Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

And I contend that all humans do this all the time and as proof I offer the simple facts that all Peers agree, science changes one funeral at a time, and only experiment can stop our circular reasoning. Darwin performed no experiment therefore his reasoning was circular.

"All humans reason circularly all the time and as proof I offer the simple facts that all Peers agree, science changes one funeral at a time, and only experiment can stop our circular reasoning."

And not one believer tried and understood this simple sentence.

This is proof that we are homo rationatio circularis and it is invisible because we all believe we already know everything; homo omnisciencis.

 

[gnostic]

And I contend that all humans do this all the time and as proof I offer the simple facts that all Peers agree, science changes one funeral at a time, and only experiment can stop our circular reasoning.

You keep saying “science changes one funeral at a time”, as if that holds great meaning to your conspiracy theory against Peers.

But it is not the job of the Peers to be cause changes to science with their “brilliant genius” or groundbreaking discoveries.

Their duties in Peer Review, are to ensure that

• the author or team of authors of the hypothesis have followed the requirements of Scientific Method,
• that there are testable observations (eg evidence, experiments & data) available to compare them against the models of the hypothesis,
• and that such evidence/data either support the hypothesis or refute the hypothesis,
• that there are no errors in either the models (eg explanations, predictions, equations) or in the tests (eg observations),
• that there are no biases or fraudulent evidence/data, etc.

The Peers are not there to change any of hypotheses, but to ensure integrity of the tests and observations have met the standards of Scientific Method.

And if some ways, the authors of the respective hypotheses, like trying to bypass testing (eg presenting no evidence, no experiment test results, no data), or try to the errors or fraudulent evidence or data, then they do have duties to report these infractions and to reject the respective hypotheses.

Did you know why Michael Behe have never submitted his Irreducible Complexity (IC) to Peer Review, bypassing scientific journals or publishers?

Because he knew, as a former “peer” that his paper on IC, he has no tests or experiments, no evidence and no data to present with his work. He bypassed Peer Review by sending to publisher that has no Peer Review, and will print his garbage for general readers, who are mostly science-illiterate. He also wrote some books, eg Darwin’s Black Box (DBB), to support and promote his Irreducible Complexity.

If you think Peer Review is wrong or acted with biases, then what do think Behe did with IC & DBB? Without evidence & data, all we have is Behe sayso and his circular reasoning for publishing his pseudoscience works. If anyone use circular reasoning, it is people like Behe, William Dembski, Percival Davis, Dean Kenyon, Stephen Meyer, Graham Hancock, Ken Ham, etc.

Peer Review should reject works that have no evidence & no data, because most likely they are just pseudoscience.

But the Peers don’t hold the powers that you have claimed they have, because these claims are distorted conspiracy theory.

Darwin performed no experiment therefore his reasoning was circular.

Sorry, but the only circular reasoning I have seen, comes from you.

You have boasted repeatedly in the past that you have “all the evidence” or “all the experiments” to support your claims, but whenever anyone requested that you presented them, all we get from you, are evasions, or making claims that you have already presented them (invisible evidence), or that you are using circular reasoning and confirmation bias to support your claims.

You are the king of circular reasoning.

 

[Valjean]

It's simply the nature of speciation. Essentially the only way unusual genes get together is when the rest of the species is dead such as in a bottleneck.

???? -- Why?
Genes change all the time. Every replication is a chance for change. Offspring are not identical clones of their parents, so there's obviously heritable genetic change going on.

And I contend that all humans do this all the time and as proof I offer the simple facts that all Peers agree, science changes one funeral at a time, and only experiment can stop our circular reasoning. Darwin performed no experiment therefore his reasoning was circular.

All humans do what all the time? and for the fiftieth time, what the heck is a "peer"? You're not using the word in any of its usual senses.
What circular reasoning? Is everything not derived from an experiment circular reasoning?

The first four legged fish was not aware that there were no four legged whales on land waiting to eat clumsy fish.

Are you implying that fish, crabs, or other aquatic species are consciously anticipating and planning for long-term, potential threats?
Are you implying that animals won't venture into unfamiliar terrain if the possibility of predation exists?
What about the predators already in their familiar habitat?

Consciousness is or is not. The very first life form was conscious by definition. Obviously as life has become more complex so too has consciousness.

Conscious by definition? How are you defining consciousness, and why would a microbe necessarily be conscious?

And what is your point here, anyway?

Again? Why can't believers see opposing arguments? Obviously you can't consider or even discuss what you can't see. There is no gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest as Darwin imagined. There is no life without consciousness and all consciousness is individual and therefore there are no "species" to change at all. All life cooperates instead of competing and species change suddenly because of behavior at bottlenecks or mutation.

You keep making these statements, and offer no support. Repetition doesn't strengthen your case.
We can't see your arguments because they're unevidenced and violate all the actual observations and evidence we see everyday.

Darwin was wrong because he had no experiment to impede his circular reasoning.

Darwin was right because subsequent experiments and observations have verified his hypothesis.
And how are you defining circular reasoning? Can you give an example?

If believers get desperate now they'll just ask me what "metaphysical" means again. It's all word games and semantics if you ignore the argument.

All written or spoken communication is semantics and word games. So what?
You have no argument. You have endless assertions, claims, declarations and protestations, all unevidenced. Moreover, you ignore all real evidence to the contrary.

 

[Valjean]

"All humans reason circularly all the time and as proof I offer the simple facts that all Peers agree, science changes one funeral at a time, and only experiment can stop our circular reasoning."

And not one believer tried and understood this simple sentence.

This is proof that we are homo rationatio circularis and it is invisible because we all believe we already know everything; homo omnisciencis.

I see no rationality here.
Please define "peer" and "circular reasoning."

 

[Subduction Zone]

All humans do what all the time? and for the fiftieth time, what the heck is a "peer"? You're not using the word in any of its usual senses.
What circular reasoning? Is everything not derived from an experiment circular reasoning?

Hah! You forgot to use an upper case letter for "Peer". Checkmate, atheist!

 

[cladking]

Genes change all the time. Every replication is a chance for change. Offspring are not identical clones of their parents, so there's obviously heritable genetic change going on.

And this is why there's no such thing as "species" and why Darwin was wrong.

When the same unusual genes combine at bottlenecks the "species" changes. There is only change, no evolution.

All humans do what all the time?

We reason in circles. We can only reason toward our assumptions.

what the heck is a "peer"

A "peer" is by definition those educated people on a specific subject who agree with one another. If you have doctorates and you agree with others who have doctorates you are a peer. If you don't agree you lose your place in the pecking order and you lose funding. So now we know that there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps and no pyramids built by any other means.

Are you implying that fish, crabs, or other aquatic species are consciously anticipating and planning for long-term, potential threats?
Are you implying that animals won't venture into unfamiliar terrain if the possibility of predation exists?
What about the predators already in their familiar habitat?

No! I said they were NOT aware.

No! I am suggesting all individuals are conscious and this is the primary tool all individuals (other than homo omnisciencis) use to survive and thrive.

Conscious by definition? How are you defining consciousness, and why would a microbe necessarily be conscious?

And what is your point here, anyway?

Consciousness is life as well as the dozens of other characteristics I've supplied repeatedly and you can't even see.

You keep making these statements, and offer no support

YOU CAN'T SEE MY ARGUMENT. What evidence do you have that you see any part of my posts? Nobody responds to them.

I've PROVEN my point and you can't see the point or the proof. We're not even talking about the same thing here. I know what you're talking about and it has no bearing on what you quote.

Darwin was right because subsequent experiments and observations have verified his hypothesis.

Yet you can't tell me what these are. I can show the e coli experiment that showed sudden change in species but but you interpret it to show Darwin was right. You see what you expect.

All written or spoken communication is semantics and word games. So what?
You have no argument. You have endless assertions, claims, declarations and protestations, all unevidenced. Moreover, you ignore all real evidence to the contrary.

Word games. "Metaphysics" means "basis of science".

I see no rationality here.

Seriously?

Perhaps we shouldn't even be trying to communicate. Your world must be that much different than mine.

Why do you think science changes one funeral at a time?

I don't know why I ask questions since I can't remember the last time a believer answered one.

 

[cladking]

Hah! You forgot to use an upper case letter for "Peer". Checkmate, atheist!

Sigh.

No. Peer is only capitalized when a believer cites a Peer as an authority. Any Et Al becomes a Peer in Look and See Science. Et Als are often excommunicated but until then they are part and parcel of the definition of reality to all believers in science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sigh.

No. Peer is only capitalized when a believer cites a Peer as an authority. Any Et Al becomes a Peer in Look and See Science. Et Als are often excommunicated but until then they are part and parcel of the definition of reality to all believers in science.

Too bad that you have no comprehension of the concepts of evidence or logic.

 

[cladking]

Too bad that you have no comprehension of the concepts of evidence or logic.

And if you understood any metaphysics at all you wouldn't worship evidence and logic. Instead you would treasure reason and experiment. Instead of kowtowing to Darwin you would be comparing actual experiment to his beliefs.

 

[gnostic]

YOU CAN'T SEE MY ARGUMENT. What evidence do you have that you see any part of my posts? Nobody responds to them.

I've PROVEN my point and you can't see the point or the proof. We're not even talking about the same thing here. I know what you're talking about and it has no bearing on what you quote.

Like every other science-illiterate creationists, you don’t understand that science don’t rely on proofs or on proving anything; sciences do rely on observed PHYSICAL EVIDENCE or observed EXPERIMENTS, which contribute to more observations like TEST RESULTS and DATA.

PROOFS, otoh, are logical models of proposed or potential abstract solutions, often expressed in the forms of MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS or FORMULAS.

In Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences, mathematics or mathematical equations are useful tools, but they are not evidence or experiments, because they are merely abstract logic using combinations of numbers, variables and constants, and they are merely proposed solutions, but they are not true, unless you have physically “tested” the equations with evidence or with experiments.

Proofs or mathematical equations are proposed models, just as explanations and predictions are proposed models in a new hypothesis or in existing scientific theory.

No models - be they be explanatory, predictive or mathematical - no models are TRUE by-default, unless they have been rigorously tested with observations...observations of the physical phenomena, in the forms of evidence, experiments and data.

And another thing, the words "prove" or "proving" or "disprove" are mathematical terms, not scientific terms.

Beside all that, you wrote:

"I've PROVEN my point and you can't see the point or the proof. "​

You haven't proven anything, cladking, because no one have seen you presented any mathematical equations or formulas. I have not seen any axioms or theorems (which are relevant to mathematics) from any of your posts.

Here are definition of proof from Wikipedia, "mathematical proof":

A mathematical proof is an inferential argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion. The argument may use other previously established statements, such as theorems; but every proof can, in principle, be constructed using only certain basic or original assumptions known as axioms,[2][3][4] along with the accepted rules of inference. Proofs are examples of exhaustive deductive reasoning which establish logical certainty, to be distinguished from empirical arguments or non-exhaustive inductive reasoning which establish "reasonable expectation". Presenting many cases in which the statement holds is not enough for a proof, which must demonstrate that the statement is true in all possible cases. A proposition that has not been proved but is believed to be true is known as a conjecture, or a hypothesis if frequently used as an assumption for further mathematical work.

Proofs employ logic expressed in mathematical symbols, along with natural language which usually admits some ambiguity. In most mathematical literature, proofs are written in terms of rigorous informal logic. Purely formal proofs, written fully in symbolic language without the involvement of natural language, are considered in proof theory. The distinction between formal and informal proofs has led to much examination of current and historical mathematical practice, quasi-empiricism in mathematics, and so-called folk mathematics, oral traditions in the mainstream mathematical community or in other cultures. The philosophy of mathematics is concerned with the role of language and logic in proofs, and mathematics as a language.

You should read the mathematical proof article, they present all the different ways to derive mathematical proof. None of which are evidence, nor experiment.

And please, don't tell me wikipedia article isn't relevant source, because I have seen YOU use wikipedia before. Plus, you should read some of the sources in the article's footnotes and bibliography. For examples:

Clapham, C. & Nicholson, J.N. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics, Fourth edition. "A statement whose truth is either to be taken as self-evident or to be assumed. Certain areas of mathematics involve choosing a set of axioms and discovering what results can be derived from them, providing proofs for the theorems that are obtained."

You can also buy or borrow (the book from any library) this Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics. Or you can read the other sources from article's references:

Cupillari, Antonella (2005) [2001]. The Nuts and Bolts of Proofs: An Introduction to Mathematical Proofs (Third ed.). Academic Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-12-088509-1.​

​

Gossett, Eric (July 2009). Discrete Mathematics with Proof. John Wiley & Sons. p. 86. ISBN 978-0470457931. "Definition 3.1. Proof: An Informal Definition"​

Mathematicians prove or disprove, using equations, such as solving equations, simplifying equations, etc.

You should really understand what proof mean, they are not synonymous with evidence. Evidence are physical and experiments are physical phenomena that can be verified independently with other evidence.

Both mathematicians and scientists recognized the differences between maths & sciences, between proof & evidence.

What I have only seen from you, you are incompetent in mathematics as you are in sciences.

 

[YoursTrue]

Like every other science-illiterate creationists, you don’t understand that science don’t rely on proofs or on proving anything; sciences do rely on observed PHYSICAL EVIDENCE or observed EXPERIMENTS, which contribute to more observations like TEST RESULTS and DATA.

PROOFS, otoh, are logical models of proposed or potential abstract solutions, often expressed in the forms of MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS or FORMULAS.

In Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences, mathematics or mathematical equations are useful tools, but they are not evidence or experiments, because they are merely abstract logic using combinations of numbers, variables and constants, and they are merely proposed solutions, but they are not true, unless you have physically “tested” the equations with evidence or with experiments.

Proofs or mathematical equations are proposed models, just as explanations and predictions are proposed models in a new hypothesis or in existing scientific theory.

No models - be they be explanatory, predictive or mathematical - no models are TRUE by-default, unless they have been rigorously tested with observations...observations of the physical phenomena, in the forms of evidence, experiments and data.

And another thing, the words "prove" or "proving" or "disprove" are mathematical terms, not scientific terms.

Beside all that, you wrote:

"I've PROVEN my point and you can't see the point or the proof. "​

You haven't proven anything, cladking, because no one have seen you presented any mathematical equations or formulas. I have not seen any axioms or theorems (which are relevant to mathematics) from any of your posts.

Here are definition of proof from Wikipedia, "mathematical proof":



You should read the mathematical proof article, they present all the different ways to derive mathematical proof. None of which are evidence, nor experiment.

And please, don't tell me wikipedia article isn't relevant source, because I have seen YOU use wikipedia before. Plus, you should read some of the sources in the article's footnotes and bibliography. For examples:



You can also buy or borrow (the book from any library) this Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics. Or you can read the other sources from article's references:

Cupillari, Antonella (2005) [2001]. The Nuts and Bolts of Proofs: An Introduction to Mathematical Proofs (Third ed.). Academic Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-12-088509-1.​

​

Gossett, Eric (July 2009). Discrete Mathematics with Proof. John Wiley & Sons. p. 86. ISBN 978-0470457931. "Definition 3.1. Proof: An Informal Definition"​

Mathematicians prove or disprove, using equations, such as solving equations, simplifying equations, etc.T

You should really understand what proof mean, they are not synonymous with evidence. Evidence are physical and experiments are physical phenomena that can be verified independently with other evidence.

Both mathematicians and scientists recognized the differences between maths & sciences, between proof & evidence.

What I have only seen from you, you are incompetent in mathematics as you are in sciences.

You're reminding me of test results for medications. Taking a population for test results, some improve and some stay the same as the results of a study are analyzed. So there is no guarantee that the patient will get better because he is taking the prescribed medication. In the case of evolution, evidence is surmised as confirming the theory of evolution because of fossils and similarities between organisms.

 

[gnostic]

You're reminding me of test results for medications. Taking a population for test results, some improve and some stay the same as the results of a study are analyzed. So there is no guarantee that the patient will get better because he is taking the prescribed medication. In the case of evolution, evidence is surmised as confirming the theory of evolution because of fossils and similarities between organisms.

Evolution is biology, not medicine.

They are different sciences, where one seek to treat human patients of their injuries, illnesses or diseases. These medications mainly focused on humans, and not every other living organisms.

No doctors or pathologists or pharmacologists or other specialists have claimed there are perfect medications for everyone. People differed in health, some more susceptible than others to illnesses or diseases than others, and some have better immunity systems than others, even among people of the same family. There are just too many variables.

You are deluded if you think there are such things as perfect medicine...they don’t exist.

I have a cousin who died from cancer. The treatments didn’t work for him. He has an older brother and two older sisters, and none of them have cancer.

Evolution, on the other hand, is more than just the biology of human evolution. There are other living and extinct non-human organisms, from microbes (unicellular organisms, such as bacteria, archaea and protists), to multicellular organisms, such as fungi, plants, and all other animals.

But when you are talking about Evolution, on species, genus or family scales, the focused are on population of numbers of generations, not on single individuals within one to two generations.

 

[Valjean]

You're reminding me of test results for medications. Taking a population for test results, some improve and some stay the same as the results of a study are analyzed. So there is no guarantee that the patient will get better because he is taking the prescribed medication. In the case of evolution, evidence is surmised as confirming the theory of evolution because of fossils and similarities between organisms.

You know quite well that there's a great deal more to it than that.

 

[Valjean]

A "peer" is by definition those educated people on a specific subject who agree with one another. If you have doctorates and you agree with others who have doctorates you are a peer. If you don't agree you lose your place in the pecking order and you lose funding. So now we know that there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps and no pyramids built by any other means.

If you're referring to peer reviewers, this does not involve agreement. Peer review is criticism, it's an attempt to find flaws in a hypothesis or scientific paper, or an attempt to reproduce experimental results.

You seem to depict "peers" as some cabal of conspirators intent on promoting some nefarious, "scientific" world-view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you're referring to peer reviewers, this does not involve agreement. Peer review is criticism, it's an attempt to find flaws in a hypothesis or scientific paper, or an attempt to reproduce experimental results.

You seem to depict "peers" as some cabal of conspirators intent on promoting some nefarious, "scientific" world-view.

You don't know about the conspiracy? Don't you get the newsletters from Ernst Stavro Blofeld?

 

[cladking]

If you're referring to peer reviewers, this does not involve agreement. Peer review is criticism, it's an attempt to find flaws in a hypothesis or scientific paper, or an attempt to reproduce experimental results.

You seem to depict "peers" as some cabal of conspirators intent on promoting some nefarious, "scientific" world-view.

We lost some posts here.

Suffice to say I corrected you yet again on this score.

Just because peers agree by definition does not make them an evil cabal which knows they are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We lost some posts here.

Suffice to say I corrected you yet again on this score.

Just because peers agree by definition does not make them an evil cabal which knows they are wrong.

Question: How can you ever correct someone? You never use proper sources. Those almost always show you to be wrong. @Valjean was right about peers and peer review.

 

[Audie]

You know quite well that there's a great deal more to it than that.

Actually...I think you are wrong about that.

 

[Valjean]

So s/he doesn't know there's a great deal more, after sic years on RF?

 

[ratiocinator]

In the case of evolution, evidence is surmised as confirming the theory of evolution because of fossils and similarities between organisms.

This is simply untrue. That does not summarise the evidence at all.