Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

Friend, it is a practical joke.

Indeed.

 

[questfortruth]

Indeed.

No, I am not atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am not atheist.

Are yo usure? I have seen you post that God is a liar more than once.

 

[questfortruth]

Are yo usure?

everybody asks me: Am I Mr. Not Sure?

 

[Jose Fly]

I only quote scientists of the highest caliber and I don't deceive myself/others by cherry-picking quotes to benefit a narrative.

This thread shows otherwise.

Once properly conveyed, I’m done.

Good bye. I will focus on a couple of items I found to be rather amusing though.

Exceptions (whether or not perceived/considered as legitimate) never constitute a rule, do you understand?

This isn't difficult. You claimed there were no examples of gradualism in the fossil record. I showed you one example, and since then you've scrambled around making all sorts of excuses to try and wave it away. Such is the nature of denialism.

That's probably the most fascinating behavior common to creationists. They'll say "X doesn't exist" and then when they're shown examples of X, it's pretty entertaining watching them flail around, trying to find some way to maintain their denial of reality.

again, when I say challenged examples, it’s not at all about or limited to your example, I’m talking about all alleged examples of evolution. No exception.

LOL...so your denialism is so deep, you actually believe no population has ever evolved, ever, and every example of that has been challenged by scientists. Wow.

Most creationist organizations acknowledge at least some amount of evolution. But I guess you're unique in that regard.

Speciation never results anything other than variants of the same species.

LOL...that's one of the funniest things I've seen from a creationist in a long time. It also reveals your lack of knowledge of the subject matter. FYI, "speciation" is literally "the evolution of new species".

Galapagos finches will always be finches

FYI, "finch" is a taxonomic family, not a species.

I never said the EES is a widespread view

In Post #1907, when I said "we can dispense with the notion that the EES is a majority position", you answered "widespread".

As for your other post, as I said....if you want to believe that God deliberately gives people cancer, gives newborns horrible diseases, kills fetuses, and designs all sorts of terrible pests and pathogens specifically to cause pain, suffering, and death, I'll just let that speak for itself.

You can have the last word if you like.

 

[cladking]

This isn't difficult. You claimed there were no examples of gradualism in the fossil record. I showed you one example, and since then you've scrambled around making all sorts of excuses to try and wave it away. Such is the nature of denialism.

No. The fossil record does not support gradualism. There may be some specific chains that can be interpreted as gradualism but exceptions prove the rule and all data is open to interpretation.

Most creationist organizations acknowledge at least some amount of evolution.

Gradualism and survival of the fittest are only the tiniest part of change in species.

I'm sorry it's so complex but that's the nature of reality itself and for all practical purposes life is literally reality on steroids. Change in species is very highly complex and Darwin was wrong about everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. The fossil record does not support gradualism. There may be some specific chains that can be interpreted as gradualism but exceptions prove the rule and all data is open to interpretation.

I see. You are still having reading comprehension problems. He never claimed that evolution is always gradual. At times it is.. That is what he said and he is right. You are the one that has tried to always deny gradualism.

Gradualism and survival of the fittest are only the tiniest part of change in species.

I'm sorry it's so complex but that's the nature of reality itself and for all practical purposes life is literally reality on steroids. Change in species is very highly complex and Darwin was wrong about everything.

No, "survival of the fittest" is a line that only the most ignorant of science denialists use. And you have been the one that has been trying to claim that it is simple.

Why are you accusing outers of what you have done wrong in these debates?

 

[LIIA]

I’ll assume you are genuinely confused. I know this may not be the case, regardless, I’ll elaborate further for the benefit of other readers.

This isn't difficult. You claimed there were no examples of gradualism in the fossil record. I showed you one example, and since then you've scrambled around making all sorts of excuses to try and wave it away. Such is the nature of denialism.

That's probably the most fascinating behavior common to creationists. They'll say "X doesn't exist" and then when they're shown examples of X, it's pretty entertaining watching them flail around, trying to find some way to maintain their denial of reality.

I didn’t say “there were no examples of gradualism in the fossil record”. I said, “GRADUALISM IS VIRTUALLY NONEXISTENT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD”. (See # 1256)
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

And again, I’m not making a claim, the assertion was made by Gould and Eldridge and they’re definitely an authority to make such assertion. Your denial wouldn’t change the facts.

Your reason to deny their assertion is merely a meaningless example of gastropod variants. As I explained many times, the knowledge of Gould and Eldridge of such meaningless examples definitely far exceeds yours, but it was totally irrelevant to their assertion that gradualism is NONEXISTENT in the fossil record. Do you understand?

Why the meaningless denial? Your self-deceit wouldn’t change the facts of the fossil record yet you’re sure free to deceive yourself if you want. It’s your choice.

LOL...so your denialism is so deep, you actually believe no population has ever evolved, ever, and every example of that has been challenged by scientists. Wow.

Most creationist organizations acknowledge at least some amount of evolution. But I guess you're unique in that regard.

Here is a copy from #1864 showing why all the crown jewels of alleged evolution cases are false.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

4) Human evolution. See # 326 & 327
Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

If speciation happens due geographic isolation (the new species can no longer interbreed with original species), then the new species will coexist independently alongside with original species. Speciation is not a reason for original species to go extinct. Gradual speciation necessarily predicts enormous number of species and transitional forms/variants, both alive and in the fossil record. We don’t see that in nature.

If the alleged human transformation from LCA to Homo sapiens ever happened through speciation/transitional forms, then, we should see different human species today especially in isolated geographical areas. THEY CANNOT ALL GO EXTINCT. All living human beings on earth today belong to the same Homo sapiens species. The alleged speciation of humans never happened.

5) The crown jewels of alleged evolution cases and why it's all false.

See # 422 for the alleged evolution of tetrapods (Tiktaalik)

Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums

See #1217 & #1298 for the alleged evolution of whales

Darwin's Illusion | Page 61 | Religious Forums

See #1298 for the alleged evolution of horses

Darwin's Illusion | Page 65 | Religious Forums

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

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

LOL...that's one of the funniest things I've seen from a creationist in a long time. It also reveals your lack of knowledge of the subject matter. FYI, "speciation" is literally "the evolution of new species".

You call it “speciation” but you do know that it will never give rise to anything other than a variant of the same species. Don’t you?

Another definition of species is a classification containing organisms that are physically similar, in that sense, do you consider the alleged evolutionary example of light-colored moths changing to dark-colored moths then back to light-colored moths again to be an evolution of new different species or merely physically similar variants of the same species exhibiting purposeful adaptation to address environmental variables? If the variant is always physically similar, is it really a new species? Even if you classify it as such?

Again, organisms never develop millions of random nonsense changes (errors, deformations, etc.) to be filtered down by selection; it’s always a purposeful change to allow an organism to better fit the environment. The adapted organism is not a new species.

Did the peppered moth develop millions of random colors that got filtered down to dark or light colors? Did it exhibit millions of random changes? A random change should not be limited to giving the organism a survival advantage. It can be any random change of any kind. Was there ever any evidence that the peppered moth (or any organism for that matter) exhibited any random changes of any kind (not just wrong random colors but also random loss or harmful deformation of essential body parts) that got eliminated by selection, or was it always a purposeful change in the right direction to the benefit of the organism? Don’t you see it?

There is ZERO evidence to support the assumption that millions of random purposeless changes (that is mostly non-advantageous/harmful) emerge first before it gets filtered down by selection; we never see that in nature. In fact, if the changes are random, an advantageous change may never emerge to begin with, but to the contrary, the example of “Industrial melanism” not only shows that it always does but also shows that its emergence is predictable. It’s always a directed mutation, never random.

See #1959
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia

See # 1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

As for your other post, as I said....if you want to believe that God deliberately gives people cancer, gives newborns horrible diseases, kills fetuses, and designs all sorts of terrible pests and pathogens specifically to cause pain, suffering, and death, I'll just let that speak for itself.

You can have the last word if you like.

Again, health is definitely the rule, illness is an exception, but the exception must exist otherwise there would be neither a freedom of choice or test as explained before in #1908 and #1960

If you insist to be the kid that cannot wrap his head around the reasons of the surgery, then let it be. It’s your call. Regardless of your denial, the Surgeon does exist; the surgery has its reasons and must be completed. The denial of it will not bring any benefit. The kid may have an excuse for his denial, you don’t. You’re definitely free to choose but your choice will have consequences.

You’re a conscious/rational being. Your existence is not purposeless. You get your fair chance till the last minute of your test. Your free choice is a reflection of who you are. As long as you are tested, you will keep your freedom even if all of your choices are wrong. Once your test ends, there are no second chances. It’s either everlasting success and all what it entails or everlasting failure and all what it entails. Your real life after the test will be consistent with your true self.

Once the test is done. It’s done. There shall be no more tests. Those who failed will request another chance to repeat the test, but it will not be granted to them, simply because your choice is you and it will not change under the same repeated circumstances (freedom of choice). If the exact same test is repeated, it will yield the exact same results. As long as you get your true freedom, your selections will always be a reflection of your true self. It will not change.

 

[LIIA]

No, I am not atheist.

I know you’re not.

Is it true that you think God is a liar? If you do, then you may have a belief, but you don’t believe in God. I’m neither questioning nor judging your view. You’re entitled to your view. I’m merely making a comment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ll assume you are genuinely confused. I know this may not be the case, regardless, I’ll elaborate further for the benefit of other readers.



I didn’t say “there were no examples of gradualism in the fossil record”. I said, “GRADUALISM IS VIRTUALLY NONEXISTENT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD”. (See # 1256)
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

And again, I’m not making a claim, the assertion was made by Gould and Eldridge and they’re definitely an authority to make such assertion. Your denial wouldn’t change the facts.

Your reason to deny their assertion is merely a meaningless example of gastropod variants. As I explained many times, the knowledge of Gould and Eldridge of such meaningless examples definitely far exceeds yours, but it was totally irrelevant to their assertion that gradualism is NONEXISTENT in the fossil record. Do you understand?

Why the meaningless denial? Your self-deceit wouldn’t change the facts of the fossil record yet you’re sure free to deceive yourself if you want. It’s your choice.



Here is a copy from #1864 showing why all the crown jewels of alleged evolution cases are false.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

4) Human evolution. See # 326 & 327
Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

If speciation happens due geographic isolation (the new species can no longer interbreed with original species), then the new species will coexist independently alongside with original species. Speciation is not a reason for original species to go extinct. Gradual speciation necessarily predicts enormous number of species and transitional forms/variants, both alive and in the fossil record. We don’t see that in nature.

If the alleged human transformation from LCA to Homo sapiens ever happened through speciation/transitional forms, then, we should see different human species today especially in isolated geographical areas. THEY CANNOT ALL GO EXTINCT. All living human beings on earth today belong to the same Homo sapiens species. The alleged speciation of humans never happened.

5) The crown jewels of alleged evolution cases and why it's all false.

See # 422 for the alleged evolution of tetrapods (Tiktaalik)

Darwin's Illusion | Page 22 | Religious Forums

See #1217 & #1298 for the alleged evolution of whales

Darwin's Illusion | Page 61 | Religious Forums

See #1298 for the alleged evolution of horses

Darwin's Illusion | Page 65 | Religious Forums

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

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums



You call it “speciation” but you do know that it will never give rise to anything other than a variant of the same species. Don’t you?

Another definition of species is a classification containing organisms that are physically similar, in that sense, do you consider the alleged evolutionary example of light-colored moths changing to dark-colored moths then back to light-colored moths again to be an evolution of new different species or merely physically similar variants of the same species exhibiting purposeful adaptation to address environmental variables? If the variant is always physically similar, is it really a new species? Even if you classify it as such?

Again, organisms never develop millions of random nonsense changes (errors, deformations, etc.) to be filtered down by selection; it’s always a purposeful change to allow an organism to better fit the environment. The adapted organism is not a new species.

Did the peppered moth develop millions of random colors that got filtered down to dark or light colors? Did it exhibit millions of random changes? A random change should not be limited to giving the organism a survival advantage. It can be any random change of any kind. Was there ever any evidence that the peppered moth (or any organism for that matter) exhibited any random changes of any kind (not just wrong random colors but also random loss or harmful deformation of essential body parts) that got eliminated by selection, or was it always a purposeful change in the right direction to the benefit of the organism? Don’t you see it?

There is ZERO evidence to support the assumption that millions of random purposeless changes (that is mostly non-advantageous/harmful) emerge first before it gets filtered down by selection; we never see that in nature. In fact, if the changes are random, an advantageous change may never emerge to begin with, but to the contrary, the example of “Industrial melanism” not only shows that it always does but also shows that its emergence is predictable. It’s always a directed mutation, never random.

See #1959
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia

See # 1245
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Gould and Eldridge were authorities. Please note the past tense. Do you think that in fifty years that paleontologists have not found new fossils?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This thread shows otherwise.


Good bye. I will focus on a couple of items I found to be rather amusing though.


This isn't difficult. You claimed there were no examples of gradualism in the fossil record. I showed you one example, and since then you've scrambled around making all sorts of excuses to try and wave it away. Such is the nature of denialism.

That's probably the most fascinating behavior common to creationists. They'll say "X doesn't exist" and then when they're shown examples of X, it's pretty entertaining watching them flail around, trying to find some way to maintain their denial of reality.


LOL...so your denialism is so deep, you actually believe no population has ever evolved, ever, and every example of that has been challenged by scientists. Wow.

Most creationist organizations acknowledge at least some amount of evolution. But I guess you're unique in that regard.


LOL...that's one of the funniest things I've seen from a creationist in a long time. It also reveals your lack of knowledge of the subject matter. FYI, "speciation" is literally "the evolution of new species".


FYI, "finch" is a taxonomic family, not a species.


In Post #1907, when I said "we can dispense with the notion that the EES is a majority position", you answered "widespread".

As for your other post, as I said....if you want to believe that God deliberately gives people cancer, gives newborns horrible diseases, kills fetuses, and designs all sorts of terrible pests and pathogens specifically to cause pain, suffering, and death, I'll just let that speak for itself.

You can have the last word if you like.

I think it was an excellent example of what has been described as pigeon chess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just a note on paleontology. Right now is considered to be the Golden Age of paleontology. New countries have opened up to exploration and that along with better general understanding of geology and other advances allow us to find new species at an amazing rate. A new species of dinosaurs used to be major news. Now a new species of dinosaurs is so last week. And that is because paleontologists are finding new species of dinosaurs at about one a week:

National Geographic

Rats. I'm too lazy to get out of bed and my tablet is too lazy at times to link properly. It can handle Wikipedia.

 

[LIIA]

Gould and Eldridge were authorities. Please note the past tense. Do you think that in fifty years that paleontologists have not found new fossils?

Stephen Gould passed away in 2002, Niles Eldredge is still alive. Their status as a highly influential paleontologist/biologist remains the same.

Paleontologists have found many new fossils but it's not about new fossils, it's about “GRADUALISM”. With respect to “gradualism”, the assertion of Gould and Eldredge that gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record remains the same.

 

[LIIA]

I think it was an excellent example of what has been described as pigeon chess.

If a person is imagining a chess game with a pigeon, it doesn’t mean that a pigeon is a bad chess player, it only means that this person is hallucinating. Don’t you agree?

 

[LIIA]

Just a note on paleontology. Right now is considered to be the Golden Age of paleontology. New countries have opened up to exploration and that along with better general understanding of geology and other advances allow us to find new species at an amazing rate. A new species of dinosaurs used to be major news. Now a new species of dinosaurs is so last week. And that is because paleontologists are finding new species of dinosaurs at about one a week:

National Geographic

Rats. I'm too lazy to get out of bed and my tablet is too lazy at times to link properly. It can handle Wikipedia.

From the very beginning, Darwin was aware that the fossil record doesn’t support gradualism. He said in his book the Origin of Species “But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory”.

He was hoping that future exploration would prove otherwise. Many followed his footsteps; they simply ignored the facts of the fossil record and chased a false hope of future finds that never materialized. Dawkins criticized “punctuated equilibrium” that the absence of transitional forms is due to migratory events, but evolution must have happened gradually elsewhere. This “elsewhere” notion continues to be a false hope since Darwin till now.

Gradualism is extremely fundamental to the ToE, if the process is random, then it must be extremely gradual and the vast majority of changes are essentially accidental/non-beneficial but if a beneficial change emerges then it would be filtered out by selection, an extremely long way towards an unintended goal. Along the alleged evolutionary route, accidental random errors far exceed the beneficial steps. There is absolutely no evidence of such a huge random mess in nature, neither among living organisms nor in the fossil record.

It's not about new fossils, it's about the prediction entailed by gradualism which was never supported by the fossil record till today. There is no evidence neither for enormous extermination of random non-beneficial changes nor enormous number of the supposedly filtered intermediate varieties through selection. Yet the proponents of the ToE typically continue to ignore the facts of the fossil record, chase a false hope of future finds and think of these assumed future finds as if it was already found. The fact remains, it never did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stephen Gould passed away in 2002, Niles Eldredge is still alive. Their status as a highly influential paleontologist/biologist remains the same.

Paleontologists have found many new fossils but it's not about new fossils, it's about “GRADUALISM”. With respect to “gradualism”, the assertion of Gould and Eldredge that gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record remains the same.

Yes, but you insist on quoting their older work. And no, you cannot properly support your claim about gradualism. You keep conflating biological and geological time scales.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a person is imagining a chess game with a pigeon, it doesn’t mean that a pigeon is a bad chess player, it only means that this person is hallucinating. Don’t you agree?

It is a simple analogy.

Whooosh!

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the very beginning, Darwin was aware that the fossil record doesn’t support gradualism. He said in his book the Origin of Species “But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory”.

He was hoping that future exploration would prove otherwise. Many followed his footsteps; they simply ignored the facts of the fossil record and chased a false hope of future finds that never materialized. Dawkins criticized “punctuated equilibrium” that the absence of transitional forms is due to migratory events, but evolution must have happened gradually elsewhere. This “elsewhere” notion continues to be a false hope since Darwin till now.

Gradualism is extremely fundamental to the ToE, if the process is random, then it must be extremely gradual and the vast majority of changes are essentially accidental/non-beneficial but if a beneficial change emerges then it would be filtered out by selection, an extremely long way towards an unintended goal. Along the alleged evolutionary route, accidental random errors far exceed the beneficial steps. There is absolutely no evidence of such a huge random mess in nature, neither among living organisms nor in the fossil record.

It's not about new fossils, it's about the prediction entailed by gradualism which was never supported by the fossil record till today. There is no evidence neither for enormous extermination of random non-beneficial changes nor enormous number of the supposedly filtered intermediate varieties through selection. Yet the proponents of the ToE typically continue to ignore the facts of the fossil record, chase a false hope of future finds and think of these assumed future finds as if it was already found. The fact remains, it never did.

Nope. Darwin knew that the fossil record was incomplete and not well explored. But he saw confirmation in the geological record in his lifetime.

By the way, why do you only discuss the geological record? I know, it is because you have a middle school level of scientific literacy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If a person is imagining a chess game with a pigeon, it doesn’t mean that a pigeon is a bad chess player, it only means that this person is hallucinating. Don’t you agree?

No, I don't agree. There is no reason for me to agree to such a ridiculous conclusion in light of evidence to the contrary.

As pointed out by others, it is analogy and a very apt one given what I have seen and what you add.

The pigeon in the analogy doesn't play by the rules and responds in a manner consistent with what I have seen displayed. That is the point and it is has been ground so finely to the declaration of winning and bragging about that win to others.

Here is the quote that so readily distills this thread down and defines it.

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

I have seen nothing offered by creationists in this thread that I have not seen provided many times over to the same avail.

Logical fallacies, claims without support, demeaning of opponents, and the attack on science under the premise that victory rules a specific version of creationism as the default. Never any evidence that supports supporting any claim of creationism of any sort.

You have a wonderful day and as others have said, get that last word in by all means.