Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

He admitted he has no experiences and no qualifications in this areas, and yet he believed that he knows more than biologists.

No! I've said I have no expertise. I never said I know anything much less more than biologists. I said I believe biologists are wrong.

He cannot not understand any other languages other than English, and yet he claimed to be able to understand the 40,000 year-old language that no one can translate.

The language can not be translated. It would be like trying to translate a computer program or a mathematical equation. But we understand every word in a computer program and every symbol in an equation. We know how to parse the meaning from an equation and computers parse meaning from programs. We know the vocabulary of Ancient Language because the vocabulary never changed. The way words were put together to create meaning changed. It used to be like a computer program or an equation but now it is not and when we try to parse the words the meaning is destroyed.

As a boy, I became a fan of the science fiction author A.E. Van Vogt.

I grew up in the heyday of science fiction and Van Vogt was one of my favorites as well.

“nexialist” – someone who was trained in “integrated science and thought.” A nexialist was able to see the connections between different disciplines that others could not see, was skilled in conflict resolution and had an uncanny ability to get people to solve complex problems and work together for the common good.

There doesn't appear to be a vast movement to bring this term into mainstream use, but I do like the concept by whatever name it is called.

He never defined it or said how to make it possible. I don't know it is possible as he described it. I have met polymaths with very wide expertise who can approach it but most of them don't really qualify as "nexialists".

I have very very shallow knowledge but from almost every field meaning I'm not so much a nexialist as a "generalist".

It's entirely possible that "generalism" has very limited usefulness in the real world but experience tells me this is not true.

 

[cladking]

He misuse scientific terms, twisting it out of proportion, and only accepted the definition he used.

The problem today is that metaphysics is "simple" enough that it can become confused. It used to be very highly complex and rely on language but today it is just definitions, axioms, and scientific method. For practical purposes it also includes every experiment ever performed. Expertise today is rare and it seems to those who aren't expert that "evidence" builds theory but it's far more true that theory builds evidence because "facts" have no meaning outside experiment and are very difficult to even recognize. If you believe in spontaneous generation then a rat scurrying about in garbage that had no rats before simply appear out of garbage.

We can not even see what we don't understand and everything we do see fits our beliefs no matter how crazy our beliefs. Darwin believed in survival of the fittest without ever performing an experiment and we still believe. We believe in gradual change despite the fact it has never been observed or shown.

Without experiment all anyone has is a belief system. It doesn't matter if the belief system is founded in religion or science, it is still belief.

All observed speciation is sudden and occurs at bottlenecks.

 

[gnostic]

No! I've said I have no expertise. I never said I know anything much less more than biologists. I said I believe biologists are wrong.

How can you claim biologists are wrong when you don’t understand biology in the first place?

You are making and have been making lots of wildly deluded claims, claims without evidence to support them.

It is illogical to claim biologists are wrong when you have NO EXPERIENCES IN THE FIELD (referring to “experiences” in working in any number of biology fields) and no qualifications in those fields.

Being a generalist as you call yourself, don’t make your own claims “right”.

You keep making claims, one after the other, but not once have you ever demonstrate these claims with “verifiable” and “testable” evidence.

You also don’t understand that the person who make claims of alternative concepts, have the responsibility to demonstrate their claims with evidence or with experiments. You haven’t done any of these demonstrations.

The claimant of the alternative is always the one with the burden of proof. You cannot shift it upon everyone else.

Clearly, you are no scientist, because if you were one, you would know that a biologist presenting a new concept or a new hypothesis to become a new theory, then he must follow the guideline of Scientific Method, must show test results (eg evidence/experiments & data) that verify the concept or hypothesis as probable.

But since you are no scientist, if you cannot verify your alternative concept, then at the very least you can cite scientific sources that do have evidence & data that back your claims.

You have done that too.

All you have done repeat and recycle your claim, over and over again...which don’t make any more believable when you first made the original claim.

All you do is give us the bloody runaround. It is a typical tactics, of someone who are never good at science, let alone understand the science.

Your tactics are the same as those YEC & ID creationists, who never provide evidence or never cite reliable scientific sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like all changes in all life mutations are sudden.

Hey! a post that is not one hundred percent wrong! Well done.

Yes, individual mutations are "sudden". But the changes brought about by them tend to be rather minute.

 

[cladking]

How can you claim biologists are wrong when you don’t understand biology in the first place?

I interpret evidence and experiment differently than biologists.

It is illogical to claim biologists are wrong when you have NO EXPERIENCES IN THE FIELD (..,) and no qualifications in those fields.

One needs qualifications to add to the state of the art. I'm saying the state of the art is wrong because it's built on erroneous assumptions.

You also don’t understand that the person who make claims of alternative concepts, have the responsibility to demonstrate their claims with evidence or with experiments.

This is not true. State of the art stands only as state of the art, not as gospel and not as truth.

I have presented my evidence over many threads (not so much in this one) and all of it is always ignored or called irrelevancies. But this isn't the way reality works. There are no irrelevancies in reality. Everything that is observable and based in experiment is always relevant to all things. All change in all life is sudden is a simple fact until someone shows otherwise and no experiment shows otherwise.

But since you are no scientist,...

I am a metaphysician. I am not a biologist.

All you do is give us the bloody runaround. It is a typical tactics, of someone who are never good at science, let alone understand the science.

You might be surprised. I'm great at hypothesis formation and not too bad at experiment design. My wheelhouse is understanding processes and revising practices to fit sets of processes. I'm good at reverse engineering too.

Anything that's exceedingly simple I have a knack for even if there are numerous simple things simultaneously.

Reality is just logic manifest and most logic is simple enough a child can understand.

 

[cladking]

Hey! a post that is not one hundred percent wrong! Well done.

Yes, individual mutations are "sudden". But the changes brought about by them tend to be rather minute.

I'm sure you're right that mutations tend to be insignificant to both individuals and species.

However, I believe it was a simple mutation that tied the wernicke's speech center to higher brain functions that led to the speciation event we call the advent of "homo sapiens". It is complex language that created the human race by allowing the generational accumulation of complex knowledge. Before complex language every individual had to start at square one and after the advent of complex language every individual could climb up on the shoulders of giants.

Without this generational accumulation of knowledge humans would have never needed a new more flexible language which we adopted at the tower of babel so in a very real way even we (homo omnisciencis) arose from the same mutation which gave us agriculture, cities, and pyramids. Without the mutation there would have been no 40,000 years of human science that caused the collapse of ancient science at the tower.

There are relatively few mutations that occur in areas of the genes responsible for the wiring of the brain but nature et all are forever tinkering with genes so almost anything is possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure you're right that mutations tend to be insignificant to both individuals and species.

However, I believe it was a simple mutation that tied the wernicke's speech center to higher brain functions that led to the speciation event we call the advent of "homo sapiens". It is complex language that created the human race by allowing the generational accumulation of complex knowledge. Before complex language every individual had to start at square one and after the advent of complex language every individual could climb up on the shoulders of giants.

Without this generational accumulation of knowledge humans would have never needed a new more flexible language which we adopted at the tower of babel so in a very real way even we (homo omnisciencis) arose from the same mutation which gave us agriculture, cities, and pyramids. Without the mutation there would have been no 40,000 years of human science that caused the collapse of ancient science at the tower.

There are relatively few mutations that occur in areas of the genes responsible for the wiring of the brain but nature et all are forever tinkering with genes so almost anything is possible.

Feelings are not science. Do you have any evidence for this feeling?

 

[cladking]

Feelings are not science. Do you have any evidence for this feeling?

No one said it was a "feeling".

I deduced the nature of human progress and how it differed from our ancestors in terms of what we actually know about change in species.

I've believed this for many years because of this logic and knowledge and only then learned that ancient people believed the exact same things for much the same reasons.

They believed that science (natural science) (life itself) was Knowledge > Understanding > Creation and we've confused this into the "Holy Trinity'.

Science is experiment and I believe every experiment ever done supports my belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one said it was a "feeling".

I deduced the nature of human progress and how it differed from our ancestors in terms of what we actually know about change in species.

I've believed this for many years because of this logic and knowledge and only then learned that ancient people believed the exact same things for much the same reasons.

They believed that science (natural science) (life itself) was Knowledge > Understanding > Creation and we've confused this into the "Holy Trinity'.

Science is experiment and I believe every experiment ever done supports my belief.

You said that you believe. That is just a feeling.

And please, don't claim to have used "logic".

 

[gnostic]

I have presented my evidence over many threads (not so much in this one) and all of it is always ignored or called irrelevancies. But this isn't the way reality works. There are no irrelevancies in reality. Everything that is observable and based in experiment is always relevant to all things. All change in all life is sudden is a simple fact until someone shows otherwise and no experiment shows otherwise.

No, clacking.

You have not present a single experiment or single evidence, not here, and not in other threads that I have been to, where you have posted.

You only claims you have them (evidence/experiments), but these claims of you presenting “all” the evidence/experiments are just claims, empty claims.

Why do you continue to lie about presenting evidence/experiments?

You haven’t present any, even though you claim you have.

If you believe you have, then stop wasting our time with you making more claims that you have.

No stalling, no excuses, no more bring evasive and obtuse. The following two claims of having evidence regarding to Evolution, where I am asking you to demonstrate your experiments:

You say that you have already demonstrated experiments that ALL LIFE CHANGE SPECIES SUDDENLY, then present one, right here, right now!

Show that ALL LIFE HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS, and that CONSCIOUSNESS ARE THE CAUSE OF SUDDEN CHANGES IN SPECIES, show your experiment, right here and right now!​

 

[cladking]

Show that ALL LIFE HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS, and that CONSCIOUSNESS ARE THE CAUSE OF SUDDEN CHANGES IN SPECIES, show your experiment, right here and right now!

Add the word "axiomatic" to the list of words you won't or can't understand.

Consciousness neither causes nor results from life. It is axiomatic that life is consciousness and consciousness is life.

All observation supports the idea that all change in life is sudden. Only your interpretation of the fossil record suggests something that isn't sudden. My interpretation of the same evidence says it is sudden.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All observation supports the idea that all change in life is sudden. Only your interpretation of the fossil record suggests something that isn't sudden. My interpretation of the same evidence says it is sudden.

Too bad that you do not appear to have any evidence at all for that claim. But to present evidence you would need to understand the concept and that also appears to be very very dubious.

 

[wellwisher]

I'm sure you're right that mutations tend to be insignificant to both individuals and species.

However, I believe it was a simple mutation that tied the wernicke's speech center to higher brain functions that led to the speciation event we call the advent of "homo sapiens". It is complex language that created the human race by allowing the generational accumulation of complex knowledge. Before complex language every individual had to start at square one and after the advent of complex language every individual could climb up on the shoulders of giants.

Without this generational accumulation of knowledge humans would have never needed a new more flexible language which we adopted at the tower of babel so in a very real way even we (homo omnisciencis) arose from the same mutation which gave us agriculture, cities, and pyramids. Without the mutation there would have been no 40,000 years of human science that caused the collapse of ancient science at the tower.

There are relatively few mutations that occur in areas of the genes responsible for the wiring of the brain but nature et all are forever tinkering with genes so almost anything is possible.

Our brain interfaces reality through our five sense. This allows data to enter the brain, that is not connected to our DNA. Our DNA may define how our brain will naturally interpret data, but places like culture are not natural and come to us from the outside, making the brain more than just genetics.

For example, computers have been in wide spread use, since the late 1990's; Window's 98. In less than 25 years, external input from our computer screens and devices, instead of only from physical reality, is altering the way people interact with reality; more virtual and fantasy.

This change is not genetic or based on a wide scale mutation. The brain has been pushed to where the DNA would not naturally go. Mutations are not needed when the brain exceeds the DNA via addition of key external input.

My theory is one of the key external pushes, that led to modern humans, was connected our original alliance with dogs. Before domestication, we were two apex species that learned to work together, since each gave the other advantages. Human came from apes and dogs are canine. Their instincts are different, while both are apex animals at the top of the food chain fully able to thrive.

What would happen, if these two apex animal species formed a team of sorts and learned from each other, so their brains both gained behavior not in their own original DNA. The brain would go beyond its own nature and DNA. Dogs are so tuned to humans and vice versa, since we became part of each other, long ago.

Dog are migratory predictors that hunt in packs. This is not normal ape behavior, but would be very useful for humans to learn, by example, during their migrations.

Apes tend to be led by a dominant male. In the world of dogs, either sex can lead if they are the best suited. Modern humans try to be more like the dogs than apes in this way. There is still the patriarch mentality due to the ape DNA.

Dogs are omnivores, but prefer meat. If humans allied with dogs, they would not just gather food, but they will also increase the protein in their diet, allowing their brain to grow. This is not normal for an ape, but this is normal for dogs.

I remember once I was camping with my dog and other friends. As we sat around the fire, my dog took a stick from the wood pile and chewed it to a point. He made a spear. Humans may have copied this via simulation; wood between fixed tooth; large rock, and a movable tooth; smaller rock.

Dogs live in burrows and caves. The cavemen learned this behavior from the dogs, who would help drive out bear and other large animals from the caves they needed.

Domestication of dogs occurred about 30,000 years ago and shifted the balance of power. Humans had learned well and became the head of the pack. They did not kill the dogs but remained connected to this day.

There is no need to wait for mutations, when another apex species has many of the answers already in their DNA, on display to be copied.

 

[gnostic]

Add the word "axiomatic" to the list of words you won't or can't understand.

Consciousness neither causes nor results from life. It is axiomatic that life is consciousness and consciousness is life.

I have asked for experiment or evidence, you give me logic.

This logic you have shown “life is consciousness and consciousness is life” is neither experiment, nor evidence.

You really have no idea what “experiment” is?

Experiment is a PHYSICAL test.

Your - A=B, therefore B=A logic - isn’t an experiment.

You have to physically show that life is consciousness and consciousness is life, by using physical samples of life and physical samples of consciousness are as connected as you claim.

Since you have said in the past that “all life” is consciousness, then please no more axiomatic logic, I am asking you to show an experiment in which PHYSICALLY demonstrate that a plant is conscious.

Surely you can do this, since you have every experiment and evidence to support your claims about life and consciousness.

All observation supports the idea that all change in life is sudden. Only your interpretation of the fossil record suggests something that isn't sudden. My interpretation of the same evidence says it is sudden.

This is another, more claim. I don’t want you to repeat the claims hundreds of times.

Claims are not evidence of anything. Claims are just your personal wishful opinions or beliefs.

Show experiment that “all life” change suddenly.

Show actual PHYSICAL samples that species change suddenly.

Show that a species of plant can change to another species of plant.

 

[cladking]

You have to physically show that life is consciousness and consciousness is life,

No. I do not. I merely need to live my life and conduct science in terms of consciousness and life being the same thing.

You really should look up "metaphysics" and "axiomatic". If you understood the nature of paradigms this would be easier.

All experimental interpretation becomes simpler if you change a few simple axioms. This implies our definitions and axioms are "wrong".

 

[gnostic]

No. I do not. I merely need to live my life and conduct science in terms of consciousness and life being the same thing.

You really should look up "metaphysics" and "axiomatic". If you understood the nature of paradigms this would be easier.

All experimental interpretation becomes simpler if you change a few simple axioms. This implies our definitions and axioms are "wrong".

Again, no experiments.

You are just making excuses now. You are being evasive.

If all life is conscious, then show that plant is conscious.

Show experiments, not more claims or more evasive excuses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again -- changes over time do not mean (ok, prove, but I'm using the word as in demonstrate for real) they evolved per the Darwinian model. Viruses remain viruses. No matter. They don't evolve to anything but a virus. Monkeys so far remain monkeys. Etc. And there are some very colorful bugs. But they remain bugs or whatever the scientific name is for them.

Neither the modern model nor the Darwinian model claim that any virus or living thing will undergo some sort of visible transformation into another organism. That would not be evolution and would not be explained by the theory. There is no evidence for such magical transformations and none are expected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, leave the "somethng like that" out. Just here is this:
Fossils do not demonstrate, show, or manifest (and certainly not prove) evolution as the Darwinian theory suggests. I understand that monkeys do not look like lions and may resemble humans more than camels do, but -- it does not mean that humans evolved from some Unknown Common Ancestor of monkeys, bonobos, gorillas also. One may say these things, but -- the model is assumption that plants and animals evolved according to the theory of natural selection and/or survival of the fittest. Fossils are not evidence that these things happened. Fossils show that organisms died.

If you look at the oldest rock formations known, there are no fossils of any living thing. This is evidence that there was once no life on this Earth. As you look at ever younger rock strata, microfossils begin to appear, but nothing like life today. As ever more recent strata is examined the fossils of more complex organisms appear on up through fossils of animals similar to modern vertebrates in even more recent strata. Within the rocks is a story of change over time and of life evolving gradually.

Change in life is variable and always has been.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It makes sense that there are different DNA combinations forming the various entities, plants and animals. That is a known FACT. But this again does not evidence, prove (oops), manifest, show, or demonstrate that they evolved.

The similarities and divergences in DNA is evidence that living things are related and that the DNA of each has changed over time to arrive at the species we see today. This evidence reflects what is seen in the fossil record.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wasn't there and don't know HOW He did it exactly, so obviously I can't say. But I do believe that God made plants and animals according to His will, separating the types (sometimes known as kinds). It now makes more sense to me than the theory of evolution. The Bible speaks of God's creative acts, and uses some expressions symbolically.
"Long ago you laid the foundations of the earth, And the heavens are the work of your hands." (Psalm 102:25)

Long ago could be 4.5 billion years for the Earth and 3.7 billion years for life on Earth. It could also be that God created by letting life evolve to its present form. That would still be creation, but not of the magical sort that many take the allegory to report as fact.