The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't say he knows more. I said his beliefs and expectations on a specific question can be more likely to lead him to the truth or an accurate prediction than a Peer. I said all Peers can be wrong about anything because Peers are by definition the group of all individuals who share the same beliefs about a given question. Peers, as a rule, are far more likely to be correct than other people but they are certain to share the same errors and others might not. The guy at the car wash might know from figuring it out or from experience that white cars are easier to wash or Chryslers are harder where an expert in any subject might predict exactly the opposite or believe his experience is mere superstition. Maybe the critically wounded patient about to be operated upon in the 1850's would be appalled to see the doctor come at him with a blood stained scalpel. Maybe the "settled science" of aiding autistic patients to "speak" using ouija boards would be obvious claptrap to almost anybody with two brain cells.



Why don't you explain how the child who first washed his tweezers back in the 1850's was less right than the surgeons who sawed off legs with rusty implements


No!!! My claim is obviously true because every peer can be wrong since (did I mention) "PEERS" are BY DEFINITION the group of individuals who share the same beliefs. Why can't you see this? Would a larger font help or maybe it should be in hieroglyphs. When one Peer is wrong They are Each wrong. Peers are not Gods, They are not privy to the Truth, They are merely the Priests of Science.

Oh, so is that why you won't submit your work for peer review?

 

[cladking]

When one Peer is wrong They are Each wrong. Peers are not Gods, They are not privy to the Truth, They are merely the Priests of Science.

Every time the underlying assumptions are wrong, the Peers are wrong. The exclusion of consciousness and the individual from the investigation odf change in species has led every single Peer to be wrong about the nature of the causes of "evolution". They are misinterpreting observation, testing, and experiment. They see what they believe EXACTLY LIKE EVERY OTHER HOMO OMNISCIENCIS. We can not escape this and applying it only to those with whom we disagree is disingenuous.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Every time the underlying assumptions are wrong, the Peers are wrong. The exclusion of consciousness and the individual from the investigation odf change in species has led every single Peer to be wrong about the nature of the causes of "evolution". They are misinterpreting observation, testing, and experiment. They see what they believe EXACTLY LIKE EVERY OTHER HOMO OMNISCIENCIS. We can not escape this and applying it only to those with whom we disagree is disingenuous.

Wait a minute, so everyone who studies this stuff for a living is wrong, and you're right, but you won't submit your revolutionary work on evolution to any science journals because everyone has already deluded themselves into believing in evolution?

Wow, it must be hard to be you, walking around like that, knowing you're right and everyone else is wrong, even if you can't actually demonstrate the veracity of your position to anyone else.

 

[cladking]

Oh, so is that why you won't submit your work for peer review?

They won't read it and can't consider it any more than those here can.

Despite the fact that the pyramid builders literally said dozens of times that the pyramids were the dead king and were NOT tombs. Every Egyptologist on the planet believes they were tombs. It's impossible to punch through fundamental assumptions. Biologists believe that survival of the fittest drives change in species and consciousness is irrelevant. They CAN NOT even consider any evidence to the contrary. They look at evidence and see opinion and belief even in an obviously true statement. If you twist their arms long enough they might agree the statement is true but then they'll say that it is irrelevant to the theory. Everything that goes against doctrine is seen as an irrelevancy EVEN WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCE goes against doctrine!!!

This might be hard to believe but it is no less true for being hard. Yes, It's entirely possible that biologists are right and I am wrong but it is impossible to find out by asking a member of the Group Whom All Share The Same Opinion.

My guess is someday they'll figure out their error but this could be many years. The track science is currently on is a dead end. Even AI is a dead end because there's no such thing as "intelligence". Intelligence could be invented and installed on a computer but we might not be able to get there from HERE.

 

[cladking]

Wait a minute, so everyone who studies this stuff for a living is wrong, and you're right, but you won't submit your revolutionary work on evolution to any science journals because everyone has already deluded themselves into believing in evolution?

In this specific case, yes!

This doesn't mean they know nothing and can't make any predictions but they are WRONG about the cause of change in species.

It took 68 pages for you to figure this out! And you apparently are the first.

Experts don't stop being experts just because they are wrong about something. Your odds were generally better with a 19th century surgeon than a stablehand.

Wow, it must be hard to be you, walking around like that, knowing you're right and everyone else is wrong, even if you can't actually demonstrate the veracity of your position to anyone else.

I can't demonstrate it only to believers. They see the evidence as folksy, irrelevant, and disjointed. This is caused principally by the fact that science is reductionistic and when you take things apart to study them the bigger picture can become kaleidoscopic. We always end up seeing what we believe.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They won't read it and can't consider it any more than those here can.

Why assume?

Most people thought Darwin was full of it during his time. Now it's the most well-evidenced and accepted scientific theory in existence.
Same goes for your point you keep harping on about germ theory of disease.

Despite the fact that the pyramid builders literally said dozens of times that the pyramids were the dead king and were NOT tombs. Every Egyptologist on the planet believes they were tombs. It's impossible to punch through fundamental assumptions.

Huh? What's the difference?

Biologists believe that survival of the fittest drives change in species and consciousness is irrelevant.

Has anyone presented any evidence that would demonstrate the role of consciousness in evolution?

They CAN NOT even consider any evidence to the contrary.

Of course they can. The thing is, somebody would have to present some evidence for it. Hence my question about presenting your work to scientific journals.

They look at evidence and see opinion and belief even in an obviously true statement. If you twist their arms long enough they might agree the statement is true but then they'll say that it is irrelevant to the theory. Everything that goes against doctrine is seen as an irrelevancy EVEN WHEN ALL THE EVIDENCE goes against doctrine!!!

Have you ever tried having your work published in science journals? Do you actually have any work to share?

This might be hard to believe but it is no less true for being hard. Yes, It's entirely possible that biologists are right and I am wrong but it is impossible to find out by asking a member of the Group Whom All Share The Same Opinion.

It's hard to believe because you haven't demonstrated it.

My guess is someday they'll figure out their error but this could be many years. The track science is currently on is a dead end. Even AI is a dead end because there's no such thing as "intelligence". Intelligence could be invented and installed on a computer but we might not be able to get there from HERE.

How can they "figure out their error" if you haven't bothered to present anything to them to show them they've actually made an error?

 

[SkepticThinker]

In this specific case, yes!

We have to just take your word for it?
Don't forget you already told me you haven't bothered trying to present any of your findings to them.

This doesn't mean they know nothing and can't make any predictions but they are WRONG about the cause of change in species.

You just said you're right and they're wrong.
Without any demonstration on your part whatsoever. Just your say-so.

It took 68 pages for you to figure this out! And you apparently are the first.

You've been saying you're right and they're wrong for all 68 pages, but you haven't demonstrated that you're right anywhere that I can see.

Experts don't stop being experts just because they are wrong about something. Your odds were generally better with a 19th century surgeon than a stablehand.

We live in the 21st Century.

I can't demonstrate it only to believers. They see the evidence as folksy, irrelevant, and disjointed. This is caused principally by the fact that science is reductionistic and when you take things apart to study them the bigger picture can become kaleidoscopic. We always end up seeing what we believe.

Maybe your evidence isn't as great as you claim then.

 

[gnostic]

We always end up seeing what we believe.

Actually, this applies to you.

And you seemed to only one who believe in your fantasy.

Everyone have been asking to show evidence for your claims, but all you is just make more claims, as if all these claims were facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you know this how?

Homo omnisciencis is merely homo sapiens with a second speech center called the "broca's area". We are not born with this but rather it forms in the brain as we learn the new human language. The new language leads each of us to believe and to experience all of reality in terms of our beliefs. You experience your omniscience vicariously through Peers and Siri. We experience "thought" which is largely the process of comparing internal or external sensory input to our beliefs. We believe we are intelligent but plants animals are not.

Because it is pretend. All of what you post is pretend. You are not a scientist. There is no fictional Ancient World with a global Ancient Language. None of that nonsense is real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look up "atheist" in the dictionary. The group of those who deny the existence of science or that knowledge can be gleaned from experiment is virtually a null set. Why would you even argue about simple facts and definitions.



No. You are describing an "agnostic". The dictionary is not your friend is it?



Great!!! This is progress! Now all you have to do is define "fitness" so we'll know which animal will or won't survive an encounter with a predator and then we can start making predictions about how a species will survive.

Are you aware that a lion will select an individual from a herd before it even attacks? In other words 99.9% of the animals are in little real danger if they can avoid stumbling in the path of the lion. So how does the lion's consciousness affect the odds that it selected the weakest wildebeest.

The theory of evolution is stupid, outdated, and never did describe the results of observation or experiment. Now you'll ignore this post as well because that's what all believers do: They ignore all evidence and respond by reciting doctrine. I've listed hundreds and hundreds of reasons in this thread to doubt Darwin but not one is ever addressed except to gainsay it and then to claim it never happened at all.

Once people start rejecting scientific beliefs in one area it becomes easier and easier to reject others. You say you know "what causes gravity" but if anyone asks what that is it will be nonsensical or not an answer at all. You'll say it's a gravity well like a planet or mass but this is a non answer because even a butterfly knows exactly where the center of the earth is. Birds can even feel the moon.

Change in species exists. We've seen wolves turn into dogs and grass turn into wheat. We can see eyeless animals in caves and even find fossils of what came before. But we can't determine causation if we have no idea if even one lion is going to kill one wildebeest in one encounter. Even though we can't do this you believe that we can just assume that if a proto-lion once ate a proto-wildebeest then one was more fit and the other less fit and this explains everything. You have no theory. What you have is Look and See Science. There can be no science without experiment and no knowledge that doesn't lead to understanding and creation. You have no logic and have merely induced what was believed before. It is nonsense. All the evidence, all the observation, and all the "experiments" say change in species is far more complex than the "Theory of Evolution". You can't understand this because you can't even parse my words Every sentence reads "God did it" when you try to understand what I write so you come back and tell me what doctrine is. Your beliefs are wrong because your premises are wrong.

Dictionaries are not always the proper source. Would you allow a dictionary to define Christianity for you? And at any rate you are wrong. Most dictionaries use my definition not yours.

And the rest of your post is merely nonsense and ignorance on your part along with the usual false claims about others.

When you don't understand something ask questions. It is unwise to make your ignorance public.

 

[cladking]

Has anyone presented any evidence that would demonstrate the role of consciousness in evolution?

Logic and observation would suffice if you aren't blinded by a belief in "survival of the fittest. A twitchy rabbit might starve to death because it's too afraid to come out of its hutch but it's far less likely to be eaten by a fox. If it survives it will pass on its genes while the fatter and faster rabbit is just fox chow. Neither is more "fit" than the other, they are merely different. One is more likely to survive among fast foxes and one is more likely to survive among slower foxes.

Real change in species is infinitely more complex than "survival of the fittest" and real causes of the change (countless quadrillions of causes) are generally related to consciousness and behavior and never to what you call "fitness". It's not caused by "fitness" because every life form is fit or it would already have been dinner. It is impossible to understand the changes in life over vast periods of time and generations without first understanding consciousness and that consciousness IS life and therefore IS change in life as well. I'm sorry it's so complex but people should have been thinking about metaphysics even while Darwin was still alive. They should have been asking how life and change can be reduced to taxonomies and abstractions while we don't understand life nearly as well as a rabbit. They should have asked how it can be shown that a theoretical slow ancient rabbit could be eaten by a theoretical sabre toothed tiger thereby creating todays fast rabbits. This is essentially the very defi9nition of the assumption of a conclusion and this is exactly how all biologists went wrong.

ALL observation and experiment show change in life was not caused by survival of the fittest. Experiment, such as it is, is misinterpreted. There are far better explanations for how species change and ancient science was much closer than we are.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Logic and observation would suffice if you aren't blinded by a belief in "survival of the fittest. A twitchy rabbit might starve to death because it's too afraid to come out of its hutch but it's far less likely to be eaten by a fox. If it survives it will pass on its genes while the fatter and faster rabbit is just fox chow. Neither is more "fit" than the other, they are merely different. One is more likely to survive among fast foxes and one is more likely to survive among slower foxes.

Real change in species is infinitely more complex than "survival of the fittest" and real causes of the change (countless quadrillions of causes) are generally related to consciousness and behavior and never to what you call "fitness". It's not caused by "fitness" because every life form is fit or it would already have been dinner. It is impossible to understand the changes in life over vast periods of time and generations without first understanding consciousness and that consciousness IS life and therefore IS change in life as well. I'm sorry it's so complex but people should have been thinking about metaphysics even while Darwin was still alive. They should have been asking how life and change can be reduced to taxonomies and abstractions while we don't understand life nearly as well as a rabbit. They should have asked how it can be shown that a theoretical slow ancient rabbit could be eaten by a theoretical sabre toothed tiger thereby creating todays fast rabbits. This is essentially the very defi9nition of the assumption of a conclusion and this is exactly how all biologists went wrong.

ALL observation and experiment show change in life was not caused by survival of the fittest. Experiment, such as it is, is misinterpreted. There are far better explanations for how species change and ancient science was much closer than we are.

That is some logic you got going on there. Not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Logic and observation would suffice if you aren't blinded by a belief in "survival of the fittest. A twitchy rabbit might starve to death because it's too afraid to come out of its hutch but it's far less likely to be eaten by a fox. If it survives it will pass on its genes while the fatter and faster rabbit is just fox chow. Neither is more "fit" than the other, they are merely different. One is more likely to survive among fast foxes and one is more likely to survive among slower foxes.

What do you think "fit" means?

To me it means the ability of a creature to reproduce in its environment; or the ability to successfully reproduce.

Real change in species is infinitely more complex than "survival of the fittest" and real causes of the change (countless quadrillions of causes) are generally related to consciousness and behavior and never to what you call "fitness". It's not caused by "fitness" because every life form is fit or it would already have been dinner. It is impossible to understand the changes in life over vast periods of time and generations without first understanding consciousness and that consciousness IS life and therefore IS change in life as well. I'm sorry it's so complex but people should have been thinking about metaphysics even while Darwin was still alive. They should have been asking how life and change can be reduced to taxonomies and abstractions while we don't understand life nearly as well as a rabbit. They should have asked how it can be shown that a theoretical slow ancient rabbit could be eaten by a theoretical sabre toothed tiger thereby creating todays fast rabbits. This is essentially the very defi9nition of the assumption of a conclusion and this is exactly how all biologists went wrong.

ALL observation and experiment show change in life was not caused by survival of the fittest. Experiment, such as it is, is misinterpreted. There are far better explanations for how species change and ancient science was much closer than we are.

That's an awful lot of words just to say "no."
I see a lot of assertions though.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, so is that why you won't submit your work for peer review?

By his own definition, his beliefs are not science. He has no experiments and experimental results to report on. Then there is the fact that reviewers would actually read his fantastical claims that have no basis in reality. Then the conspiracies all kick in of course.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Every time the underlying assumptions are wrong, the Peers are wrong. The exclusion of consciousness and the individual from the investigation odf change in species has led every single Peer to be wrong about the nature of the causes of "evolution". They are misinterpreting observation, testing, and experiment. They see what they believe EXACTLY LIKE EVERY OTHER HOMO OMNISCIENCIS. We can not escape this and applying it only to those with whom we disagree is disingenuous.

None of what you post here makes any sense. It is your belief system. You have created a belief system based on a lack of understanding of the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Biological fitness is not a cause. It is a result.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The rate of biological evolution is variable, but occurs over long periods of time. Speciation can occur rapidly, but is generally a slow process. One of the fastest examples of speciation is found in the cichlid fish of Lake Victoria in Africa. Radiation from a small starter population to over 500 different species occurred in roughly 15,000 years. That is as sudden as it can get.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When consciousness is defined to mean life, then the word consciousness becomes useless. There is no evidence that conscious choice was involved in evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No!!!! For all the reasons ALREADY MENTIONED and because it serves to glorify and set the status quo in concrete. Peers can not consider ANY hypothesis or theory that is outside of their assumptions and many of the assumptions of science have turned out to be false. Populations are not stable, ancient people made perfect sense, and consciousness is not irrelevant to change in species or ANTHING ELSE RELATED TO LIVING THINGS.

You will almost never build good theory on false assumptions. It is virtually impossible and for most practical purposes we should consider it impossible.

There are numerous false assumptions besides these three relevant ones. Our understanding of our place on earth and in the cosmos is highly flawed. There is no such thing as "survival of the fittest". It is nonsense of the highest order. Ask yourself which would win in a meeting of the fittest lion with the fittest wildebeest. How about the second fittest lion with the fittest wildebeest? Which lion living today is the fittest? Are you wholly incapable of seeing a circular argument?

Conspiracy theory. No basis in fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For the 1000th time; real science is experiment. It is not looking and it is not the belief of Peers.

You have no experiments. The natural conclusion of your own claims is that they are not science.