Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Any "experiment" demonstrating gradual change would have to last 10,000 years. Get real.

?: What alternative do you propose?

It doesn't take as long as you might think and experiments have been carried out much to the dismay and denial of the uniformed and ignorant among us.

One fine example is the following.

http://176.9.41.242/docs/genetics/selection/natural/2019-barrett.pdf

Barrett and his team created a field experiment that shows the full process of natural selection in one study.

 

[Valjean]

Show an experiment that demonstrates a gradual change in a major species through survival of the fittest.

All you have is the "fossil record" that you are misinterpreting.

Do you even know what an "experiment" is? What it's purpose is?

You're just throwing around rhetoric to try to muddy the waters.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Biologists, many of them, conjecture as to their conclusions based on "data," so their definitions don't always matter anyway. Unless of course you go along with the theory-conjecture. Then they matter. To some. Or even matter to those who see that they are conjecturing.

Conclusions based on data are not conjecture. Conjecture is a conclusion based on no data or, at best, incomplete data.

A theory has data and lots of it. Especially the theory of evolution. Attempts to dismiss science by conflating the diametrical concepts of theory and conjecture is not a sound, rational methodology.

 

[gnostic]

I've told you repeatedly there is no such thing as "species" or "survival of the fittest". These things are for the same reason "all individuals are equally fit and all life is individual". "Species" is a mnemonic that allows humans to talk about other species. Your understanding of evolution implies every individual isn't quite suited to its environment so every individual is under stress and must have exactly the right attributes in order to thrive and reproduce. Poppycock. There is no such stress and each individual is striving to succeed with the genes it has. Mother Nature nor Darwin aren't cyanide into our cage to see which half survive. Or more accurately, how much has to be dumped in to get half to die. All else being equal every individual has an equal chance of survival.

Why am I wasting my time with this? I must be an idiot. Nothing I say has any affect on creationist understanding. They just keep repeating their unsupported rhetoric.

Frustrating , isn’t it?

It’s like to a wall.

He has dug his head so deep in the sand, that he refused to even recognize his mistakes.

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

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. This make absolute no sense at all.

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

He called himself a nexialist, a term don’t exist except in an old sci-fi novel.

I don’t know if he is simply an Internet troll or just simply dishonest and ignorant.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Frustrating , isn’t it?

It’s like to a wall.

He has dug his head so deep in the sand, that he refused to even recognize his mistakes.

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

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. This make absolute no sense at all.

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

He called himself a nexialist, a term don’t exist except in an old sci-fi novel.

I don’t know if he is simply an Internet troll or just simply dishonest and ignorant.

As a boy, I became a fan of the science fiction author A.E. Van Vogt. I recall the first novel of his that I ever read was "Slan". Van Vogt is credited with creating the term "nexialist".

According to Van Vogt, "Nexialism is the science of joining in an orderly fashion the knowledge of one field of learning with that of other fields."

A. E. van Vogt, The Voyage of the Space Beagle, 1950

This is one of his books that I do not recall reading, but I will be looking for a copy.

The website What on Earth is a Nexialist and Why Are They So Good at Link Building? - Search Engine Watch describes the concept in this way.

“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.

However, I have seen nothing like "nexialist" actions taking place on this thread. How would one merge a belief in an imaginary ancient language and ancient science into modern understanding based on evidence and sound theory without any evidence for the former? How can one bring two groups together where one group is using established scientific terms, definitions, concepts and information while the other doesn't appear to understand science, the concepts and is using alternative definitions for the same words while refusing to define them? How can there be a consensus between groups when one side refuses to answer questions or provide any support for their claims. I cannot see a person calling themselves a nexialist when they have nothing in one hand and do not understand what is in the other? How would one merge fact with fantasy and misunderstanding to produce anything coherent?

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again, when you say "proof" in a scientific debate you show that you have no understanding about the subject of any of the sciences at all. And if you deny that there is evidence for evolution then you are either lying or have no clue about evolution at all.

It is time to go over the basics of science again.

Again, I see that bones have elements in them that plants do also. Conclusion: DNA similarities do not prove, I mean show, evidence or demonstrate that evolution is the way things came about.

 

[YoursTrue]

The "something like that" cleared it up for you?

So again, fossils do not demonstrate, show or manifest that evolution as to the Darwinian assumption happened. Something like that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Conclusions based on data are not conjecture. Conjecture is a conclusion based on no data or, at best, incomplete data.

A theory has data and lots of it. Especially the theory of evolution. Attempts to dismiss science by conflating the diametrical concepts of theory and conjecture is not a sound, rational methodology.

Nevertheless it is still conjecture. Because DNA similarities do not demonstrate (ok not prove because even though it is not proved so to speak, it is a closed word when discussing this THEREFORE it is not a proven fact. There's no way out. No matter what someone says asto the truthfulness of the theory )

 

[YoursTrue]

Conclusions based on data are not conjecture. Conjecture is a conclusion based on no data or, at best, incomplete data.

A theory has data and lots of it. Especially the theory of evolution. Attempts to dismiss science by conflating the diametrical concepts of theory and conjecture is not a sound, rational methodology.

By the way, the more I look at bugs, the differences are apparent and their qualities are amazing. Almost like clouds and a blue sky

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nevertheless it is still conjecture. Because DNA similarities do not demonstrate (ok not prove because even though it is not proved so to speak, it is a closed word when discussing this THEREFORE it is not a proven fact. There's no way out. No matter what someone says asto the truthfulness of the theory )

No. I it is not conjecture. Saying it over and over will not make it become conjecture. DNA homology does illustrate and demonstrate relationships among living things. I have a similar DNA to my brothers and sisters and parents. Are you saying that isn't evidence of the relationship?

There are lots of ways out. Learning and understanding are ways out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By the way, the more I look at bugs, the differences are apparent and their qualities are amazing. Almost like clouds and a blue sky

Insect morphology may not be a diverse as cloud shapes, but it is pretty close. They are an amazing group of organisms that have adapted to almost every place on Earth, save the oceans.

 

[John53]

So again, fossils do not demonstrate, show or manifest that evolution as to the Darwinian assumption happened. Something like that.

The "something like that" hasn't cleared it up for me. I'd require evidence of your claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So again, fossils do not demonstrate, show or manifest that evolution as to the Darwinian assumption happened. Something like that.

When looking at the fossil record, it supports the change in living things over time. Fossils are not just old bones, but bear the evidence of age, location, composition, and all that is buried with them. There is more to fossils than meets the casual glance.

If you look at the bigger picture, the fossils are like a picture book showing a gradual change over time.

In addition to the fossil evidence, there is evidence of morphological and genetic similarity, protein homology, biogeographic evidence, evidence of physiology, geological evidence, the evidence of endogenous retroviruses, and so much more. All of this evidence supports the same conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, I see that bones have elements in them that plants do also. Conclusion: DNA similarities do not prove, I mean show, evidence or demonstrate that evolution is the way things came about.

Your level of knowledge is so low that you are the opposite of an authority. Where when an authority makes a claim that odds that he is right is very high, when you make a claim you are almost certainly wrong. You do not even know why DNA is strong evidence for evolution.

Go ahead, try to explain why DNA is strong evidence for evolution in your own words. Oh wait, you do not even know what qualifies as evidence and why.

Why are you so afraid to even learn the basics of the sciences?

 

[YoursTrue]

When looking at the fossil record, it supports the change in living things over time. Fossils are not just old bones, but bear the evidence of age, location, composition, and all that is buried with them. There is more to fossils than meets the casual glance.

If you look at the bigger picture, the fossils are like a picture book showing a gradual change over time.

In addition to the fossil evidence, there is evidence of morphological and genetic similarity, protein homology, biogeographic evidence, evidence of physiology, geological evidence, the evidence of endogenous retroviruses, and so much more. All of this evidence supports the same conclusion.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So again, fossils do not demonstrate, show or manifest that evolution as to the Darwinian assumption happened. Something like that.

But they do. I I gave you a series of skulls that show human evolution I doubt if you could draw a consistent line between "this one is 100% human" and "this one is 100% ape". Creationists simply cannot do that consistently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Guess what? You are still a monkey. We never stopped being "monkeys".

 

[Valjean]

Again, I see that bones have elements in them that plants do also. Conclusion: DNA similarities do not prove, I mean show, evidence or demonstrate that evolution is the way things came about.

Plants and animals share elements, ergo: no DNA similarity or evolution by natural selection.
Yeah, that makes sense....

 

[Valjean]

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.

No, they don't remain the same. Just because you haven't seen obvious changes in your lifetime doesn't mean change didn't happen on a longer timescale.

Where do you think the millions of plants and animals that exist today came from? There was a time when most of them didn't exist and millions of different plants and animals did exist.

So where did they all come from? Are they just popping into existence willy-nilly? If so, why has this never been witnessed?

 

[YoursTrue]

The "something like that" hasn't cleared it up for me. I'd require evidence of your claim.

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.