Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I have no idea what this means. It doesn't make any sense.

This is still semantics.

No it is not.

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.

Word salad.

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.

Your unsupported opinion is not evidence for supporting your unsupported claims.

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.

The problem that I have seen over and over and over and over and over and over is that your posts express a very limited understanding of science, theories and biology. Good grief, you come on here all the time talking about evolution and you never heard of the work of Gould until the other day. How could a prominent figure in the science have escaped your notice if you are wired into this as you seem to imply?

I really do not see a point in trying to discuss anything with you. You basically repeat the same repudiated or unsupported claims as if they were mantras or spells to cast off the people who understand and base their understanding on science.

 

[gnostic]

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.

The problem that I have seen over and over and over and over and over and over is that your posts express a very limited understanding of science, theories and biology. Good grief, you come on here all the time talking about evolution and you never heard of the work of Gould until the other day. How could a prominent figure in the science have escaped your notice if you are wired into this as you seem to imply?

@cladking, like @LIIA , thought Charles Darwin wrote “survival of the fittest” and “Social Darwinism”, completely unaware that Herbert Spencer started and wrote both.

They both like to blame Darwin for all the injustices and all atrocities of racism, murders, wars, and genocide, and yet all of these predated both Darwin and Spencer.

I am not surprised at all, how out of date and out of touch they both are.

 

[gnostic]

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.

True.

Sciences today, may referred to the founders of fields or subfields in science, as historical background, what teachers should be teaching and students should be learning, are the current knowledge in these respective fields, not relied the pioneers’ works.

Sciences allowed for progresses as new evidence provide new information, allowing theories to expand, to correct & update, to replace if required with alternative theories.

Natural Selection in Darwin’s time, have been updated to include modern genetics and improved testing, like DNA. Natural Selection have gone beyond Darwin’s works.

@clading also brought up the Big Bang. The Big Bang have also expanded beyond Lemaître’s 1927, a number of times: eg

• 1948 with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), CMBR and “Hot” Big Bang model (Lemaître’s model was a Cold Big Bang). CMBR was 1st discovered in 1964, thereby refuting Hoyle-Bondi-Gold 1949’s Steady State Model.
• The early 1980s, the Inflationary model of the Big Bang were developed by several physicists. Discoveries were made by the WMAP & Planck observations.
• The lambda-CDM Model, is the latest model of the Big Bang theory, that explained many things. Discoveries are the same with the Inflationary model, eg WMAP & Planck.

The only elements that are still going strong from the 1920s papers, are Alexander Friedmann’s solution to Einstein’s Field Equations (thus Friedmann Equations), Lemaître’s Redshift.

Sciences should focus mainly on the current tested knowledge.

 

[cladking]

Good grief, you come on here all the time talking about evolution and you never heard of the work of Gould until the other day. How could a prominent figure in the science have escaped your notice if you are wired into this as you seem to imply?

I don't care about ANY opinion. Indeed, no opinion of any sort is of any interest to me. I am interested only in experiment, experience, and insight. I don't "read" anybody and when I read an experiment I pay no attention to the experimenter and won't remember his name.

"Paradigms" hold little interest to me also, however, they always contain some insights so I do tend to pay them some mind.

This is very hard for believers in science to understand. I don't give a fig about Peers or their funding. I try to have no beliefs at all. What I know is appended to very very simple models that are formed of experiment and my own experience. I've spent a lifetime thinking about thought and applying knowns to it. I am a metaphysician who just happened to discover the nature of consciousness and how it shapes our beliefs and our science. It is quite apparent that there is no such thing as Evolution and all change is sudden. Animals have a better understanding of some of these things than humans because thinking gets in the way of direct perception of reality.

Our only perception of reality occurs only through glimpses provided by experiment. We reduce reality to experiment and then we neglect to put it back together to make our models. Just as all of reality affects every part of reality every experiment is relevant to reality. We can't pick and choose which experiment to apply to a question because they all apply equally. All human knowledge must be brought to bear.

Consciousness is always relevant because consciousness is life and all life is conscious. "Science" can only exist within a consciousness and most people do it wrong. Homo omnisciencis.

There are multiple kinds of science, each with their own distinct metaphysics.

Gould was wrong. We're all wrong and I seem to be the only person who is comfortable with it. If I knew where I am wrong I would correct it. Speciation is sudden and results from consciousness at bottlenecks or from other "well understood" processes like mutation.

 

[cladking]

@cladking, like @LIIA , thought Charles Darwin wrote “survival of the fittest” and “Social Darwinism”, completely unaware that Herbert Spencer started and wrote both.

Nonsense.

Darwin invented survival of the fittest and others named it.

...Darwin for all the injustices and all atrocities of racism, murders, wars, and genocide,...

Evil existed before Darwin and will still exist after his ideas have been seen as poppycock derived from bad assumptions.

"Genocides" based on purifying the human race are, I believe, all from after Darwin. Certainly evil men in the past have "killed 'em all" but it was done as a lesson to others and to be confident not to have to fight again. It was not done because the vanquished were seen as unworthy of life and procreation. If you know of one exception I'd be interested but I doubt you do. Unlike some I don't know everything and I've not paid a lot of attention to history and especially not to wars. I was hardly impressed with any of your earlier citations.

 

[cladking]

And that's called "evolution".

No!

Species change but they do not drift over many millions of years. There is no such thing as survival of the fittest because every individual is equally fit.

There is no Evolution but species do change.

 

[cladking]

Indeed, no opinion of any sort is of any interest to me.

I do have some interest in financial matters so I do need to have some feel for what others believe so I can do the opposite.

 

[cladking]

Speciation is sudden and results from consciousness at bottlenecks or from other "well understood" processes like mutation.

I have little doubt that in the long run we'll find even mutation is affected by consciousness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

It has not been falsified here or elsewhere.

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.

A handful of scientists have proposed an extended synthesis of the modern theory. They are not rejecting the theory of evolution. This is a typical approach by creationists to overblow scientific controversy and falsely equate it to failure or rejection of the theory of evolution. Recent survey data indicates that greater than 97% of scientists accept the theory of 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

Gradualism and punctuation are different modes of evolution. The latter is not replacing the former. Gradual evolution still persists in populations under stasis. In fact, gradualism is the predominant mode in stasis.

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

No it does not. The Cit- trait is a defining characteristic of E. coli. They cannot utilize citrate as a substrate anaerobically independent of the presence of a reducer like glucose.

There are 12 initially identical populations of of E. coli cultured with the same media in the experiment. If it were a directed mutation, it would have arisen in more than a single population and far sooner than 35,000 generations and 10 years. You are grasping at straws.

The LE supports the theory of evolution whether you like it or not.

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.

That is your problem. I do read and I do understand what you are doing.

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

- First, genetic change is random.

Not disproven.

- Second, genetic change is gradual.

Not disproven.

- Third, following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.

A change in allele frequency over time is a definition of the theory of evolution. This is observed. Many, many, many, many, many times.

- Fourth, the inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible.

The theory of evolution explains why Lamarckian inheritance does not work. What has been discovered is epigenetic changes that are heritable. Some vindication for Lamarck, but hardly a crushing blow to the theory. Epigenesis is simply changes in the packaging of DNA and not tailless mice born to parents that have had their tails cut off.

Where do you come up with this nonsense? It doesn't seem like I am the one that needs to read and understand. I think you are just reposting material you don't really understand.

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)

More of the conflating cutting edge science and controversy with failure and rejection of the theory of evolution. Try something new.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have little doubt that in the long run we'll find even mutation is affected by consciousness.

Why would you have any reason to think that? No one has any reason to think that.

This sounds more like a bad plot for a bad sci fi script.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't care about ANY opinion. Indeed, no opinion of any sort is of any interest to me. I am interested only in experiment, experience, and insight. I don't "read" anybody and when I read an experiment I pay no attention to the experimenter and won't remember his name.

"Paradigms" hold little interest to me also, however, they always contain some insights so I do tend to pay them some mind.

This is very hard for believers in science to understand. I don't give a fig about Peers or their funding. I try to have no beliefs at all. What I know is appended to very very simple models that are formed of experiment and my own experience. I've spent a lifetime thinking about thought and applying knowns to it. I am a metaphysician who just happened to discover the nature of consciousness and how it shapes our beliefs and our science. It is quite apparent that there is no such thing as Evolution and all change is sudden. Animals have a better understanding of some of these things than humans because thinking gets in the way of direct perception of reality.

Our only perception of reality occurs only through glimpses provided by experiment. We reduce reality to experiment and then we neglect to put it back together to make our models. Just as all of reality affects every part of reality every experiment is relevant to reality. We can't pick and choose which experiment to apply to a question because they all apply equally. All human knowledge must be brought to bear.

Consciousness is always relevant because consciousness is life and all life is conscious. "Science" can only exist within a consciousness and most people do it wrong. Homo omnisciencis.

There are multiple kinds of science, each with their own distinct metaphysics.

Gould was wrong. We're all wrong and I seem to be the only person who is comfortable with it. If I knew where I am wrong I would correct it. Speciation is sudden and results from consciousness at bottlenecks or from other "well understood" processes like mutation.

I didn't even bother to read this.

 

[YoursTrue]

And how having a brain, able to ponder about its existence, defeat evolution? Or a naturalistic origin of the mind? That is just a non-sequitur.

Ciao

- viole

No, it's not a non-sequitur. Simply because man's ability to write and ponder over things, including the universe, puts him way ahead of any other type of organism. Including some of his reflections and considerations in historical writings. You may think it's somehow connected with evolution and "natural selection," I no longer do. Anyway, have a good day. (Ciao.)

 

[LIIA]

THE LATEST 21st CENTURY SCIENCE DISPROVED ALL THE CENTRAL ASSUMPTIONS OF THE MODERN SYNTHESIS (NEO-DARWINISM). NO EXCEPTION

A) The mainstream theory of evolution “ToE” is the “Modern Synthesis” which is a mid-20th century view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.

Latest 21st century scientific finds disproved the ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism). All the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproved. No exception.

Below are the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis:
- 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.

2013 Birmingham, UK, 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 - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

B) The common understanding of the ToE among many proponents of evolution is the model of evolution which theorizes the slow and gradual transformation of a whole species into a new one through random mutation + natural selection as the fundamental mechanism of speciation.

As mentioned above, latest 21st century scientific finds disproved these mechanisms. Neither mutations are random nor natural selection has any way to explain speciation. See below.

Non-Random Mutations:
Denis Noble said that not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

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

Natural Selection:
Gerd B. Müller concluded that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation and hence calling for EES to revisit different factors at play. , He said, “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.” See#160

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

C) Proponents of the ToE are either those who rely on outdated scientific material without much understanding or awareness of the latest in the field (other than their claim that they do) and others who are simply ignorant blind followers.

The material addressing the failure of the “Modern Synthesis” is clear, conclusive and available to anyone especially those who are serious and want to be informed.

Those who enjoy staying in denial, insist to ignore the fact that science is ever changing, find their comfort in dwelling in the ignorance of the past, sure they can do so, it’s their call but they should not pose themselves as rational proponents of science. They’re absolutely not.

 

[Viker]

There is no Evolution but species do change.

You seem desperate to deny evolution while attempting to redefine it to fit your own desire. You still don't seem to comprehend evolution at all. Yet, you are unable to escape much of it's language.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

THE LATEST 21st CENTURY SCIENCE DISPROVED ALL THE CENTRAL ASSUMPTIONS OF THE MODERN SYNTHESIS (NEO-DARWINISM). NO EXCEPTION

A) The mainstream theory of evolution “ToE” is the “Modern Synthesis” which is a mid-20th century view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.

Latest 21st century scientific finds disproved the ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism). All the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been disproved. No exception.

Below are the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis:
- 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.

2013 Birmingham, UK, 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 - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

B) The common understanding of the ToE among many proponents of evolution is the model of evolution which theorizes the slow and gradual transformation of a whole species into a new one through random mutation + natural selection as the fundamental mechanism of speciation.

As mentioned above, latest 21st century scientific finds disproved these mechanisms. Neither mutations are random nor natural selection has any way to explain speciation. See below.

Non-Random Mutations:
Denis Noble said that not only mutations are not random, but also proteins did not evolve via gradual accumulation of change.

Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

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

Natural Selection:
Gerd B. Müller concluded that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation and hence calling for EES to revisit different factors at play. , He said, “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.” See#160

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

C) Proponents of the ToE are either those who rely on outdated scientific material without much understanding or awareness of the latest in the field (other than their claim that they do) and others who are simply ignorant blind followers.

The material addressing the failure of the “Modern Synthesis” is clear, conclusive and available to anyone especially those who are serious and want to be informed.

Those who enjoy staying in denial, insist to ignore the fact that science is ever changing, find their comfort in dwelling in the ignorance of the past, sure they can do so, it’s their call but they should not pose themselves as rational proponents of science. They’re absolutely not.

Do you think people that are desperate to find any evidence of a creator are expressing unconscious doubt in their own belief?

 

[cladking]

You seem desperate to deny evolution while attempting to redefine it to fit your own desire. You still don't seem to comprehend evolution at all. Yet, you are unable to escape much of it's language.

I've been at this a while.

Trying to convince believers in Evolution that Peers are wrong is like trying to convince the pope that there is no God but if there were then the devil is the good guy. Every time you present evidence they hear something different. Every time you hold their hand and point out the logic they look and squirm away. There have never been believers holier than thou than those who believe in ramps to build pyramids or Evolution. The less evidence there is for a scientific belief the more tightly is is held by its believers. With Evolution it's even worse because people want to believe and there are numerous experiments that can be interpreted to show it. We can even see it happening before our eyes with lesser species and see no reason not to extrapolate such results to the "fossil record".

Just like reality itself science is logical so its language approximates logic in some regards. Of course I use many of the same words. My paradigm was built from science, math, and history. What makes it seem unusual to believers is simply that it considers the only aspect of life; consciousness. Instead of considering life biologists are reducing it to characteristics and taxonomies. We parse reality itself so why not parse life itself.

Reality is binary and logic manifest. So is consciousness and life where "fitness" is not even a characteristic of any individual.

Erroneous assumption cause erroneous conclusions. Homo omnisciencis always reasons in circles and only experiment might snap him out of it.

 

[metis]

No!

Species change but they do not drift over many millions of years. There is no such thing as survival of the fittest because every individual is equally fit.

There is no Evolution but species do change.

You are ignoring the massive evidence for the fact that there's been an evolutionary process and that this also involved us as humans. Thus, maybe at the least do some studying, and you could even start with this: Evolution - Wikipedia Please note that there are myriads of links to actual studies in that link.

As a matter of fact, common sense should tell you that you must be wrong or life on Earth today would all be single-celled organisms if they supposedly hadn't evolved. Thus, your position makes not one iota of sense.

 

[viole]

No, it's not a non-sequitur. Simply because man's ability to write and ponder over things, including the universe, puts him way ahead of any other type of organism.

Even if true, that will still be no defeater of evolution. How do you from: we can ponder about the Universe, to: therefore we cannot be the product of evolution?

You may think it's somehow connected with evolution and "natural selection," I no longer do. Anyway, have a good day. (Ciao.)

I am not saying it is connected. I am saying that is no defeater of evolution. Unless you can show me some logical arguments that support your conclusion. Because my impression is that they are merely based on incredulity.

ciao

- viole

 

[LIIA]

Do you think people that are desperate to find any evidence of a creator are expressing unconscious doubt in their own belief?

I can’t speak for these people but I can speak for what I see in your case.

You response do show unconscious doubt in your own belief about the ToE as evident in your very response to #753.

Your response shows that You’re aware of the weakness of your premise, that is why you totally avoid the talk about the scientific evidence against it and try to defend it by steering the doubts away from it to the opposite view while failing to understand that the validity or invalidity of the opposite view has nothing to do with the validity of yours.

Your unconscious desperate and illogical defense clearly reflects the real thoughts and doubts in your mind. Get out of your denial (if you can).The facts are clear.

 

[cladking]

Please note that there are myriads of links to actual studies in that link.

But you still can't show one experiment that shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. Neither has anyone else.

You can't show that consciousness is not involved in change in species.

As a matter of fact, common sense should tell you that you must be wrong or life on Earth today would all be single-celled organisms if they supposedly hadn't evolved.

Ah, yes. The progress of evolution and the march toward human perfection. The faster we devolve the more people think we're always getting better. Homo omnisciencis.