Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

I see that I also have a bit to add . Even when we observe "rapid speciation" that is on a geological time scale. The geologic time scale is nothing like the biological time scale. Due to the nature of deposition, especially of terrestrial fossils we will see jumps and gaps. So we might see a sudden change. Over five million years. Ask @Dan From Smithville how long that is on a biological time scale. And you also keep ignoring the fact that Gould's work is 50 years old. There have been countless fossils found since then. So we do see many of the transitional forms that he did not see.

If you want to make a point try to refute modern geology. Not geology that is fifty years out of date.

So dogs, cats, cattle, goats, cheese, wheat, corn, and melons took tens of millions of years to get what we have today.

Someday we can add acorns, toadstools, and gaur gum to the list of edible foods but they are still a work in progress.

 

[cladking]

Have you forgotten?

You wrote this:

​

What is this "cause"?

"Consciousness"? "Behavior"?

How does "consciousness" or "behavior" control genes?

I know very well that you can make claims, because you do it all the time. But what you have never been able to do, is to support these claims of yours, they are just your personal opinions.

Unless you can present evidence that demonstrate these claims of yours, as "how it all work", it is just more of ridiculously unsubstantiated claims.

But this site is a forum for public discussion and debate, so I don't actually expect you to show evidence yourself because I know you're no scientist, then I would readily accept peer-reviewed papers that do have evidence-based data that might support your claims.

However, I know you won't be able to cite any scientific papers, since you have this absurd conspiracies against peer-reviewed publications, so there would be no help here to verify your claims.

You seem to be suggesting that genes don't define species and individuals.

That individuals are an expression of their genes is not MAGIC and neither is the way science works. Science doesn't require intelligence or Looking and Seeing. It requires experiment and you have no experiment to support your beliefs.

 

[cladking]

Birds do not suddenly grow feathers and fly.

You've never watched a robin build a nest and create a fledgling. You've probably never seen the first flight of a swallow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So dogs, cats, cattle, goats, cheese, wheat, corn, and melons took tens of millions of years to get what we have today.

Someday we can add acorns, toadstools, and gaur gum to the list of edible foods but they are still a work in progress.

All of those are regularly eaten today.

 

[gnostic]

You seem to be suggesting that genes don't define species and individuals.

That individuals are an expression of their genes is not MAGIC and neither is the way science works. Science doesn't require intelligence or Looking and Seeing. It requires experiment and you have no experiment to support your beliefs.

Why do everything I write, you take it completely out of context?

Stop making up BS - things I didn't say.

I have never said anything about magic. Why this BS false claims of magic?

Physical traits that are pass from parents to offspring occur at chemical level of the nucleic acids in each cell, these nucleic acids that you would know as DNA and RNA. These nucleic acids are not controlled by consciousness, in animals, genes inherited from parents.

DNA testing can show who the child's parents are, or identify the parent's child as being their. These are chemical processes in the DNA and RNA are purely natural.

I have never said anything about gene popping into existence like magic. That's your BS strawman, twisting my word.

Stop making up these BS.

Everything you said about consciousness and behavior creating genes are nonsensical pseudoscience claims, failing to bring one iota of evidence, and refusing to cite your sources from scientific papers.

 

[gnostic]

So dogs, cats, cattle, goats, cheese, wheat, corn, and melons took tens of millions of years to get what we have today.

Someday we can add acorns, toadstools, and gaur gum to the list of edible foods but they are still a work in progress.

There you go again, making up more BS claims. It never cease to amaze me how you can be so blatantly dishonest with these claims you make up.

No wonder why people from another forum, think your claims as rubbish as Graham Hancock and Immanuel Velikovsky, making up pseudoscience and pseudohistory as you feel like. You come here to drag your trash from there to here. It make me wonder if you are just another Internet troll.

 

[cladking]

I have never said anything about magic. Why this BS false claims of magic?

It's not necessary for you to call something "magic" in order to believe in magic. By the exact same token if I say there is "magic" in a young girl's eye it doesn't mean I believe in "magic".

You believe that Peers make science work by defining what is scientific and what is not. This is MAGIC. You believe an expert can Look and See evidence thereby deducing or inducing the nature of reality and her laws. This is MAGIC. You believe nature has to obey the laws laid down by Peers. This is MAGIC. You believe Darwin didn't need any experiments to invent Evolution. This is MAGIC. You believe that science operates on intelligence. This is MAGIC. You believe science has no basis in language or axioms. This is MAGIC. You believe you don't need to address my argument and you'll "win" becauise Peers are on your side. This is MAGIC. You believe you don't bneed to know anything about an individuial's genes in order to understand change in species. This is MAGIC. And now you seem to believe genes have no origin. And this is MAGIC, too.

You believe all kinds of magic because you don't know how science works or have any clue about the nature of consciousness.

 

[cladking]

I said;

"So dogs, cats, cattle, goats, cheese, wheat, corn, and melons took tens of millions of years to get what we have today.

Someday we can add acorns, toadstools, and gaur gum to the list of edible foods but they are still a work in progress."

There you go again, making up more BS claims. It never cease to amaze me how you can be so blatantly dishonest with these claims you make up.

Are you immune to sarcasm. These are examples of things that all arose suddenly just like all other species. These are merely some of the specific species we know arose suddenly. If we ever have edible toadstools odds are good they will be a very different species than any alive today. At the very least they won't produce toxins injurious to human life BY DEFINITION. And BY DEFINITION they will have different genes than any alive today.

There is no evidence any species arose gradually through survival of the fittest or someone would have presented it by now.

 

[gnostic]

You believe that Peers make science work by defining what is scientific and what is not.

No, once again, you have twisted everything anyone say, taking them out of context, because of lack of integrity and utter ignorance.

No, the authors of tested and scientific theories make “science”

The scientist (author) write the hypothesis must pass all 3 requirements:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

If the hypothesis successfully pass all 3 requirements, then it becomes a “candidate” of being a “scientific theory”.

I said “candidate”, because there may be more than 1 author of hypothesis or hypotheses.can compete against each other.

For instance, at the same time, there were 3 different theoretical cosmological hypotheses in the 1910s to 1930s, as example of competing hypotheses:

1. Static Universe model or Static Model, by Albert Einstein, 1917 (Einstein added Cosmological Constant in 1918).
2. Steady State model, by William Duncan MacMillan, in the 1920s.
3. Expanding Universe models in the 1920s, by 3 theoretical physicists, who independently came up the very similar concepts, that would later be known as the Big Bang model:
   1. Alexander Friedmann (1922, Russian)
   2. Howard Percy Robertson (1924-25, American); the mathematician Arthur Geoffrey Walker (British) cowork with Robertson in the 1930s
   3. Georges Lemaître (1927), author of the Hypothesis Of The Primeval Atom.

I don’t know the details about MacMillan’s Steady State model, but the other scientists all used Einstein’s field equations from his General Relativity, to come up with their respective cosmological models.

As I said, Einstein added the Cosmological Constant to his field equations. Friedmann, Robertson-Walker & Lemaître have each independently added “metric” to Einstein’s field equations, as solutions to their respective Expanding Universe models, and Einstein’s field equations, became known Friedmann Equations when used with the Big Bang model.

The metric was known as the Friedmann metric, the Lemaître metric or the Robertson-Walker metric.

Both Robertson (1924-25) and Lemaître (1927) came up with the predictions of using the Redshift (also known as Cosmological Redshift), as measurements if the galaxies are moving away (redshift) or moving towards (blueshift), as means of determining if the universe was expanding or contracting. In 1929, Edwin Hubble made these observational discoveries of the Redshift.

This discovery of “redshift” led to Lemaître’s “Hubble’s Law”. The discovery also made astronomers and astrophysicists favoring Lemaître’s work, lose their interests in MacMillan’s Steady State model, and for Einstein publicly proclaiming the Cosmological Constant to be his biggest blunder.

But despite the popularity of Expanding Universe model, it remained a hypothesis, and both Expanding Universe model and Steady State model have new incarnations, where they compete against each other through the 1950s to 1964.

In 1948, George Gamow, Ralph Alpher & Robert Wilson worked together on the Expanding Universe model. Gamow was a former student of Alexander Friedmann, came up with new model the Hot Big Bang model, and they made 2 important predictions:

• Gamow & Alpher predicted the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN),
• Alpher & Wilson predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

Both predictions are still relevant today, and they have both have to do with the formations of the early elements (atoms) in the young universe, before the formation of the stars.

On the other side, a newer and revised version of the Steady State model was formulated in 1948, by another team of 3 theoretical physicists: Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold & Fred Hoyle.

It was Hoyle who derisively called the Expanding Universe model the Big Bang in 1949’s interview with BBC, and the name stuck.

Anyway, the Big Bang and Steady State model’s remained in “hypothesis” status, until 1964, with the accidental discovery of CMBR by Arno Penzias & Robert Wilson, when they were setting up radio antenna (as their radio telescope) at Bell Labs, in New Jersey. This discovery led to refuting Steady State model, and with the Big Bang model becoming scientific theory.

It took 42 year, and two discoveries of evidence to reach this status:

1. Redshift in 1929
2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in 1964

Anyway, the credits go to both authors (Friedmann, Robertson & Lemaître in 1920s; Gamow, Alpher & Herman in 1948) and discoverers (Hubble in 1924; Penzias & Wilson in 1964), all of them, pioneers in the Big Bang model. They made the Big Bang theory possible, not the Peer Review.

As I said in my previous replies, Peer Review only reject pseudoscience concepts, works that have no testable evidence & data, and they only review and publish “well-tested” hypotheses, they don’t modify the hypotheses and they don’t take credits of the hypotheses that have achieved scientific theory status.

Any reviews where peers discover errors or anomalies in tests (eg evidence or experiments) that hypothesis author cannot explain, the hypothesis will also be rejected.

Credits only goes to those who are authors of the scientific theories with evidence & data to support their models, and to those who made important contributions to the theories.

 

[Valjean]

It's not necessary for you to call something "magic" in order to believe in magic. By the exact same token if I say there is "magic" in a young girl's eye it doesn't mean I believe in "magic".

You believe that Peers make science work by defining what is scientific and what is not.

Defining what is science? Make science work? What does that mean? Science is an investivative method; a very successful one. Its methods are tried-and-true.

You believe an expert can Look and See evidence thereby deducing or inducing the nature of reality and her laws.

Huh? Sometimes evidence is clear-cut, sometimes not. How is assessment and testing of evidence magic?

You believe nature has to obey the laws laid down by Peers.

What!? Scientists don't lay down laws. They discover existing laws. Nature does what it does. Science merely describes it. And what are these capitalized "Peers," some sort of official organization?

You believe Darwin didn't need any experiments to invent Evolution.

Invent evolution? Darwin invented nothing. Fact: Living things change over time. This is evolution. Darwin described one of the methods by which this change occurs. How is this magic? A mechanism is the opposite of magic.

You believe that science operates on intelligence.

Operates on intelligence? What does this mean? Science is a method. It employs observation, hypothesis forming, testing and peer review. Where's the magic?

You believe science has no basis in language or axioms.

What does this even mean?

You believe you don't need to address my argument and you'll "win" becauise Peers are on your side.

Aside from a few unsupported assertions, you've made no argument. and you haven't supported your assertions. So failure to address your assertions is magic, too?

You believe you don't bneed to know anything about an individuial's genes in order to understand change in species.

Not sure what you're getting at, here. "Understand change?" We can understand selective breeding without understanding the fine genetic and chemical details involved.

And now you seem to believe genes have no origin. And this is MAGIC, too.

Again, what are you talking about?
Where do you get all this? Gnostic never posted any of this. What you're reading and what you're understanding seem to have no relationship.

You believe all kinds of magic because you don't know how science works or have any clue about the nature of consciousness.

None of it is magic. Science explains mechanism. Magic is the absence of mechanism, it's the opposite of science
I think it's pretty clear that it's you who don't know how science works -- or evolution, for that matter.

 

[cladking]

Operates on intelligence? What does this mean? Science is a method. It employs observation, hypothesis forming, testing and peer review. Where's the magic?

I'm not the one who thinks science is MAGIC. That would be those people who think evidence, Looking and Seeing, and Peers make science. It would be those who refuse to allow "metaphysics" to be "the basis of science". It's the people who think experts don't need experiment and Darwin mustta been right.

 

[cladking]

Aside from a few unsupported assertions, you've made no argument. and you haven't supported your assertions. So failure to address your assertions is magic, too?

"All observed change in all life is sudden" is the mother of all evidence. Why does this go unaddressed?

Looking at a bunch of fossils and Seeing that there mustta been a gradual change caused by survival of the fittest is the mother of all circular reasoning.

 

[Valjean]

I said;

"So dogs, cats, cattle, goats, cheese, wheat, corn, and melons took tens of millions of years to get what we have today.

Someday we can add acorns, toadstools, and gaur gum to the list of edible foods but they are still a work in progress."
Are you immune to sarcasm. These are examples of things that all arose suddenly just like all other species.

How sudden is suddenly? These are man-made, selectively bred variants, breeds, or cultivars, not naturally selected species.

These are merely some of the specific species we know arose suddenly. If we ever have edible toadstools odds are good they will be a very different species than any alive today. At the very least they won't produce toxins injurious to human life BY DEFINITION. And BY DEFINITION they will have different genes than any alive today.

Again, not different species; manufactured varieties. Same genes as the original 'ancestor', just tweaked DNA sequences.

There is no evidence any species arose gradually through survival of the fittest or someone would have presented it by now.

Yes, there is. Deny it all you want, but most speciation is a slow process, especially in relatively stable environments.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not the one who thinks science is MAGIC. That would be those people who think evidence, Looking and Seeing, and Peers make science. It would be those who refuse to allow "metaphysics" to be "the basis of science". It's the people who think experts don't need experiment and Darwin mustta been right.

What do you mean by "looking and seeing," and who/what are these "Peers?"
And in what sense do you mean 'metaphysics'?

An expert is someone very knowledgable in a subject. Not all experts are researchers.

Darwin's rightness is not based on authority. Authority counts for nothing in science. Darwin's rightness is based on 160 years of research, experimentation, testing and application.

 

[Valjean]

"All observed change in all life is sudden" is the mother of all evidence. Why does this go unaddressed?

Because no other biologist in the world has found any evidence supporting this. You seem to be a lone iconoclast, who hasn't produced any evidence to support this radical new "theory." All the evidence points to slow change punctuated by periods of more rapid evolution during periods of rapid environmental change.

Looking at a bunch of fossils and Seeing that there mustta been a gradual change caused by survival of the fittest is the mother of all circular reasoning.

Q: What is your understanding of "survival of the fittest?"
If not by natural selection, what mechanism do you propose?
How is any of this circular reasoning?

 

[gnostic]

Are you immune to sarcasm. These are examples of things that all arose suddenly just like all other species. These are merely some of the specific species we know arose suddenly. If we ever have edible toadstools odds are good they will be a very different species than any alive today. At the very least they won't produce toxins injurious to human life BY DEFINITION. And BY DEFINITION they will have different genes than any alive today.

There is no evidence any species arose gradually through survival of the fittest or someone would have presented it by now.

You really don’t know the hell you are talking about.

You certainly don’t understand Evolution.

Speciation occurred at different rates, depending on their biological complexity.

The only groups that change more rapidly, are unicellular prokaryotic organisms, such as species of Bacteria domain and of Archaea domain.

Microorganisms, like those of Bacteria have short lifespan, but they require very short time to reproduce through binary fission. It can take a single bacteria anywhere 9 to 20 minutes to reproduce more bacteria. So in less than a day as may as over 150 of bacteria would have reproduce.

So within a single year, mutation could occur could have change the original species into a different species of bacteria.

Animals, plants and fungi all have eukaryotic cells. A eukaryotic cell differed from prokaryotic cell, is that each cell has a nucleus and one or more smaller organelles; a prokaryotic cell lack a nucleus and organelles.

Consider nucleus and organelles like compartments that contained certain number of marcomolecules that have specific functions. For instance, in plant cell of a leaf, have a nucleus would contain most of its basic function in which you can tell all the cell came from a single plant (eg apple tree, red gum tree, etc), but an organelle would have chloroplast, which has chlorophyll, that give the green color to plant, a chlorophyll have function of photosynthesis, which use ultraviolet radiation and convert water and carbon dioxide into starch (energy source that nourish the plant, hence carbohydrate) and oxygen; photosynthesis is a chemical reaction that take place in green plant’s chloroplast organelle.

Animals would have different types of organelles in their cells.

Anyway, eukaryotic organisms or eukaryotes can exist as unicellular organisms (eukaryotic microorganisms, like species of protozoans) or multicellular organisms (eg animals, plants, fungi).

The points being multicellular organisms are more complex, therefore speciation occurred more gradually than unicellular organisms with prokaryotic cells. The more complex the organisms, the smaller the changes and the longer the speciation would take, that you can identify the difference between species.

In another thread, someone posted photos (possibly from wiki article) that compare skulls and skeletons of the equine family, horse and their extinct ancestors. All current species, both wild horses and domesticated horses (genus Eques), have single toe, and varied in size from large breed to pony-size breed.

While if you compare the other pictures of their ancestors, they are increasingly smaller, and they have extra toes - 3 of them, instead of one. The toes were longer in the earliest equine species (genus Mesohippus), the other two toes gradually grow shorter with the descendant species, until the two toes disappeared altogether, some 5 million years ago.

The changes were gradual, not sudden. The modern species of equine family, didn’t just pop into existence.

Changes of species occurred at different rates, not all rates are the same, and they are certainly not ALL sudden.

The Mesojippus didn’t jump from being species of Mesohippus to being modern horse, overnight.

 

[cladking]

I'm not the one who thinks science is MAGIC. That would be those people who think evidence, Looking and Seeing, and Peers make science. It would be those who refuse to allow "metaphysics" to be "the basis of science". It's the people who think experts don't need experiment and Darwin mustta been right.
What do you mean by "looking and seeing," and who/what are these "Peers?"
And in what sense do you mean 'metaphysics'?

An expert is someone very knowledgable in a subject. Not all experts are researchers.

Darwin's rightness is not based on authority. Authority counts for nothing in science. Darwin's rightness is based on 160 years of research, experimentation, testing and application.

INCREDIBLE!

 

[cladking]

Q: What is your understanding of "survival of the fittest?"
If not by natural selection, what mechanism do you propose?
How is any of this circular reasoning?

Darwin performed no experiment.

"Survival of the fittest" isn't real. It does not exist. It is part of Darwin's Illusion.

Consciousness leads to speciation indirectly through behavior at bottlenecks. I've said this hundreds of times now.

 

[cladking]

The changes were gradual, not sudden. The modern species of equine family, didn’t just pop into existence.

Show the experiment.

Pictures of fossils are not evidence. It is a display of circular reasoning.

 

[cladking]

How sudden is suddenly? These are man-made, selectively bred variants, breeds, or cultivars, not naturally selected species.

Conception is sudden and a great deal of change in species occurs at conception when two individuals who survived a bottleneck because of unusual genes mate. Most major changes will take at least a few generations to shake out. The very first dog litter wasn't exactly like the second dog litter or the third from other parents. These dogs had to interbreed a while until the new species became stable. Then it took centuries before there was much genetic diversity. This is the same way species start in nature except what caused it might have been random rather than the result of any consciousness such as homo sapiens (our ancestors).