Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

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.

You are too willfully ignorant to understand that experiments are OBSERVATIONS and experiments are EVIDENCE.

Evidence are something "physical" that are not only observed, but you can quantify, measure, compare, analyze, test, etc, and these are information or DATA. The evidence & data are what will verify or refute the hypothesis.

Experiments are the same. You can observe, test, quantify, measure, etc, and these data that will either verify or refute the hypothesis.

Scientists can do either or both, to determine if the hypothesis is a probable or improbable explanation.

Darwin made his observations from his voyage on the HMS Beagle, and then through decades of examination of plant and animal specimen at the university and British Geological Society, and what he didn't get right, being corrected by his colleagues (eg botanists, zoologists, geologists, etc).

He may not have everything there is to know, but he did the best he could in his generation, just as Galileo, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell did.

The illusion is that you think you know more than today's biologists that I find to arrogant and deluded, especially when you have admitted you have no qualification or experiences in biology or in other topics (eg languages, engineering, etc) that you talk about, and yet you have the pretension to know everything.

What did you call yourself?

A "nexialist"?

As far as I know, there is no such thing as a nexialist or of nexialism.

It is word was fabricated by sci-fi author.

Not only you have to make up definitions of scientific terms, you are philosopher of a fictitious philosophy of a bloody sci-fi novel.

Why should I be surprise by that?

A nexialist has nothing to do with science or scientific experiment.

 

[cladking]

No. I am a self defined "generalist" and am also a metaphysician. I used to consider myself a scientist. I don't know if "nexialism" exists or not. It was defined well enough but there are no clues from the author on how one achieves this state. As a generalist and metaphysician I have always been chiefly concerned with things like processes and how things fit together. As scientists we tend to take things apart but as a metaphysician they are put back together in order to try to visualize the entire picture. Most scientists do not do this and when they do they extrapolate and interpolate from what is known but I use overarching principles to try to see all reality at once. I believe every experiment ever performed must be used in tandem to analyze everything. Not only is the experiment subject to reality but so is the experimenter and his interpretations. Just as reality always affects all things simultaneously all experiment applies to all things simultaneously. Experiment is only the tiny little part of reality we can understand.

You quoted my post and then responded to almost none of it. You continue to gainsay when I point out that theory is not based on observation for many reasons. Part of the problem here is language. Both "observation" and "experiment" have many meanings. BUT "Experiment" in its scientific usage has a single meaning so "observation" is much of the problem. This word not only has various scientific meanings but each of these meanings has or can be thought of having meanings that overlap with "experiment". But experiments are not so much "observed" as they are "interpreted" so a lot of this poor communication seems quite willful. Just as you distort my words like "metaphysics" you bend and distort words like "observation". Some "observation" sometimes has virtually as much importance as "experiment" and some of the things people call "experiment" has no meaning to theory at all. I mentioned previously that at one time there were those who thought the profoundly autistic were highly intelligent and could communicate with researchers using Ouija boards. Of course the researchers had merely deluded themselves because this is what they wanted to believe. To the degree "observation" is dependent on the observer it has no meaning. Look and See Science is always highly dependent on the looker and seer so is always very highly suspect. The Lookers and Seers always engage in circular reasoning because this is the way our minds work as shown in thousands of experiment. We can't "observe" what exists but rather what we want to observe. This applies to all members of homo omnisciencis and not only those with whom we disagree. It applies to Christians, scientists, and metaphysicians and YES, it even applies to Peers.

I'm sorry you have no experiment to support your beliefs. I'm sorry reality is so complex you can't even seem to understand my theory so you have to keep twisting it and playing word games. I'm sorry that you find Darwin so believable that you can't even consider alternative explanations of observation and experiment. But this is reality for our species. We don't need to understand anything at all because each of us already knows they understand everything.

You can't even look for an experiment that supports Darwin better than me because you don't understand me!!!

 

[Jose Fly]

SCIENTISTS!!

See # 326 & 327 for the alleged evolution of man
See # 422 for the alleged evolution of tetrapods (Tiktaalik)
See #1298 for the alleged evolution of whales
See #1298 for the alleged evolution of horses

See #1252 for some evolutionary nonsense (Orce Man & Nebraska Man) that got refuted by scientists.

That's not what we're talking about. Remember, I showed you examples of gradualism in the fossil record and you claimed they were "challenged". So the question is, who has challenged those specific examples?

Go ahead and provide your reference. Criticisms by whom? and what does it mean?

I'll take that as a "No" and conclude that you've never read any of the criticisms of Nobel.

Denis Noble CBE FRS FMedSci MAE is one of the most acclaimed scientists in history who wrote over 500 published papers.

Yet when he tells you that evolution happens, all life shares a common ancestry, and humans share a common ancestry with other primates, suddenly he's not so credible or persuasive, is he?

Again, “There wouldn't be enough material in the whole universe for nature to tried out all the possible interactions, even over the long period of billions of years of the evolutionary process.” It’s a mathematical impossibility.

So what?

Wow!! So you finally acknowledged that the Nazis applied DARWINIAN CONCEPTS!! Just stick to it and don’t change it in your next post if you can.

No, I'm saying they misapplied Darwinian concepts.

But no, it was not misinterpretation it was definitely true interpretations of the Darwinian concepts as understood by Darwin himself and evident in his prediction in the “The Descent of Man” about the elimination of the so-called “savage races”.

You can't have it both ways here. You don't get to say that the Nazis accurately applied Darwinian concepts while also saying that they were wrong to commit genocide against Jews and others.

If the targets of their atrocities weren't "less fit", then the Nazis could not have been accurately applying Darwinian concepts.

So which is it?

Neither mutations are random nor Natural Selection has any way of explaining speciation. See the link below and #753

Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

We've already been over this and you're just repeating your false claims.

Again, the paper said “this cannot be dismissed as a minority view but rather is a WIDESPREAD feeling among scientists and philosophers alike” see #911

Do you know what “widespread” means? That’s English 101 stuff.
(Sorry, I borrowed that 101 thing from you)

Three things. First, what support was given for the claim that the EES is a "widespread feeling"? Any numbers?

Second, "widespread" is not the same as "majority". You should know that, being an English expert and all.

Third, if the EES is a majority view among biologists, why is it so controversial?

Oh, one more thing. Let's say for the sake of argument that the EES is a majority view among biologists. So what? According to the Wiki page you linked to, it's simply about additional ways in which evolution occurs. So I gotta ask...do you agree that evolution occurs? It also maintains universal common ancestry and human-primate common ancestry. Do you agree with those as well?

You don’t get it; I’m quoting Noble for the refutation of all the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. That is what matters. Beyond that whatever is left is nothing more than a meaningless story (historical narrative).

Oh, so he's a great scientist who we should all believe....except when it comes to the fact that evolution happens, universal common ancestry, and human-primate common ancestry. Then he's just a "meaningless story teller".

If you don't see the problem there, I can't help you.

No, this specific article didn’t say anything about non-random mutations

Acknowledged.

God. Wasn’t that obvious enough?

God is the necessary being. God is the absolute first cause. God is the designer. I said that numerous times in numerous posts, didn’t I?

So you believe God is deliberately giving bacteria mutations that allows them to overcome antibiotics. God is deliberately giving pathogens mutations that allow them to evade treatments. God deliberately gave the parasite that causes malaria the mutations that allow it to infect and kill millions upon millions of humans.

Every mutation that has ever existed has been an act of God, which means God is personally responsible for every disease, pathogen, parasite, and pest that has caused immeasurable suffering and death.

That's sick.

Again, the paper said “widespread”. It’s not a game of semantics. Does the endorsement/publishing by a scientific academy such as the Royal Society means anything to you? Don’t you guys acknowledge the role of “peer review” in scientific publications (Judgment by a panel of two or more experts in the field before publishing)?

FYI, a journal publishing an article does not constitute them endorsing its contents. You should know that.

 

[Valjean]

Incredible? How so?
I repeat my questions.
Do you understand what survival of the fittest even means?

 

[cladking]

Incredible? How so?
I repeat my questions.
Do you understand what survival of the fittest even means?

Do you know what "natural selection" means or why Darwin used "survival of the fittest"?

He said it was more accurate. This thread is about Darwin's Illusion or Delusion. It's not about what people believe today even though they are still wrong.

 

[ppp]

Do you know what "natural selection" means or why Darwin used "survival of the fittest"?

He said it was more accurate. This thread is about Darwin's Illusion or Delusion. It's not about what people believe today even though they are still wrong.

It is what people believe today: better adapted to their current environment. And even if we were wrong about what Darwin meant; who cared? Darwin is not the boss of me.

 

[gnostic]

Incredible? How so?
I repeat my questions.
Do you understand what survival of the fittest even means?

Do you know what "natural selection" means or why Darwin used "survival of the fittest"?

He said it was more accurate.

You are doing what you usually do: You are not answering direct question, you are sidestepping, being evasive.

I don’t think anyone care what Darwin said it being “more accurate”, @Valjean wasn't asking what “Darwin think” of Herbert Spencer’s invented “Survival of the fittest”, he is asking “what YOU think”, because Valjean don’t think you understand what it means in the biological context.

You are the one who keep bringing up the survival of the fittest, not Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is one of mechanisms in modern evolutionary biology, not survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest isn’t a mechanism.

Survival of the fittest was actually one of Spencer’s concepts on human social and economic ideology, as he he was also a sociologist and economist too before he even read On Origin Of The Species in 1859 or started writing his Principles Of Biology (1864). He may have coined the words survival of the fittest in his biology papers, but his ideas were expressed in his earlier work on sociology - Social Statics (1851).

Here are the quotes, plus Valjean’s two original questions:

"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.

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?

Valjean was asking what do you understand about survival of the fittest, not what Darwin think of the words he had never invented.

So try again. Answer these 2 questions that highlighted in red.

 

[cladking]

Darwin is not the boss of me.

Darwin is the subject of the thread.

 

[gnostic]

Darwin is the subject of the thread.

Your continuous use of Darwin being wrong without taking into account what he got right, where modern biology have updated his Natural Selection beyond what Darwin knew, only demonstrate your lack of integrity in this thread.

What Darwin thought about Spencer’s survival of the fittest came from his letter (correspondence), doesn’t explain the mechanism of Natural Selection. Survival of the fittest isn’t the mechanism for Natural Selection.

For goodness sake, cladking, read up actual BIOLOGY TEXTBOOKS on Natural Selection, instead of focusing on what Darwin may have thought about survival of the fittest.

 

[gnostic]

Btw, @cladking

What Darwin wrote in 1866 about what he think of Spencer’s “Survival of the fittest”, came from his correspondent or letter to Spencer, and not in the original publication On Origin Of The Species in 1859.

Anyway, no one TODAY really care what Spencer wrote in his own book Principles of Biology (1866).

In today’s biology textbooks, all teaching referred to the modern understanding of biology, including evolutionary biology, especially modern understanding of Natural Selection.

You seemed obsessed with trying to Darwin wrong, and not about current understanding of biology at all.

No one really what Darwin wrote in his letter, because it doesn’t include anything about modern genetics relating to Evolution or about molecular biology and biochemistry.

And Darwin wasn’t also aware of modern testings, like DNA testing techniques, the genome project, and in the case of modern paleontology, there were no radiometric dating methods and thermoluminescence dating techniques in the 19th century, etc.

Modern testing techniques, like with dating remains, fossils, minerals and strata of rocks that these remains or fossils were buried are essential as to where these organisms exist at that time.

Do you ignore modern Natural Selection, which include knowledge in molecular biology, modern genetics and DNA testing?

You are being very philistine when it come to modern knowledge of biology. It like you are stuck on smallest inconsequential errors Darwin had made, ignoring advanced strides made today in understanding Evolution.

Plus, there are a lot more to Evolution than just Natural Selection. I have noticed that you completely ignored the other mechanisms in Evolution, like Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking. Why?

 

[ppp]

Darwin is the subject of the thread.

And the subject of my sentence was Darwin. How about that!

 

[YoursTrue]

Btw, @cladking

What Darwin wrote in 1866 about what he think of Spencer’s “Survival of the fittest”, came from his correspondent or letter to Spencer, and not in the original publication On Origin Of The Species in 1859.

Anyway, no one TODAY really care what Spencer wrote in his own book Principles of Biology (1866).

In today’s biology textbooks, all teaching referred to the modern understanding of biology, including evolutionary biology, especially modern understanding of Natural Selection.

You seemed obsessed with trying to Darwin wrong, and not about current understanding of biology at all.

No one really what Darwin wrote in his letter, because it doesn’t include anything about modern genetics relating to Evolution or about molecular biology and biochemistry.

And Darwin wasn’t also aware of modern testings, like DNA testing techniques, the genome project, and in the case of modern paleontology, there were no radiometric dating methods and thermoluminescence dating techniques in the 19th century, etc.

Modern testing techniques, like with dating remains, fossils, minerals and strata of rocks that these remains or fossils were buried are essential as to where these organisms exist at that time.

Do you ignore modern Natural Selection, which include knowledge in molecular biology, modern genetics and DNA testing?

You are being very philistine when it come to modern knowledge of biology. It like you are stuck on smallest inconsequential errors Darwin had made, ignoring advanced strides made today in understanding Evolution.

Plus, there are a lot more to Evolution than just Natural Selection. I have noticed that you completely ignored the other mechanisms in Evolution, like Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking. Why?

What happened to natural selection? It got lost in the mix, drift and flow of mutation?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your continuous use of Darwin being wrong without taking into account what he got right, where modern biology have updated his Natural Selection beyond what Darwin knew, only demonstrate your lack of integrity in this thread.

What Darwin thought about Spencer’s survival of the fittest came from his letter (correspondence), doesn’t explain the mechanism of Natural Selection. Survival of the fittest isn’t the mechanism for Natural Selection.

For goodness sake, cladking, read up actual BIOLOGY TEXTBOOKS on Natural Selection, instead of focusing on what Darwin may have thought about survival of the fittest.

Men are not gorillas. That so-called imagined common ancestor just has not been unearthed...

 

[ppp]

What happened to natural selection?

Nothing happened to it. You ignore all of the other mechanisms of mutation. Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking. As @gnostic asked, Why?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What happened to natural selection? It got lost in the mix, drift and flow of mutation?

Natural selection didn't go anywhere.

What most people think fitness means is how strong an organism is and that selection means the stronger organism beats up on other members of its species. Or something like that.

That is not fitness and selection.

An organism that has traits that allow it to survive and reproduce in higher numbers on average (fitness) under the environmental conditions (selection) make up its fitness profile. This means that more of that organisms genes are in the next generation. If the environmental conditions prevail, then those genes persist and proliferate in the population. If that continues, this can gradually lead to a significant change in the entire population. The rate of this change can vary depending on the biology of the organism, the environment, niche availability.

This has been experimentally demonstrated by studies like Lenski's E. coli experiment and Barrett's field experiment with mice in Nebraska.

This doesn't mean that the organism and its descendants are free from chance events or mistakes that might lead to an untimely demise.

Environment is all the living and non-living and internal and external factors an organism is subjected too or exists with. In the case of humans, we can add human culture as a component of the environment.

I grew up in the Missouri Ozarks. I was in the first generation of my family to grow up there. In my community there were several families with numerical prominence (several families with ancestors that married and reproduced a lot and descendants that did the same). Their genes predominated in the community in comparison to my family. Those families had the highest fitness in that sense compared to my family in that environment. We did, however, bring in new genes to the population.

Under the conditions of the Ozarks in that population, those numerically dominant families had more genes in the population. Not the only genes or reproduction in the population. Just the most.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Men are not gorillas. That so-called imagined common ancestor just has not been unearthed...

No, we are not. Gorillas are a different species that we are related to.

My 60X great grandfather has not been unearthed either. I have no reason to believe he did not exist, but I don't have his bones either. No letters. No video. No photographs. Not a scrap of personal property of a specific person that fits in my line. Does that mean he didn't exist?

You aren't claiming to have evidence for every ancestor in your entire line of descent are you? If you don't have have evidence for all of them, does that mean they didn't exist?

 

[Valjean]

What happened to natural selection? It got lost in the mix, drift and flow of mutation?

Nothing happened. It's a major, selective mechanism.

 

[Valjean]

Men are not gorillas. That so-called imagined common ancestor just has not been unearthed...

So? There used to be a lot of different hominid species running around, in addition to other great apes. There are a lot of candidates for 'common ancestor', and not a lot of fossils from the period.
Obviously, we apes descended from something, I mean... what are the alternatives?" magic poofing?

Exactly what our common ancestor was just hasn't been determined yet.

 

[Valjean]

No, we are not. Gorillas are a different species that we are related to.

My 60X great grandfather has not been unearthed either. I have no reason to believe he did not exist, but I don't have his bones either. No letters. No video. No photographs. Not a scrap of personal property of a specific person that fits in my line. Does that mean he didn't exist?

You aren't claiming to have evidence for every ancestor in your entire line of descent are you? If you don't have have evidence for all of them, does that mean they didn't exist?

I'll bet your 60X grandfather didn't have flop ears, either. Those were artificially selected for much later.

 

[YoursTrue]

So? There used to be a lot of different hominid species running around, in addition to other great apes. There are a lot of candidates for 'common ancestor', and not a lot of fossils from the period.
Obviously, we apes descended from something, I mean... what are the alternatives?" magic poofing?

Exactly what our common ancestor was just hasn't been determined yet.

Yeah, well insofar as I have seen, gorillas, bonobos, and other type similar looking animals do not "mix" with interbreeding. Despite the surmisal of a "common ancestor."