Why racial biology/ eugenics programs would be wrong if it allows better inheritance of traits? Why forced sterilization of people with physical or intellectual disability that can affect inheritance of traits by offspring would be wrong? (Between 60,000 and 90,000 Americans were subjected to involuntary sterilization).

If we are merely animals that are responding to natural instincts/needs, then why incestuous relationship between mother and son or father and daughter would be wrong? Why rape, or sexual abuse of children would be wrong? Why stealing and killing would be wrong? It becomes merely natural fulfillment of needs and natural struggle for survival. The laws of the jungle become the only laws of nature that govern, not only for wild animal but also humans who are no longer different than any animal.

What is the reference of morality for those who adapt the evolutionary concept? If your conduct brings you a benefit or fulfills your need in one way or another and you can get away with it, why would it be wrong? If the genes and mere interaction of matter dictate your behavior and actions, why would be any action immoral/wrong?

The evolutionary concept eliminates any meaning or reference for Honesty/Morality. It becomes a matter of relative preference or need as it fits in the struggle for survival. Those proponents of the ToE who claims to embrace honesty/morality and extend a helping hand to the weak and disabled are necessarily hypocrites who are betraying the only principle of nature to eliminate the unfit along the natural course towards prosperity.

 

[LIIA]

I love how you insist to double, nay - tripple, down on your mistakes.

the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin[7] is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record

What they talk about is the degree of gradualism that was commonly attributed to Darwin = the rate of evolution over time being pretty much a constant. Evidence for THAT DEGREE is nonexistent, because as it turned out, that's not how evolutionary change tends to work.

The rate / degree of gradualism goes up as local optimums shift, and goes down once local optimums are approaching / reached at which point they enter stasis again.

So the rate / degree of gradualism is actually with up and downs. Slow to even an almost stand-still during statis / local optimum. Then speeding up as life quickly shifts to other local optimums and then settle there in a new stasis.

You should read with more attention.

You keep linking this article thinking it supports your case, BUT IT DOES NOT

You focus on semantics and ignore the facts. As I said in my post # 3191, your claim that some rate of gradual change (necessarily numerous functional intermediates) precedes local optimum/stasis and continues after stasis with gradual transformation towards next local optimum is totally false. it’s an empty claim against the facts of the fossil record. The alleged gradualism (rate of change) between periods of stasis is nonexistent.

As confirmed by paleontologists, all what we see in the fossil record is fully formed organisms within the periods of stasis followed by sudden jumps characterized by massive change of the genetic info (saltation). See the quotes in #3191.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You conflated the whole issue and turned it into some meaningless emotional accusations. I’m talking about the adaptation of a specific concept and the implications of such adaptation, not merely some empty accusations or even the accuracy of the theory. I never claimed that the "moral implications” of the ToE is a scientific refutation of the theory, do you understand?

In your post # 3187 you agreed with others and accused creationists to be dishonest. My point here is “Honesty” as a concept/moral value, what defines it and how if fits in one concept or another.

As I said in #3194, the concept of the ToE eliminates all references of morality/values and doesn’t make distinction between being human or animal. The conduct of Homo sapiens as any other animal is merely derived from random natural processes instilled in its genes as a natural response to the need of survival, the only principal that remains in effect is the struggle for survival and survival of the fittest. Honesty/Morality is meaningless in that concept.

Creationism defines a reference for morality. In absence of that reference, what would define something to be moral or immoral and why? All what is left are interactions of matter governed by natural laws that yield a dictated outcome. Can you call the outcome of a chemical reaction to be moral or immoral?

Morality is always associated with a choice, if interactions of matter and your specific genes dictate your conduct and action, is there still a choice? Can the natural outcome of natural processes be moral or immoral?

If struggle for survival and survival of the fittest is the only law of nature to move forward, then why is the Nazi selective breeding of the “Nordic” race with better biological “Aryan” traits would be wrong? Why racial biology/ eugenics programs would be wrong if it allows better inheritance of traits? Why forced sterilization of people with physical or intellectual disability that can affect inheritance of traits by offspring would be wrong? (Between 60,000 and 90,000 Americans were subjected to involuntary sterilization).

If we are merely animals that are responding to natural instincts/needs, then why incestuous relationship between mother and son or father and daughter would be wrong? Why rape, or sexual abuse of children would be wrong? Why stealing and killing would be wrong? It becomes merely natural fulfillment of needs and natural struggle for survival. The laws of the jungle become the only laws of nature that govern, not only for wild animal but also humans who are no longer different than any animal.

What is the reference of morality for those who adapt the evolutionary concept? If your conduct brings you a benefit or fulfills your need in one way or another and you can get away with it, why would it be wrong? If the genes and mere interaction of matter dictate your behavior and actions, why would be any action immoral/wrong?

The evolutionary concept eliminates any meaning or reference for Honesty/Morality. It becomes a matter of relative preference or need as it fits in the struggle for survival. Those proponents of the ToE who claims to embrace honesty/morality and extend a helping hand to the weak and disabled are necessarily hypocrites who are betraying the only principle of nature to eliminate the unfit along the natural course towards prosperity.

Morality is a human invention, though formed somewhat by evolution. We do not need a book of myths to be moral.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You focus on semantics and ignore the facts. As I said in my post # 3191, your claim that some rate of gradual change (necessarily numerous functional intermediates) precedes local optimum/stasis and continues after stasis with gradual transformation towards next local optimum is totally false. it’s an empty claim against the facts of the fossil record. The alleged gradualism (rate of change) between periods of stasis is nonexistent.

As confirmed by paleontologists, all what we see in the fossil record is fully formed organisms within the periods of stasis followed by sudden jumps characterized by massive change of the genetic info (saltation). See the quotes in #3191.

One more time. Terrestrial fossils are exceedingly rare. It takes several factors for fossils to form and they do not happen very often on land..

Don't believe me? See what happens to well over 99% of animals when they die today. You only focus on terrestrial fossils where huge gaps are expected. If you want a more continual record go to the seas. And even then, depositional environments do not last forever, but you can see gradual changes over millions of years.

 

[LIIA]

Ignorant claims?

Yes, the functions of claimed vestigial (useless) organs have been empirically documented. If diseases affect organs during the aging process, it doesn’t mean that these organs are vestigial.

I don't think anyone claimed to not also serve some function. Not a very important one though. They hurt a lot more people then they help keep healthy.

See the article below; it sheds light on the function of the appendix. The article clearly stated “THE IDEA OF THE APPENDIX BEING A VESTIGIAL ORGAN SHOULD THEREFORE BE DISCARDED.”

Here is quote from the conclusion of the article:

“The vermiform appendix is not a rudimentary organ, but rather an important part of the immune system with a distinct function within the GALT different from lymphoid tissue in other parts of the intestine.”

The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature - PMC (nih.gov)

1 in 20 people is not what I call "statistically very rare".

- Asthma alone (not considering other lung diseases) affects 1 in 13 people or 8%.

- Kidney disease affect 1 in 7 or 15% of American adults.

- Cardiovascular diseases affect nearly half of American adults (48%).

The appendix problems are comparatively rare and associated with the aging process; it has nothing to do with the ignorant claims about the appendix being unnecessary.

the 3 articles below clarify the importance of the appendix.

The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature - PMC (nih.gov)

The Appendix Protects Us From Germs And Protects Good Bacteria (medicalnewstoday.com)

Your Appendix Could Save Your Life - Scientific American

 

[rational experiences]

Human men own evolution now coldest Infinities moment.

As cold adapted biology says theism.

Cold saviour ice not earths origin. Water to sea flood only saved life.

Neither created life. Yet are coldest in concepts water is life.

Saviour concepts.

As if you'd put man inside of ice he'd be deceased.

So saviour terms given to God as concepts are about mass bodies. Not human.

Earth leeching from mass.
Gases as mass not natural light burning, falling. As cold water became heated water up and down.

Not natural light he said it is illuminated.

Cold brought back mutual balances.

A human digs up a dead body. Says it was deformed.

Sex owned the deformity not the heavens.

Meaning a human had nearly died gained physical Ill health.

Like starving humans have sex gain sick malnourished babies.

So heavens cooling removed falling hot water. Falling burning gas mass.

Star mass hit dispersed too much dusts above the burning falling reason.

Took many years for small biology to heal by not being malnourished in bared naked garden abominated life.

Starvation.
No food growing.

Sex said science gave humanity or animals inherited mutations. So a healthy parent bore it's birth. As DNA is pre owned damaged. Might not be the moment of change in heavens.

Basic advice. If ice didn't exist which is an end it is reacted. We would not exist. You cannot thesis against it said science.

If water flooding wasn't present going up and down as mass we would not exist.

Saviour determined statuses...laws man caused.

You talk about law changed claiming saviour ice mass body was first saviour. Ours.

Flooding the effect.

Science says I can burn the gases above and make it rain. Knew. However didn't own it stopping.

What is a Fossil living?

Not a fossil.

Men said if water didn't cover our bodies we'd die. Pretty basic advice.

What stops nuclear...do you use water in cooling that only you apply yourselves?

Yes says science.

Do you use applied pressures you enforce in science causes? I built.

Yes.

Is practicing science. It isn't creations science.

Men's mind know huge star earth gained mass changed biology on earth. As part of the cause. Isn't wise science or holy science it's evil advice.