Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Very many people who study and research and experiment - "scientists" and everyone else, but here, specifically those who identify as professionals of science - utterly reject the outdated fantasies of Darwin. Some of them give lip service, in order not to be prejudicially excluded from receiving grants and being published.

There are over half a dozen alternatives to Darwin, attempting to explain varieties (genera, families, types, or as Darwin said, "kinds", etc.) or "body plans" or structures (surface and deep) of life forms. I am partial to the Third Way and Dependency Graph, coupled with Roger Tarbutton’s Natural Genetic Engineering. Actuality is probably to be expressesed by a combination of developing views.

Okay, what did Darwin get wrong? There was quite a bit that he did not know, genetics did not exist as a science during his time so he was bound to get some of those details wrong. Specifically what were his supposed "fantasies""? Time has been mostly on his side. With what little information that he had he was remarkably accurate. Was he flawless? No, not even close. But he was still a visionary that spawned a theory that united all of biology.

 

[Audie]

What's your proof?

Bible. It proves whatever you need to
prove.

 

[Audie]

Very many people who study and research and experiment - "scientists" and everyone else, but here, specifically those who identify as professionals of science - utterly reject the outdated fantasies of Darwin. Some of them give lip service, in order not to be prejudicially excluded from receiving grants and being published.

There are over half a dozen alternatives to Darwin, attempting to explain varieties (genera, families, types, or as Darwin said, "kinds", etc.) or "body plans" or structures (surface and deep) of life forms. I am partial to the Third Way and Dependency Graph, coupled with Roger Tarbutton’s Natural Genetic Engineering. Actuality is probably to be expressesed by a combination of developing views.

I think you are just making things up.

 

[blü 2]

Species “adapt” not “evolve”. Adaptation is erroneously called "microevolution" but it's not evolution at all.

I don't understand what you're saying.

What is an example of a species 'adapting' but not 'evolving' in this sense?

And what scientific body has claimed, in respect of that example, that it's not 'adaptation' but 'evolution'?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Very many people who study and research and experiment - "scientists" and everyone else, but here, specifically those who identify as professionals of science - utterly reject the outdated fantasies of Darwin. Some of them give lip service, in order not to be prejudicially excluded from receiving grants and being published.

There are over half a dozen alternatives to Darwin, attempting to explain varieties (genera, families, types, or as Darwin said, "kinds", etc.) or "body plans" or structures (surface and deep) of life forms. I am partial to the Third Way and Dependency Graph, coupled with Roger Tarbutton’s Natural Genetic Engineering. Actuality is probably to be expressesed by a combination of developing views.

Really. Can you show me the data you are using to make these claims?

Can you put numbers on "very many". Is that like a billion?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I need something that can help me edit photos. I'm going through all my pictures and re-editing them with the new software. I'm quickly going insane and cross eyed. The good news is I've found 2 new species in my collection that I didn't know I'd photographed. I must have not bothered checking the photos I'd taken.

I hate going insane. But cool that you found two new species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Very many people who study and research and experiment - "scientists"

You can just lead with "scientist", we understand what that means.

and everyone else,

That would be the other human inhabitants of the planet? That' a lot of people. Makes you wonder who is on the side of science.

but here,

specifically those who identify as professionals of science

Again, just lead with professional scientist. I think you will find we recognize what that means. Just trying to help you be more concise. Of course, scientists aren't your target audience though I suppose.

- utterly reject the outdated fantasies of Darwin

Please explain what Darwin's outdated fantasies and what up to date fantasies are being accepted by the many people that study and research and experiment professionally. And everyone else?

. Some of them give lip service, in order not to be prejudicially excluded from receiving grants and being published.

Or course. Everyone knows that. There must be billions of them. But not the "the people that study and research and experiment professionally and engage with the Third Way. They have a website with pictures. There's James Shapiro, Denis Noble, Gerd B. Müller. Professional scientists. Wow! But not just scientists, also philosophers, MBA's, historians, more philosophers, a professor of literature, a professor of English, people criticized for embracing pseudoscience, more philosophers...Oh my! It looks like the live ones on the list aren't worried about funding or credibility.

There are over half a dozen alternatives to Darwin, attempting to explain varieties (genera, families, types, or as Darwin said, "kinds", etc.) or "body plans" or structures (surface and deep) of life forms.

Can you list them for me? I'm not up on all the competition for the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis.

I am partial to the Third Way and Dependency Graph, coupled with Roger Tarbutton’s Natural Genetic Engineering.

I'm fascinated by the research lawyers have done with evolutionary theory and natural genetic engineering.

Actuality is probably to be expressesed by a combination of developing views.

That is why there is a controversy with a small number of scientists claiming the current modification of the theory of evolution isn't inclusive of new discoveries and needs modification. But the professional scientists involved are not proposing that evolution doesn't take place and that some personal belief system should be put in its place. But for some that "Third Way" may not be science. This looks like the same play, with a different cast. That's the problem with controversy, you get those that have valid reasons for controversy and then you get the kooks that glom onto anything that looks like it might lead to their pseudoscience becoming the paradigm.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you got evidence of this?

Problem, solution, solution?

 

[gnostic]

Very many people who study and research and experiment - "scientists" and everyone else, but here, specifically those who identify as professionals of science - utterly reject the outdated fantasies of Darwin. Some of them give lip service, in order not to be prejudicially excluded from receiving grants and being published.

Is that the case?

Then perhaps you can name some of these biologists and briefly explain what they have done or achieve to refute Natural Selection?​

​

What alternative framework did these biologists proposed, to replace Natural Selection?​

 

[Audie]

Is that the case?

Then perhaps you can named some of these biologists and briefly explain what they have done or achieve to refute Natural Selection?​

​

What alternative framework did these biologists proposed, to replace Natural Selection?​

As if

 

[Zwing]

There are over half a dozen alternatives to Darwin…

These issues are only with the mechanisms of evolution, not with the fact, unless you’re talking about Behe, who’s a crank.

 

[gnostic]

As if

Too much to hope for?

 

[cladking]

The identity of the flies would have to be determined.

I named a few of them and had short quiet funerals for some. If I could have opened up a dialog I'd have named 'em all. If they'd have listened to reason I'd have fed them outdoors and saved them the slaughter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I named a few of them and had short quiet funerals for some. If I could have opened up a dialog I'd have named 'em all. If they'd have listened to reason I'd have fed them outdoors and saved them the slaughter.

Of course you did.

I think I would have greater success reasoning with dead flies than I do with those that imagine things into fact.

Perhaps if you had more understanding of science you would have put some real effort into an actual experiment.

 

[cladking]

Questioning or expanding on his ideas isn't saying he's wrong. Darwin was a while ago, we learn more but that doesn't mean he was wrong.

Again his work was a good foundation and he was ahead of his time but this doesn't change the fact he was so very wrong and "survival of the fittest" has proven so deadly to so many people.

Your fly experiment would only be meaningful if you bred the flies in a closed environment. If you're just talking about stray flies entering your house it doesn't mean a thing. Did you keep a record of temperature? I'm not an entomologist (I do know one) but I believe flies have different behaviour at different temperatures.

It was in no way a controlled experiment. It was more like an observation or anecdotal evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again his work was a good foundation and he was ahead of his time but this doesn't change the fact he was so very wrong and "survival of the fittest" has proven so deadly to so many people.

You don't understand natural selection.

It was in no way a controlled experiment. It was more like an observation or anecdotal evidence.

Controlled experiments lead to observations. Darwin tested his observations by looking at multiple lines of evidence that were available to him.

You claim to have fathered an entire species of fly on ignorance and anecdote.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I named a few of them and had short quiet funerals for some. If I could have opened up a dialog I'd have named 'em all. If they'd have listened to reason I'd have fed them outdoors and saved them the slaughter.

I'm curious, but I don't expect a serious, reasonable answer that isn't word play.

How is it that you can spend page after page talking about some pseudohistory, or claiming to create a new species of fly, or fish-farming beavers that talk, or fictional species of humans that suddenly replaced all previous humans overnight, but you can't spend five minutes laying out Darwin's assumptions and explaining to us why they are all wrong as you claim? Or instead of naming meaningless categories of objections, provide actual objections to the Lenski E. coli experiment? Or provide any evidence for any of the claims you make along with explanation of why that evidence supports your claims?

It seems like you have the time, so why not a result? What is holding you back?

 

[cladking]

I am ASKING YOU, cladking, I am asking you to present evidence that such science exist or evidence that such translatable language that contain "scientific knowledge".

This is simple and the evidence abounds. More importantly it is logical and conforms with all known experiment. Not to be overlooked is that this "theory" is "reality" itself in terms of ancient science. I understand the irony here as well as the apparent circular reasoning but the observation and logic create "theory" (thot) in terms of Ancient Language. It is homage to "amun" Himself.

Be that as it may every point still stands. There is evidence for an Ancient Language. There is evidence for a world wide language 10,000 years ago and there is evidence for changes in the human "species". This theory has made many predictions and most have never been tested but all that have been tested have been shown to be true.

The language will never be really translated. It can not be translated. Any reasonable attempt at translation will look like a flow chart. I would do this myself but it would be crammed full of jargon and esoteric, hard to follow, logic. Most is situational so unless you're actually there and see what's going on it will be nearly opaque. In other words actual translations are meaningless to English speakers and only discernable to experts who won't be able to see the logic unless they believe it exists. There is no gain since people won't even believe interpretations based on the ACTUAL LITERAL MEANING of the words.

You haven't shown any evidence that these so-called ancient people have advanced language and advanced knowledge of science. You don't even know that they think logically, because there are no written language to express such thinking.

How odd that archaeological beliefs that ancient people relied on superstition and magic is never questioned!!! How odd that people today believe agriculture and cities were invented with no theory at all!!! How odd that people believe it is only natural that there are no written records dating back to the invention of writing!!! How odd that our species wide amnesia is considered normal!!!

I'm am simply telling you based on the physical evidence why such anomalies exist. Every species has its own natural species specific science. Ours was merely more complex because our language was more complex so each generation stood on the shoulders of the one before.

then you would need WRITING where they have shared their thoughts or share what they feel.

You can't "read" their writing. Your brain has been rewired to parse words and their words could not be parsed. I can show you the intended meaning since the intended meaning is hidden right inside the literal meaning. It's the same way with communicating with animals. We don't format speech or communication the way they do. Cave men understood no abstractions and almost every word in modern language has some level of abstraction in its meaning. Their language was mathematical, binary, representative, and metaphysical. Our language has none of these characteristics and it is formatted differently. They can never be translated. They must be interpreted in terms of the literal meaning.

 

[cladking]

Okay, what did Darwin get wrong? There was quite a bit that he did not know, genetics did not exist as a science during his time so he was bound to get some of those details wrong. Specifically what were his supposed "fantasies""? Time has been mostly on his side. With what little information that he had he was remarkably accurate. Was he flawless? No, not even close. But he was still a visionary that spawned a theory that united all of biology.

The problem isn't Darwin was wrong. The problem is we won't jettison all the things he got wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Dogs were bred by choosing those wolves that had less aversion to close ties to humans.

A fateful decision:

Mutations are random and rarely lead to continued success.

Rare is fine. The wins accumulate and the losses get culled out.

What I have seen is that there are those professionals that are roundly rejected by many because they more than question the theory.

If they make claims, they are expected to provide evidenced arguments in support - the standards of the scientific and academic communities.

Here are some I never thought of before. [Darwin] thought populations were stable, survival of the fittest changed species, and consciousness wasn't necessary to life or change in life.

Darwin thought populations were stable? His theory explains why and how they are not.

You were asked to, "Present Darwin's assumptions citing references that support they are and then show us how they were wrong." Do you think you did that? Have you shown that differential survival rates among individuals in a population competing for scarce resources doesn't occur or if it does, doesn't lead to biological evolution, or that consciousness is necessary for evolution?

If Darwin had any experimental support there wouldn't be threads like this.

I'd say that the opposite is true instead. If Darwin had no support, threads like this would be as rare as threads arguing for a flat earth. They exist, but not on RF to my knowledge, and are far outnumbered by disagreements about evolution. You have some unique opinions also lacking experimental support that I haven't seen argued anywhere else, but if they did enjoy such support, more people would be arguing with you.

Observation and evidence are irrelevant. Science is based on experiment.

You just described religion, not science. You must have a different understanding of what experiment is if you have divorced it from observation and evidence.

"Evidence" is interpretation derived from beliefs.

Evidence is what we experience through the senses. Interpretation of that evidence - what is it evidence of - follows, and if done properly, generates sound (correct) conclusions.

Yes! Darwin assumed the exact same thing.

He wrote, "There is no evidence that consciousness is required or involved in natural selection even if human consciousness is involved in artificial selection." That's a different statement from the one you claimed Darwin made. What you wrote was, "He [Darwin] thought ... consciousness wasn't necessary to life or change in life." Wasn't necessary is a different claim from not known to be necessary.

"I have numerous objections to the e coli "experiment" ranging from its relevance, parameters, and execution. Perhaps this highlights my greatest objection;"

That's fine, but until you present them as evidenced argument, your objections are only relevant to you.

I personally don't believe in "punctuated equilibrium" either but this is less wrong than Darwin.

Same answer.

Everything happens suddenly. If you hadn't cooked the egg in less than 4 months it would be inedible. In a year it would be mostly decomposed

These are the kinds of passages others have told you lead to ambiguity. I really don't know what the word sudden means to you if these are examples of sudden change. Do you remember posting this? :

"No matter how many rtimes I say all observed change in life and nature is sudden they continue to gainsay rather than to provide a single example. I am left to provide examples myself (like colliding galaxies)"

How odd that archaeological beliefs that ancient people relied on superstition and magic is never questioned!!!

We know that the ancients relied on superstition and magic. Many modern people still do.