Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

I already said that your claim that we do is false. You are asking a question in response to the answer to that question. Which is a silly thing for you to do. Do better.

nice escape, why are you afraid to answer a simple question? can you do it?

 

[LIIA]

Nothing you have posted so far indicates that evolution is not occurring. Nothing you have posted so far demonstrates a designer.

This thread is about Darwin’s illusion and why the ToE is false. This is the focus of my posts.

All that I see demonstrated is your attack on those that accept scientific explanations instead of what you want them to believe. Swamping this thread with volumes of posts does not demonstrate the superiority of your position and does not refute theories.

It’s not me who rejected all fundamental principles of the Modern Synthesis, the top scientists and latest finds in the field did. See # 484 & 494.

EES is still evolution. Punctuated Equilibrium is still evolution.

“Punctuated Equilibrium” contradicts “Phyletic Gradualism”, as described by critics and proponents of each side, “evolution by jerks” vs. “evolution by jerks”, These are conflicting theories that effectively cancel each other with no winner.

You cannot group conflicting theories together (#160 &145) ) and have the fundamental principles of the mainstream theory falsified (#484 & 494), then insist to say “no problem, all is good”. It’s nonsense

The Lenski experiment still demonstrates evolution and new information

The Lenski experiment demonstrates directed mutation that activated an existing but previously silent citrate transporter. Existing/activated info is not new info. See # 680

Attacking those in support of science is not evidence against the science.

See. One post and all your galloping words are refuted. No swamping required.

Why can’t you read or understand? It doesn’t get any more straightforward than that, why can’t you wrap your head around it? Read the info below if you will. Stop the meaningless denial.

Here is the same info copied from # 494 once again for easy reference.

Below are the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis.
All have been disproved. NO EXCEPTION. See the link

- First, genetic change is random.
- Second, genetic change is gradual.
- Third, following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.
- Fourth, the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.

As the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble said in his lecture, “ALL THESE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE BEEN DISPROVED in various ways and to varying degrees, and it is also important to note that a substantial proportion of the experimental work that has revealed these breaks has come from within molecular biology itself. Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

 

[ppp]

nice escape, why are you afraid to answer a simple question? can you do it?

I already said that your claim that we do is false. You are asking a question in response to the answer to that question. Which is a silly thing for you to do. Do better.

 

[LIIA]

I dont know because I'm not a palaeontologist, but as I pointed out to LIIA, the existence of even one node refutes intelligent design, so why don't you tell me how many nodes we have on the latest evolutionary tree and we can examine intelligent design in the light of all those nodes?

In my opinion.

I didn’t expect that from you. You’re making too many logical errors this time, which is mainly attributed to holding a false axiom.

-You cannot use Gould’s own statements to confirm the rarity of intermediates as your proof of the contrary. It doesn’t make any sense.

- You don’t know the meaning or the number of tips/nodes yet you use it as your evidence to support your view. (The tip is a present species. The node is a hypothesized common ancestor)

- You’re making a false dichotomy. ID being right or wrong is irrelevant to the validity of your own claim about evolution.

-You ignore the statistical significance against your claim. An exception cannot prove a rule. See # 665 and # 712

 

[LIIA]

Thanks, you proved my point.

 

[LIIA]

Thanks, you proved my point.

 

[LIIA]

Wow...

A post so full of gross misinformation.

Your confused and illogical opinion is meaningless.

Wars and genocide and murders have happened long before Darwin, but let’s get a few things straight.

Irrelevant nonsense, his non-involvement in crimes against humanity that happened before him has nothing to do with the later Influence of his widespread toxic ideas that promoted later crimes.

For one, the term “Survival of the fittest” is often misunderstood and misuse through misinterpretation, especially by people who have never learned any sciences, and I am not just talking about biology. I am talking about all sciences, both -

• Natural Sciences (eg physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy & biology) and
• Social Sciences (eg psychology, anthropology, archaeology, etc, there are too many to list here before I become very bored, Social Sciences have to do with anything about human behaviour, human cultures, human ethics, and human achievements).

Nice list, what is your point of listing all of these sciences? Do you think this list makes you look knowledgeable? It doesn’t. Writing some irrelevant nonsense makes you look confused and irrational not knowledgeable.

The point being, Darwin didn’t even coined this phrase “Survival of the fittest”.

The phrase was coined by Herbert Spencer, who was Darwin’s younger contemporary.

I wrote Spencer’s name in large letters, because all creationists seemed to have this same ignorant and dishonest traits of never doing proper researches and never learning from one’s own mistake.

Darwin was more of naturalist, who focused on geology, botany and animal biology. Darwin was never anthropologist or archaeologist.

While Spencer was did dabble in biology and Spencer wrote Principles Of Biology (1864), and he did read Darwin’s On Origin Of Species (1859)...but it was Spencer coined the phrase, not Darwin. In fact, it was coined In Spencer’s Principles Of Biology.

Ok, Herbert Spencer coined the term, so what is your point? How is that relevant to my argument?

We’re talking about an influence of toxic ideas not any irrelevant terminology or who coined a term.

Natural selection is about survival of the fittest. The concept has an influence. Who coined or didn’t coin a term is irrelevant.

While On Origin may have inspired Spencer to write his own book about Darwin didn’t actively contribute Spencer’s own writing.

Yes, Darwin ideas had its influence on Spencer’s writing. Whether Darwin played any role in writing Spencer’s own work or not, It’s irrelevant.

Similarly, Darwin’s ideas had its strong influence on crimes committed by Hitler regardless of the fact that he didn’t participate himself in committing these crimes.

Again, the argument is about the influence of Darwin’s ideas on humanity not what he personally did or didn’t do. or what term he coined or not.

But the points being, Spencer have not only dipped his toes into biology as well as Darwin’s Natural Selection, Spencer’s main interests were in philosophy, sociology and anthropology, and it was again Herbert Spencer who came up with “Social Darwinism”, not Darwin.

Darwin played no part in writing Spencer’s own work, even though Spencer named Social Darwinism after Darwin.

Social Darwinism was written by Spencer but influenced by Darwin’s ideas. What’s your point?

Lastly, you are trying to blame Darwin for racism, for Social Darwinism, for war and genocide in World War II (because you have mentioned Hitler), but wars, genocide and racism have all predated Darwin for several thousands of years.

Nonsense, crimes were committed before Darwin and Hitler, does this justify crimes influenced by Darwin’s ideas and committed later by Hitler?

Darwin didn’t influence crimes committed before him but his toxic ideas did influence crimes committed after him. You’re illogical.

Are also going to blame Darwin for genocide found in the Old Testament too?

Examples, Jericho in Joshua, the Levite and tribe of Benjamin in Judges or God ordering King Saul to murder every man, woman and child in 1 Samuel 12. Are these also Darwin’s faults too? If not, will you blame God for genocide that God ordered in books of Joshua and 1 Samuel?

Why are you telling me this. I’m not a Christian, nonetheless I respect other beliefs.

you're making a fourth grader’s argument “you did wrong so that makes it OK that I did wrong”.

Regardless this is a False Dichotomy. The deficiency of your stance has nothing to do with other stance being right or wrong.

You’re not making any argument, its nothing but some irrelevant nonsense.

No where in On Origin Of Species and the Descent Of Man did Darwin write anything about politics and genocide in wars.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? You’re delusional! Again here is the same quote by Darwin in the Descent Of Man “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” Go back and see # 682 once again, its not going anywhere.

The Nazis followed this exact ideology. They targeted certain groups or races that they considered biologically inferior for extermination. These included Jews, gypsies, Poles, Soviets and people with disabilities but as horrific as their crimes were, its nothing compared to Darwin’s ideas about the total extermination of all inferior races throughout the world.

This post of yours is an example of ignorance (you didn’t know about Spencer), misinformation and propaganda.

Have a good dishonest life, LIIA.

This post of yours is an example of a delusional confused writing by an illogical person who writes some irrelevant nonsense in a desperate trial to pose himself as a rational person. You’re not. Don’t write nonsense. Think before you talk.

 

[danieldemol]

My argument here is about the facts not biased interpretations.

Sure, and Gould said we have data at the nodes.

Is data factual or is it not?

As an established palaeontologist,

Regardless of what you may be in real life, here you are an internet nobody posting under an acronym with nothing identifiable in your avatar as you.

In other words I treat your claim to be an established palaeontologist with scepticism until you can confirm to us who you really are with a reasonable amount of supporting evidence.

I’m quoting Gould only to establish the fact of extreme rarity of what can be considered as a transitional form in the fossil record. This is the point and its already established.

Rarity is a relative word wouldn't you agree?
Why should we ignore Gould's qualifier of just how rare he was meaning?
Do you regard ignoring qualifiers as taking an honest approach to looking at his meaning?

The interpretation of this fact (or any other observation for that matter) by any proponent of evolution is typically loaded with bias, simply because they hold the evolution as an axiom. You’re no exception.

I'm an ex-creationist. I have been an evolutionist for a while, but if I was loaded with bias I wouldn't have changed opinions in the first place.

Also I find the idea that any proponent of evolution is biased along with what I assume to be the implied view (that any creationist is unbiased) to itself be loaded with bias.

Your argument here is not rational. You cannot use the very statements made by Gould to confirm the extreme rarity of transitional forms as your proof of the contrary. That is totally illogical.

Its also not what I'm arguing, I can agree that Gould was probably being honest when he described the fossil data as only supporting the nodes with data, and all else as being "reasonable" inference in his time.

You imply that there are many tips and nodes which you neither know the number of nor what does it mean, and in what way it may or may not support your argument.

So if I don't know the number of nodes in the evolutionary tree why don't you tell me?
Are you afraid to admit that your earlier statement of there being one node in doubt was gross exaggeration even in Gould's time?

The nodes are the earliest common ancestors (just before the split). Which are all hypothetical.

You appear to be disagreeing with Gould here, he said we have data at the nodes, not hypotheticals.

In my opinion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can see the truth in what I said. Don’t you? Why do you insist to deceive yourself? Is it to win an argument? Is it worth it?

Do you deny that the evolutionary view eliminates the justification for any morality?

Do you deny that the evolutionary ideas supported the view that divides humankind into biologically distinct groups and validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races?

Do you deny that the evolutionary ideas supported the racist view that human race is divided into categorized groups of distinct biological phenomenon rather than a sociopolitical phenomenon?

Do you deny these statements by Darwin “ “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” ? Do you deny the impact of these statements on validating racist views against human groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior?

Do you deny that the evolutionary view dehumanized man, eliminated any basis for moral values and replaced it with conflict/survival of the fittest as the law of nature?

Be honest with yourself.

Why do some people deny science? Why do they insist on deceiving themselves? Is it to win arguments? Is it to maintain a belief system that would remain unharmed if they were to accept reasonable, rational, logical conclusions from science that are based on the evidence and not on their own fanciful desires?

That racists use what is convenient to support their racism is not the fault of what is used. A gun, a knife or a hammer is not at fault for murder committed by a killer using one of those to commit the crime. Why would someone twist logic and reason to ignore that reality? It must be to win an argument that cannot be supported on the facts.

Why are the personal feelings of a scientist relevant to a theory that has nothing to do with those personal feelings however good or despicable they may be? Why is it that such attempts are perennial as is the failure of them?

It seems now that the attempts to twist science to win the argument have failed, we have moved on to baseless claims of morality that have nothing to do with the theory. That are neither a basis nor a consequence of what a theory is explaining.

I believe my morality has a much more stable basis than that. If the only thing keeping people moral is that they believe a specific way, then how is it that people are often moral and often believe things entirely different from other moral people? To pin morality on the acceptance or rejection of a scientific theory is ludicrous in that light. Some people fear the light.

I am honest with myself and I do not appreciate being called a liar or implications that I am lying simply because YOU failed to make your case. Be careful.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just like you believe Peers define reality you apparently believe that argument is semantical. Words are irrelevant to reality as surely as the opinion of Peers is to reality. You might win a debate playing word games but not an argument.

What you claim as the review of peers has nothing to do with the peer review process. You seem to have no real idea what peer review is or what it is for.

I have seen people turn peer review into a straw man that they attempt to make look like some conspiracy to prevent their truth from being seen. All while ignoring that their truth is mostly or completely baseless opinion that explains nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your confused and illogical opinion is meaningless.



Irrelevant nonsense, his non-involvement in crimes against humanity that happened before him has nothing to do with the later Influence of his widespread toxic ideas that promoted later crimes.



Nice list, what is your point of listing all of these sciences? Do you think this list makes you look knowledgeable? It doesn’t. Writing some irrelevant nonsense makes you look confused and irrational not knowledgeable.



Ok, Herbert Spencer coined the term, so what is your point? How is that relevant to my argument?

We’re talking about an influence of toxic ideas not any irrelevant terminology or who coined a term.

Natural selection is about survival of the fittest. The concept has an influence. Who coined or didn’t coin a term is irrelevant.



Yes, Darwin ideas had its influence on Spencer’s writing. Whether Darwin played any role in writing Spencer’s own work or not, It’s irrelevant.

Similarly, Darwin’s ideas had its strong influence on crimes committed by Hitler regardless of the fact that he didn’t participate himself in committing these crimes.

Again, the argument is about the influence of Darwin’s ideas on humanity not what he personally did or didn’t do. or what term he coined or not.



Social Darwinism was written by Spencer but influenced by Darwin’s ideas. What’s your point?



Nonsense, crimes were committed before Darwin and Hitler, does this justify crimes influenced by Darwin’s ideas and committed later by Hitler?

Darwin didn’t influence crimes committed before him but his toxic ideas did influence crimes committed after him. You’re illogical.



Why are you telling me this. I’m not a Christian, nonetheless I respect other beliefs.

you're making a fourth grader’s argument “you did wrong so that makes it OK that I did wrong”.

Regardless this is a False Dichotomy. The deficiency of your stance has nothing to do with other stance being right or wrong.

You’re not making any argument, its nothing but some irrelevant nonsense.



ARE YOU SERIOUS? You’re delusional! Again here is the same quote by Darwin in the Descent Of Man “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” Go back and see # 682 once again, its not going anywhere.

The Nazis followed this exact ideology. They targeted certain groups or races that they considered biologically inferior for extermination. These included Jews, gypsies, Poles, Soviets and people with disabilities but as horrific as their crimes were, its nothing compared to Darwin’s ideas about the total extermination of all inferior races throughout the world.



This post of yours is an example of a delusional confused writing by an illogical person who writes some irrelevant nonsense in a desperate trial to pose himself as a rational person. You’re not. Don’t write nonsense. Think before you talk.

Survival of the fittest is a poor and imperfect alternative name for natural selection and not a definition of natural selection.

What the Nazis did is irrelevant to the validity of a theory. The Nazis also used gravity.

 

[cladking]

I am honest with myself and I do not appreciate being called a liar or implications that I am lying simply because YOU failed to make your case. Be careful.

Yet no one seems to have a problem with greed as a motivator for vast destruction.

Survival of the fittest is a poor and imperfect alternative name for natural selection and not a definition of natural selection.

This is still semantics.

Why are the personal feelings of a scientist relevant to a theory that has nothing to do with those personal feelings however good or despicable they may be?

We each believe what we want to believe and consciousness is part of model formation. This is why paradigms come and go one funeral at a time.

I have seen people turn peer review into a straw man that they attempt to make look like some conspiracy to prevent their truth from being seen. All while ignoring that their truth is mostly or completely baseless opinion that explains nothing.

All ideas that exclude the axioms of a subject get no funding AND are rarely ever reviewed or even seen by Peers. They are simply pronounced as "speculation" and never considered. The view is "we'll wait to look into it when the relevant axiom(s) change(s) but of course axioms never change if you don't look at them.

Why do some people deny science?

There are two problems here. One is that science is wrong and the other is that people support science right or wrong. Science changes one funeral at a time.

 

[cladking]

I don’t know what is your definition of intelligence or why you deny it but before you deny it, you need first to identify your understanding of what is considered or referred to as intelligence and then explain why you don’t consider it as such and what is the justification of your view.

Consciousness is the very root of evolution and the modern belief in "intelligence" is the reason this is invisible. We believe reductionistic science can reduce the millions of beaver consciousnesses to a single word "beaver" and then experiment on just beavers and all with no need to understand our own consciousness. We each believe we are intelligent enough to spot any pitfalls like perhaps it's impossible to understand species, life, or our own knowledge without understanding the nature of consciousness. We each chiefly see our own thoughts which are all the product of our models which we believe are perfect representations of reality but we can't even see consciousness as well as a slime mold in an experiment. These things fools us into believing that there is "intelligence" and that some people have more than others and all people have more than all other life forms. It is circular reasoning which is what homo omnisciencis does best. We don't really know everything, we just think we do.

"Intelligence" has many parameters and definitions to me and I could talk about it for hours. But in a nutshell most people believe that "intelligence" is a condition and they use the word to describe this condition. They believe that only humans can demonstrate that they possess such a condition. This is very far from the truth for two primary reasons; humans generally are not markedly more intelligent than many other creatures but more importantly "intelligence" real intelligence is not a condition so much as an event.

It is complex language that has created vast knowledge and the belief in intelligence but the latter is a mirage and both are a product of consciousness as is the original and the new complex language.

 

[cladking]

We’re born with certain axiomatic foundations integrated in our consciousness that structure the characteristics of our awareness. Its what allow us to gain knowledge and grow (which would be otherwise impossible). It’s similar to the example of BIOS or operating system in a computer, without it the computer cannot process any data or have any function other than being an expensive paperweight.

Yes! I strongly agree. However these axioms are derived from the logic of the wiring of the brain and might be very different than imagined or from one species to another.

Once a child learns how to talk, his first question is always “why”. You don’t need to teach a child that a cause is necessary but from the very beginning, the child is always trying to establish causal relationships between all entities that he observes.

I believe they start asking why reflexively when they come to understand that they have to give up their axioms to learn language. They are trying to understand how words are related to reality as their every instinct says they must be. I've found the best way to deal with it is to simply tell or show them that the language they are considering has no tie to reality; that it is only useful for communication.

The specific means I've used to accomplish this are as varied as the individuals.

Your pure self can drive you in the right direction even before gaining any knowledge. You have what it takes to get there but down the road we get corrupted, confused and lose sight. We may adapt a false premise, insist to follow it and lose the ability to see things clearly for what it is. It’s a matter of choice.

I think the issue is that we start adopting beliefs before we even realize that we will become our beliefs. Most people pick and choose what they want to believe and then they act on the vector sum total of all these beliefs until they are their beliefs. Many of the "truths" learned at a very young age are false. Children should be taught to be very careful of what they believe.

 

[metis]

You’re making a logical error. Do you understand what an axiom is?

Since I taught it for 30 years and studied it for al lot longer than that and still do, yes.

Again, what gives evolution the status of an axiom (unfalsifiable hypothesis)?

I've already show you as others here have. What is so difficult in understanding that life forms change over time, which is also what my link dealing with speciation shows you?

Here, again: Speciation - Wikipedia There are links to observations and studies within that link, btw.

 

[metis]

If a variant losses the ability of interbreeding with original species then the process is called speciation but is it really a new species?

Yes, in some cases. For example, at where I did my graduate degree, studies done with fruit flies have shown that non-selective breeding can and has produced new species that cannot interbreed with some others. If those who worked on these experiments did selective division, the process happened much quicker. I was not directly involved with them, btw.

Today the 7.7 billion people on earth are all the same species “H. sapiens”. As an Anthropologist, can you explain why none of the intermediate hominin species on our branch of the hominoid tree (after the split with the chimp & bonobo line) are all extinct today

There were numerous human species if we go back over 1 million years ago, but through both competition and killing, we're now down to one.

BTW, you really shot yourself in the foot when you acknowledge that there were more species of humans, so how could that be if there was no evolutionary process?

 

[metis]

Yes, Darwin ideas had its influence on Spencer’s writing. Whether Darwin played any role in writing Spencer’s own work or not, It’s irrelevant.

What they believed over a century ago is now irrelevant to the science as biology has progressed much since they lived. It's like believing that there's been no progress in the area of psychology since Freud.

 

[cladking]

What is so difficult in understanding that life forms change over time, which is also what my link dealing with speciation shows you?

This is the only thing that the "fossil record" really shows, that life changes. It does not show how or why it changes or how long a time is required for such changes. It isn't so much change in species being taken axiomatically as it is Evolution. Darwin started with false assumptions that people wanted to believe just as he did.

There are countless assumptions involved with Evolution and many are simply wrong.

 

[metis]

This is the only thing that the "fossil record" really shows, that life changes.

And that's called "evolution".

There are countless assumptions involved with Evolution and many are simply wrong.

As time has gone on, those "assumptions" have been gradually reduced or eliminated, which is why we don't use the word "proven".

 

[gnostic]

Social Darwinism was written by Spencer but influenced by Darwin’s ideas. What’s your point?

That BS strawman. And you know it.

Darwin wasn’t a sociologist or an anthropologist, the point being Spencer was, and the framework of Social Darwinism is social, cultural and political ones. Wars involved politics. Wars, genocides, murders, racism, hatred, and politics all predated Darwin.

Natural Selection was only concerned with biology and genetics, as to what physical changes get passed on, genetically, to descendants.

Plus, the point being, Natural Selection don’t involve wars and government policies. And Darwin never got involved in politics or encourage wars or genocides. Wars and genocide have existed ever since humans became tribal or became societal and civilized.

Even your Bible, have such wars and genocide. Are you forgetting ...

• ...Jericho in Joshua?
• ...the Levite in Judges?
• ...and God ordering Saul - via his prophet Samuel - to completely exterminate every Amalekite man, woman and child, in 1 Samuel?

If you seriously think inspiration can be blamed on person who was involved, then you could say the biblical stories have inspired every hatred, racism, murders, wars and genocide throughout history after these OT books were written.

Natural Selection don’t just involve changes in human biology, but also all other living organisms, evolving of bacteria, archaea, fungi, plants and all other non-human animals. Do you think these other organisms have government policies to start wars or commit genocide?

All you want to assign blame for everything on Darwin, but as I said to Natural Selection isn’t anthropological or sociological study, and it don’t involve racism or politics or wars.

If you want to blame for Darwin to inspiring Spencer for writing Social Darwinism, then if I was to use your twisted logic, then shouldn’t you also blame the Bible for their stories that inspired countless centuries of racism, slave trade, murders, wars and genocide?

I am using your faulty logic that the Bible inspired people to do horrible things to each other.

Sorry, Herbert Spencer wrote Social Darwinism (SD), Charles Darwin played no part in writing SD - inspiration or not.