What would it mean to your science beliefs if evolution is false?

[Subduction Zone]

Not one experiment shows a gradual change in a significant species. Not one shows a change caused by "survival of the fittest" that can't be explained by a different and simpler paradigm.

Really? I see that you have changed your argument since it has been shown to be wrong so many times. The problem is that you are using undefined terms. What is a "significant species"? And how refined of a record do you think is required and why? You can't just make up bogus claims and expect people to take you seriously. Lastly what is this "different and simpler paradigm" tht explains change. Oh, and please, no strawman arguments. "survival of the fittest" is a misstatement of what natural selection. It is not an honest argument.

One experiment can be extremely powerful. The history of science is replete with such experiments.

It's not the experiments that are ion error, it is the paradigm by which all experiment and observation is interpreted.

Really? Name a case of an idea that was not already well supported by evidence.

And once again what is wrong with the current paradigm? Please go into specifics and justify your claims. Don't worry, I just got a fifty pound bag shipment of popcorn.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Not one experiment shows a gradual change in a significant species. Not one shows a change caused by "survival of the fittest" that can't be explained by a different and simpler paradigm.



One experiment can be extremely powerful. The history of science is replete with such experiments.

It's not the experiments that are ion error, it is the paradigm by which all experiment and observation is interpreted.

Why won't you look at all the evidence for evolution? Why do you insist on wanting one piece of evidence or nothing?

 

[cladking]

Really? I see that you have changed your argument since it has been shown to be wrong so many times. The problem is that you are using undefined terms. What is a "significant species"?

I've changed nothing at all.

Consciousness defines life so a significant type of life is a species with significant consciousness. This excludes thing like slime molds, e coli, and oak trees. While these are all conscious the effects of randomness play a larger role in how they change due to smaller size and/ or limited consciousness. It doesn't apply to things like eggs and acorns either nor to picked flowers.

To what does "refined of a record" refer?

 

[cladking]

Why won't you look at all the evidence for evolution? Why do you insist on wanting one piece of evidence or nothing?

I've told you many times every experiment and observation applies to my theory. There is no experiment that shows gradual change in species and this is merely an incorrect interpretation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I've told you many times every experiment and observation applies to my theory. There is no experiment that shows gradual change in species and this is merely an incorrect interpretation.

Ok

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's is simply impossible to make a true or false statement in our confused language.

I find it relatively easy to do that. In fact, that last sentence is a true statement. Of course, many quibble over what truth is, and would argue that somehow, that comment isn't true, or isn't ultimate truth, or is only partial truth tainted with subjectivity. I don't bother with all of that. If an idea reliably allows me to predict outcomes, that's as much truth as I need.

I have no idea what [irreducible complexity] means to you

Irreducible complexity refers to biological systems that could not have evolved according to the Darwinian mechanism, which requires that all changes that evolution generates arise in small steps and all intermediate forms be functional so that they can be selected for according to that function. The intelligent design (ID) people would cite biological systems such as the coagulation cascade as examples of biological irreducible complexity, and say that evolution could not have produced them in a stepwise manner between intermediate forms that were selected for by nature, since if any protein is missing, blood doesn't clot properly. If one can identify a complex system that was irreducibly complex, that is, has no simpler functional forms that nature would select for - that all parts need to be present for any of them to have any value - then according to the ID program, one has demonstrated the work of an intelligent designer.

I only mentioned it because you have been arguing against gradualism in evolution, that all changes are giant leaps. The failure of the the ID program to identify irreducible complexity in biological systems - and they have offered several beside the coagulation cascade including the eye, the bacterial flagellum, and the immune system - that have all be shown to NOT be irreducibly complex, a compelling finding in support of Darwin's mechanism for evolution being the engine driving evolution.

And this is why I'm saying it's a bad paradigm.

Maybe you misunderstood what was meant by, "There is not one piece of evidence that should convince anyone that evolution is true." It doesn't mean that there isn't even one piece of evidence in support of evolution. I believe he meant that the evidence resides in the convergence or concordance (consilience) of multiple pieces of evidence considered collectively.

It's not the experiments that are in error, it is the paradigm by which all experiment and observation is interpreted.

I would say to this what I say whenever I am told that one idea has more value than another, as when you extol what you call ancient science and ancient language, or derogate a scientific paradigm. If you can't show a tangible benefit to holding the belief in terms of predicting outcomes better than alternative beliefs, then the belief has no practical value beyond any psychological comfort it might bring to the believer, much less being a better idea.

What changes would you recommend to the paradigm to make it a more useful idea? If none, then what is the basis of your use of the word error? The present scientific paradigm has been stunningly successful such that it has made life longer, healthier, safer, more functional, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting. Where is the error in that, and what are you suggesting should replace that and why?

 

[gnostic]

I've told you many times every experiment and observation applies to my theory.

That’s a false statement.

You have never presented any evidence, and you have shown no experiments.

You have only been “making claims” that you have, but you are attempting to deceive us.

You say you have “I've told you many times every experiment and observation applied to your theory”, your very words, then where are they?

Because you certainly have have shown them. These are just empty words. All you do is bragging about things you don’t have.

Experiments and evidence are observations of physical things, but none of your so-called evidence.

Like this - that everyone 40,000 years ago were all scientists. Where are your experiments for that?

You don’t have any. All you do, is make excuses, and refused to show your evidence/experiments.

You just make up more bogus claims, one after another, which you cannot substantiate.

Your so-called “theory” are nothing more than fantasies.

 

[cladking]

Irreducible complexity refers to biological systems that could not have evolved according to the Darwinian mechanism, which requires that all changes that evolution generates arise in small steps and all intermediate forms be functional so that they can be selected for according to that function. The intelligent design (ID) people would cite biological systems such as the coagulation cascade as examples of biological irreducible complexity, and say that evolution could not have produced them in a stepwise manner between intermediate forms that were selected for by nature, since if any protein is missing, blood doesn't clot properly. If one can identify a complex system that was irreducibly complex, that is, has no simpler functional forms that nature would select for - that all parts need to be present for any of them to have any value - then according to the ID program, one has demonstrated the work of an intelligent designer.

I don't believe in any of that.

While it's entirely possible that there is an Intelligent Designer, I don't believe that one is necessarily required to explain the existence of life, logic, or how life changes. I believe that the overlooked mechanism is "consciousness". It is this that allows every individual to survive and proper. It is this that drives change in species through the effect of genes on it and random (not natural) selection.

It is consciousness that drives and defines life itself. Not genes, not evolution, and not Gods. Consciousness is metaphysical by nature and hence it allows individuals to understand their environments and predict outcomes. Until we understand consciousness it's simply irrelevant if it was created by God or by natural processes and forces.

 

[cladking]

The failure of the the ID program to identify irreducible complexity in biological systems - and they have offered several beside the coagulation cascade including the eye, the bacterial flagellum, and the immune system - that have all be shown to NOT be irreducibly complex, a compelling finding in support of Darwin's mechanism for evolution being the engine driving evolution.

I would avoid using the term "irreducible complexity" but it is quite apparent that at this time "consciousness" and "life" both fulfill the defining characteristics as I understand them.

Maybe you misunderstood what was meant by, "There is not one piece of evidence that should convince anyone that evolution is true." It doesn't mean that there isn't even one piece of evidence in support of evolution. I believe he meant that the evidence resides in the convergence or concordance (consilience) of multiple pieces of evidence considered collectively.

I agree!!! Using 19th century science the "Theory of Evolution" was a very strong hypothesis and then over a century of observation and experiment certainly seemed to support it.

I'm merely saying there is a far simpler paradigm that brings together all observation and experiment. Until new experiment is conducted under this paradigm and some progress is made it will be difficult to know how much more correct (or incorrect) it is in identifying the cause and nature of change in species. I believe that in 100 years survival of the fittest will be considered a minor factor in the cause.

 

[cladking]

I would say to this what I say whenever I am told that one idea has more value than another, as when you extol what you call ancient science and ancient language, or derogate a scientific paradigm. If you can't show a tangible benefit to holding the belief in terms of predicting outcomes better than alternative beliefs, then the belief has no practical value beyond any psychological comfort it might bring to the believer, much less being a better idea.

Again I agree.

My theory has successfully made prediction of reality that aren't even understood by current paradigms.

What changes would you recommend to the paradigm to make it a more useful idea? If none, then what is the basis of your use of the word error? The present scientific paradigm has been stunningly successful such that it has made life longer, healthier, safer, more functional, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting. Where is the error in that, and what are you suggesting should replace that and why?

Let me get back to you on these highly complex questions.

 

[cladking]

You say you have “I've told you many times every experiment and observation applied to your theory”, your very words, then where are they?

Because you certainly have have shown them. These are just empty words. All you do is bragging about things you don’t have.

You can start here;

Experimental evolution - Wikipedia

Be sure to read all the links and the et als.

Like this - that everyone 40,000 years ago were all scientists. Where are your experiments for that?

It is the simplest explanation for how ancient people left the same markings in caves, spoke the same language, and built the great pyramids by a means we aren't even smart enough to deduce.

It is the nature of all paradigms to include all known science. You do not get to pick and choose which experiments define theory because the paradigm defines theory.

What we have here is a failure to communicate and a very dead paradigm that is still hanging on.

 

[cladking]

The present scientific paradigm has been stunningly successful such that it has made life longer, healthier, safer, more functional, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting.

I still intend to answer the other questions but this is the one that threw me.

The current paradigm, like all paradigms, don't generate knowledge or technology. Knowledge comes from experience, observation, and experiment and these generate understanding which leads to creation. The "Holy Trinity" is Knowledge > Understanding > Creation. A paradigm is merely the current understanding of the meaning of experiment. It is the current explanation for experience and observation. The current paradigm can be thought of as the blueprint for our models and the lumber is experiment. Observations are glue and nails.

Paradigms are what change one funeral at a time.

Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions - outline

Ancient science had a single paradigm for 40,000 years. I often suspect that perhaps it was a paradigmatical problem that contributed to the collapse of Ancient Language. Perhaps one of the reasons that people had trouble learning it was some apparent internal contradiction. To a highly logical people this would grossly interfere with learning. I have identified a few possible sources for the contradiction. Whatever it was it would have almost certainly been resolved after learning more.

 

[cladking]

What changes would you recommend to the paradigm to make it a more useful idea? If none, then what is the basis of your use of the word error?

Essentially we will never understand consciousness or the nature of life until we change the way we think. No, I don't mean we need to think like anyone else merely that we need to rebuild our models with a new blueprint. They need to be disassembled and rebuilt from the foundations up. When we do this the nature of science and humanity will both be more easily seen leading to new experiments and new knowledge. I can envision many things that might come from this new knowledge such as regaining our history and solving the unified field theory. Of course this might be possible with the existing paradigm but we have failed for a century and I believe the problem in part is one of metaphysics. I believe machine intelligence will emerge rather quickly under a new paradigm. We haven't been able to create artificial intelligence because there's no such thing as human intelligence. We each merely stand on the shoulders of giants which is made possible by our language even though it is confused. If ancient people could do all they did with their limited knowledge imagine what we could do with our extensive knowledge!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since we are on a huge detour let's keep it going.

For those that deny the Egyptians could have built the pyramids I need to remind people of Wally Wallington:

Great Pyramid of Giza Research Association

He has been adopted by all sorts of believers in woo woo, claiming that he knew the secrets of the ancients. Wally himself was much more modest and merely states that he may have reproduced some of the technology that they used.

An interesting link. Is this supposed to be a an organization for legitimate discovery?

 

[Subduction Zone]

An interesting link. Is this supposed to be a an organization for legitimate discovery?

What he does is pretty straight forward engineering. But for some weird reason the various nutter groups have adopted him. I need to see if I can find his website with some of the videos that he made.

Basically he found some techniques to move big blocks of rock and said "Wow! Look at what I can do." He tends to use concrete blocks since they are easy to make to the size that he wants, but if one had a quarry it would be no problem for workers to cut such blocks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An old video of Wally demonstrating his technique for the news:

He used to sell full length DVD's on his website for $15.00 telling people how to do his techniques. In my search I found one person offering $150.00 for one of those old DVD's. I could not find his old website. It had quite a few videos that you could watch for free.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And a very short one with him just demonstrating some of his techniques. The big block being spun at the end gives a hint as to how he move them. He would add or take way weights from either end and slowly walk it along.

 

[cladking]

What he does is pretty straight forward engineering. But for some weird reason the various nutter groups have adopted him.

Actually, I think the nutters who believe "they mustta used ramps" cite him more than others. They claim that if one man can move and lift large stones then it should be easy for stinky footed bumpkins to drag them up ramps. But the reality is none of his techniques are applicable to the great pyramids.

Lifting stones requires a huge amount of work and every single form of mechanical advantage increases this amount of work. There's no way to cheat mother nature or gravity.

 

[gnostic]

It is the simplest explanation for how ancient people left the same markings in caves, spoke the same language, and built the great pyramids by a means we aren't even smart enough to deduce.

No, you are making guesses, since you cannot even read these cave markings, and you don’t even know if they are writings or just abstract symbols.

And since you cannot translate them, you don’t know what they means, so saying these writings are “science”, are just pure fabrication.

Without being able to translate or understand the symbols, you have already set in your belief they are are single language and you already believe that these are science.

You have also claimed that these 40,000-year ago, people spoke in a binary language and were experts in sciences and metaphysics, but you are ignoring the fact, that metaphysics don’t involved experiments.

There are no logic how you determine this. Your so-called theory of 40,000-year-old “ancient language” and “ancient science” are just circular reasoning and confirmation bias.

You keep saying you have experiments, but these are merely your claims and personal beliefs, you have shown no experiments.

You still don’t grasp what a experiment is or what evidence is. Because if you did understand, you would have presented them a long time ago. Your claims are just as empty as your theory.

 

[gnostic]

I've changed nothing at all.

Consciousness defines life so a significant type of life is a species with significant consciousness. This excludes thing like slime molds, e coli, and oak trees. While these are all conscious the effects of randomness play a larger role in how they change due to smaller size and/ or limited consciousness. It doesn't apply to things like eggs and acorns either nor to picked flowers.

To what does "refined of a record" refer?

No, you originally stated that ALL LIFE have consciousness.

And you stated that life cannot exist without consciousness.

But now you are changing what you are saying, claiming now there are some exceptions. Now you are saying bacteria, trees and acorns don’t have consciousness or limited consciousness.

You are moving the goalpost...more dishonest tactics.

I have actually asked you older replies (repeatedly) about plants and bacteria, asking if these organisms have consciousness, but NOT ONCE, did you answer me...you just ignored my questions.