Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

If you cannot be reasonable there is no point in having a discussion. Can you see at least one glaring error in your post? I can.

Just the one?

 

[LIIA]

LOL....you're not even keeping track of your own arguments. Earlier, you kept spouting off about the EES and how it was somehow simultaneously "widespread" within evolutionary biology and also suppressed due to "dogmatism". But when I pointed out that the EES is just a rethinking of some of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, you literally said it didn't matter what the EES was.

That's one of the drawbacks of advocating a denialist position....it makes it hard to keep your stories straight.

You don’t rely on mere denial like others and try to address the details of the argument, I appreciate that, but you are confused. Your strong bias is clouding your vision. I’ll explain again, but in case you do get clear on my point, please don’t continue to argue for the sake of argument or denial like others.

Neither my post #911 nor any of my posts were advocating for the EES, and I did literally say, “It doesn’t matter what the EES is”. Are you following so far?

Neither my quote nor the entire lecture of Gerd B. Müller said anything about the EES itself being a widespread or a majority view.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

My point again and as quoted from the lecture of Gerd B. Müller is that the view that a major revision or even A REPLACEMENT of the standard theory of evolution (modern synthesis) is a widespread view among scientists.

You kept saying that there is no evidence that "the need to replace the ToE" is a majority view and I kept repeating that I never used the word majority and the word I used is “widespread” which is the same word Müller used in his lecture.

You’re responding to my post #2133, do you see me advocating for the EES in #2133? (Or in any of my other posts?)

The link to the lecture says why an EES is necessarily, it’s only a reference for the source of my quote, I cannot change how the link is written and I don’t advocate for the EES.

Yes, Top scientists such as Gerd B. Müller and Denis Noble are advocating for the EES, but I’m only concerned about the reasons why they are adapting this view. As they explained multiple times, it’s because all the central assumptions of the neo darwinism/modern synthesis are disproved (see #781). You cannot keep/ teach a theory as a legitimate theory after all of its fundamental assumptions got disproved. This is my point. Yet, this is exactly what is happening simply because of the dogmatic resistance.

Again, whatever theory/myth replaces the neo darwinism/modern synthesis in the future is neither my concern nor I’m advocating for the EES or any other new theory. I hope that is clear enough and in case you did understand my point, please don’t argue for the sake of argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just the one?

I have to own up to the fact that one error stuck out so badly that I stopped reading at that point

 

[LIIA]

Not only you don’t understand the concept of what evidence is, you don’t understand what data is, and data relation to the evidence.

Evidence is the observations of physical phenomena, whether the observation of the evidence is the whole system or parts (eg samples).

In those observations, you would acquire information about the evidence and about the physical phenomena, such as its physical properties and its processes.

These information are called data. Among the common data, are types, forms or structures, quantities, measurements, etc.

For examples, measurements can include the physical dimensions of the evidence (eg length, width, height, etc), the evidence’s mass, density, volume, etc. if the evidence were in liquid form you would measure it capacity (eg pint, liter, etc).

If the object (evidence) is in motion, you may measure speed, direction, momentum, forces, energy, distance travelled, time it take to travel the distance, etc. All these measurements are all data. Other data may be finding out type of locomotive or propulsion system.

If the evidence were electrical, then your data may be measurements of power, voltage, current, etc, or if it conductors or circuitry, then you may measure its resistance.

If the evidence were electromagnetic radiation, your measurements and data, would be wavelength, frequency, types of waveform, or audio/sound, your data could be decibels, signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), amplitude, amplification, etc.

Then there are other data, such as the physical composition of the evidence. The composition may have different components or structures, or you can break them down in their molecular or chemical makeup, etc.

In biology, there are whole array of data, but for human biology, there are number of tests, that provide information about a person, including their health and diagnosing if they have illnesses, diseases, test blood, dna, blood pressure, pulse, used various scans (eg ultrasound, X-ray, MRI, EEG, etc).

These are all examples of what data may acquire from the evidence.

In science, evidence and data are of utmost importance in testing new hypotheses or existing scientific theories.

As I said earlier, there are relationship between evidence & data. You cannot have evidence without some data connected to the evidence.

So data are required in understanding sciences of the physical phenomena.

didn’t we discuss the difference between data and evidence before in #331? I thought we were done with this discussion long time ago but here we are back to square one. You’re still very confused.

Here it is. Step by step. Please read slowly and make an effort to understand what you read.

Data are observable facts of various types that can be quantified, measured and evaluated.

Data is just data and has no intrinsic meaning on its own without context.

Data can be ONLY deemed as evidence in the presence of a hypothesis.

Evidence has to be evidence for or against a hypothesis.

Now, in the presence of a hypothesis, what would make the data get accepted as evidence?

If the data is consistent with the predictions of a hypothesis, then it gets accepted as evidence for the hypothesis. If not consistent, it would be evidence against the hypothesis.

Now, how this consistency is determined? Is it merely up to the observer?

No, the observer should properly apply the rules of valid inference, which would help to establish neutral logical conclusion with higher probability of correctness.

Now, in the presence of a hypothesis, an observer evaluates the data/facts based on the logical principles of inference, then based on the evaluation, data can be taken as evidence.

Without a hypothesis, the data is just data and has no meaning on its own. Here is a quote from our previous discussion in my post #331.

“A causal relationship between the observations (the world's data) and hypothesis does not just exist to cause the observation to be taken as evidence but rather provided by the observer seeking to establish observations as evidence. Background, experience and beliefs of the observer establish a prior that impacts perceived relationship. Independent observers of the same event may arrive at different conclusions, which may be correct or incorrect, or with a certain degree of accuracy. The rules of valid inference (if property applied) help the establishment of neutral logical conclusion with higher probability of correctness”.

We shouldn’t argue about the basics. I hope it was clear. If you did get it, please don’t argue for the sake of argument.

 

[LIIA]

You are getting into some very specific and rather pointless questions there. If you really want an answer you need to talk to experts in the field. But it appears what you are trying to do is to find some minor area where the answer is "we don't know yet" and then act as if that refutes the whole theory. That is akin to trying to get a Not Guilty verdict for a killer because the police do not know what he had for breakfast a year ago.

this question was intended to clarify the general idea that if a living organism is not equipped with what it needs to survive from day one, it will simply not survive till day two. It will not have a million year to somehow get what it needs to survive. If it doesn’t survive, it definitely doesn’t evolve.

Similarly, a non-living organic molecule will always quickly disintegrate, it will not persist for a million-year waiting for a random chance to evolve.

See # 2137

 

[LIIA]

This is one of the biggest problems with the belief in Evolution. Once you accept the axioms then you start seeing evolution everywhere. Not only in evolutionary theory itself, but also in language, civilization, and science. But the reality is nothing evolves and in waiting for everything to get better and better and more precisely fit to human needs the groundwork of its demise are sown. Civilization doesn't evolve any more than a whale evolves. Civilizations collapse and if conditions are right a new one will arise on the ruins of the last like whales change. We tolerate and allow the thinking and behavior that leads to the collapse because we believe it is perfectly natural "evolution". Rather than adjust imbalances we embrace them. Rather than right injustice we institutionalize it.

But the whole time every believer sees things getting better and better and their pet theory getting stronger and stronger. As it grows more complex to address anomalies they see it getting stronger, more fit, as less fit parts fall to the wayside. So we have schools that don't teach and an economy geared toward self destruction as well as a culture and history being rewritten. Once you believe the fit survive and lead us all to nirvana, utopia, and a glorious future it's just fine that language changes, cultures implode, and the weak die.

And, of course, it's only natural that ancient superstitions like morals and proper behavior don't apply to the wealthy, greedy, and powerful. They don't apply to evolution or our reality extrapolated from science and theory. Rather than read ancient sources they are ignored and if they are read at all by believers they are rejected in their entirety just as surely as Darwin is accepted in his entirety even after modern theory has shown him to be wrong virtually across the board. Once you accept a belief in survival of the fittest you can no longer see the inherent illogic or evidence to the contrary. You can no longer look at reality from another perspective. You are trapped by your belief. Even if Peers said they've been wrong all this time believers would still believe and common wisdom would change one funeral at a time. "Survival of the fittest is fundamental to most believers' beliefs and countless millions have died since Darwin because they were "weak". If you can't outrun the men with the machetes it is only natural you should be hacked to pieces and left to die. If you can profit from shutting down a company or destroying the products then it doesn't matter how many are hurt or the destruction to the commonweal. The strong will survive and the weak die anyway so this becomes the new morals.

Thank you

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are getting into some very specific and rather pointless questions there. If you really want an answer you need to talk to experts in the field. But it appears what you are trying to do is to find some minor area where the answer is "we don't know yet" and then act as if that refutes the whole theory. That is akin to trying to get a Not Guilty verdict for a killer because the police do not know what he had for breakfast a year ago.

That is pretty much how I have seen this latest iteration of science denial and protest from the beginning. It is one grandiose gap argument denying reality while holding an unspoken personal religious view as winner by default. Except it cannot logically win on that basis. The claims aren't about the validity of the religious position, just one-sided, unrealistic attacks on science that have been shown to have failed.

The anti-science denial of this entire thread has degraded down to its core capability. Provocative claims and veiled ad hominem personal attacks to goad life into an unsupported position that doesn't have the evidence to exist on its own merits.

I'm thinking of starting a new thread discussing the science and leaving the believers behind to their own devices. They can stay here and discuss among themselves their thoughts on aquaculture in beavers or how something can be both widespread and suppressed at the same time.

 

[LIIA]

Pigeon chess is not a game I wish to play.

Didn’t I already advise you if you can’t come up with anything of value, you don’t have to say anything?

Have a good night

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have to own up to the fact that one error stuck out so badly that I stopped reading at that point

There are so many, I cannot even guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

this question was intended to clarify the general idea that if a living organism is not equipped with what it needs to survive from day one, it will simply not survive till day two. It will not have a million year to somehow get what it needs to survive. If it doesn’t survive, it definitely doesn’t evolve.

Similarly, a non-living organic molecule will always quickly disintegrate, it will not persist for a million-year waiting for a random chance to evolve.

See # 2137

Ooh! pigeon chess it is. kings Bishop to W8 crown me. And Checkmate!

 

[LIIA]

That is pretty much how I have seen this latest iteration of science denial and protest from the beginning. It is one grandiose gap argument denying reality while holding an unspoken personal religious view as winner by default. Except it cannot logically win on that basis. The claims aren't about the validity of the religious position, just one-sided, unrealistic attacks on science that have been shown to have failed.

The anti-science denial of this entire thread has degraded down to its core capability. Provocative claims and veiled ad hominem personal attacks to goad life into an unsupported position that doesn't have the evidence to exist on its own merits.

I'm thinking of starting a new thread discussing the science and leaving the believers behind to their own devices. They can stay here and discuss among themselves their thoughts on aquaculture in beavers or how something can be both widespread and suppressed at the same time.

You never surprise me; I don't really expect anything else. You can never rationally address an argument and can do nothing but fallacious claims as a typical escape tactic. My religious view has nothing to do with the fact that all central assumptions of the modern synthesis are false. It’s not my claim; it’s the assertion of top scientists in the field. See #781.

Have a good night

 

[LIIA]

Ooh! pigeon chess it is. kings Bishop to W8 crown me. And Checkmate!

seriously?

have a good night

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ooh! pigeon chess it is. kings Bishop to W8 crown me. And Checkmate!

I'm am still mulling over starting another thread. I have this delusional fantasy that there is someone out there that has a reasoned and evidenced objection to the Modern Synthesis and is not just using fallacious attack on it as a device to support their personal agenda.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The extended evolutionary synthesis as a complete replacement of the existing theory of evolution or modern synthesis is not widely accepted among biologists. Even among those that favor an extended view there is a difference of opinion over whether it replaces the existing theory or augments it by asserting a less gene-centric perspective. This controversy among the greater or lesser groups of scientists does not arise out of rejection from a dogmatic position comparable to a belief in religion. Rather, it arises out of the very real and necessary skepticism of science and the need for robust data to support radical claims and come to the most and best informed conclusions. Continually citing a few sources without explanation or failing to explain how existing views are wrong or incomplete isn't good enough. Frankly, it reveals a pretty thin understanding of the science by those that carry out such silly undertakings.

The amusing thing is that both the modern synthesis and the EES are theories of evolution and, if the evidence warrants it, the success of the EES is still the success of a scientific theory explaining the evidence of evolution that is observed and not the manifestation of a religious declaration. The acceptance of a better theory does not make those that accepted a previous theory or version somehow dogmatic believers as if their acceptance were somehow a belief-based view. The modern synthesis is currently the best explanation we have for the observations and acceptance of it is based on the evidence, the explanatory power and the predictive ability of the theory. Powers that have been demonstrated quite frequently and I predict will continue so. No one is claiming it is perfect, ultimate theory or that it no longer rates extension, but extension is not replacement and it does not mean that a particular, individual religious view becomes an objective, default replacement of one or the other theoretical positions.

The main objective of the rejection of science on this thread has had that latter view as its basis. That the natural skepticism and controversy in science over details and explanations means the complete breakdown of science and un-evidenced religious explanations become the sole answer to observation or the means to deny or wave off those observations. Ultimately, it is another, more grandiose version of a gap argument where the attempt isn't just to argue in the gap, but to manufacture the gap by any means including falsely attributing inherent qualities of evil to scientific theories that have never been demonstrated to exist. Then declare a believed view as the winner by default. Never mind that there are literally tens of thousands of alternative, competitive and contradictive believed views vying for the position and not just a single one. And none of those have objective evidence to favor one over the other let alone over the evidenced and reasoned explanations of science. It is an irrational and obvious folly visible to all except apparently those churning out pages of text to attempt it.

In my personal opinion, monotheists do not really understand the Word of God even as some seem to imply that ability for themselves, and interpretations vary widely, but science is the best means we have to explain the Work of God, the world and the universe around us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The extended evolutionary synthesis as a complete replacement of the existing theory of evolution or modern synthesis is not widely accepted among biologists. Even among those that favor an extended view there is a difference of opinion over whether it replaces the existing theory or augments it by asserting a less gene-centric perspective. This controversy among the greater or lesser groups of scientists does not arise out of rejection from a dogmatic position comparable to a belief in religion. Rather, it arises out of the very real and necessary skepticism of science and the need for robust data to support radical claims and come to the most and best informed conclusions. Continually citing a few sources without explanation or failing to explain how existing views are wrong or incomplete isn't good enough. Frankly, it reveals a pretty thin understanding of the science by those that carry out such silly undertakings.

The amusing thing is that both the modern synthesis and the EES are theories of evolution and, if the evidence warrants it, the success of the EES is still the success of a scientific theory explaining the evidence of evolution that is observed and not the manifestation of a religious declaration. The acceptance of a better theory does not make those that accepted a previous theory or version somehow dogmatic believers as if their acceptance were somehow a belief-based view. The modern synthesis is currently the best explanation we have for the observations and acceptance of it is based on the evidence, the explanatory power and the predictive ability of the theory. Powers that have been demonstrated quite frequently and I predict will continue so. No one is claiming it is perfect, ultimate theory or that it no longer rates extension, but extension is not replacement and it does not mean that a particular, individual religious view becomes an objective, default replacement of one or the other theoretical positions.

The main objective of the rejection of science on this thread has had that latter view as its basis. That the natural skepticism and controversy in science over details and explanations means the complete breakdown of science and un-evidenced religious explanations become the sole answer to observation or the means to deny or wave off those observations. Ultimately, it is another, more grandiose version of a gap argument where the attempt isn't just to argue in the gap, but to manufacture the gap by any means including falsely attributing inherent qualities of evil to scientific theories that have never been demonstrated to exist. Then declare a believed view as the winner by default. Never mind that there are literally tens of thousands of alternative, competitive and contradictive believed views vying for the position and not just a single one. And none of those have objective evidence to favor one over the other let alone over the evidenced and reasoned explanations of science. It is an irrational and obvious folly visible to all except apparently those churning out pages of text to attempt it.

In my personal opinion, monotheists do not really understand the Word of God even as some seem to imply that ability for themselves, and interpretations vary widely, but science is the best means we have to explain the Work of God, the world and the universe around us.

What science deniers cannot seem to understand is that most scientists know that many theories will ultimately be improved, often to the point that a previous theory will be abandoned. That is likely to happen to the modern synthesis some day. But just like Einstein showing that newton was quite wrong about parts of gravity that does not mean that we will no longer be apes. That is the ultimate hope of some. That somehow this new group that still knows that we are apes will disprove that fact. That is about as likely to happen as us floating off into space once a theory of quantum gravitation is perfected. When the change comes i will gladly accept it. But i am not jumping at every new proposed theory and either accepting them or rejecting them. I will just apply the standard of not accepting them until they clearly demonstrate their superiority with evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What science deniers cannot seem to understand is that most scientists know that many theories will ultimately be improved, often to the point that a previous theory will be abandoned. That is likely to happen to the modern synthesis some day. But just like Einstein showing that newton was quite wrong about parts of gravity that does not mean that we will no longer be apes. That is the ultimate hope of some. That somehow this new group that still knows that we are apes will disprove that fact. That is about as likely to happen as us floating off into space once a theory of quantum gravitation is perfected. When the change comes i will gladly accept it. But i am not jumping at every new proposed theory and either accepting them or rejecting them. I will just apply the standard of not accepting them until they clearly demonstrate their superiority with evidence.

I agree with you. A new theory has to explain all the existing observations as well as new observations that the current theory cannot handle. Either way, what I believe will not suddenly replace one or the other or both of them by default. It would be ridiculous of me to think that and even more ridiculous of me to try and connive some scheme to attempt it.

I wouldn't continually claim that the EES has resulted in the rejection of all the core assumptions of the Modern Synthesis without first listing all those assumptions and then showing how and why they are rejected. I have not seen that. It hasn't been done. What I have seen are the same sources, cherry-picked to support claims amenable to a believed view, continually repeated ad nauseum to little other effect. Hardly fitting a position asserted to be in the superior and drenched in logic and reason. In fact, to me, it reveals a position that is very much the opposite. For a fact, there are assumptions that are not and even cannot be rejected by the acceptance of the EES as full replacement theory.

One of the core assumptions that must remain is that in order for evolution to occur, there must be living organisms that reproduce with variation. That fact alone repudiates the continual claim that the EES has done so.

 

[cladking]

Science has not broken down. God help us if it ever does because science and reason are the only tools homo omnisciencis has to try to understand reality and his place within it.

Science went astray and much of the cause is that Darwin's work was accepted uncritically because 19th century people would rather believe in science than believe in religions. People wanted to believe Darwin for the same reason Darwin wanted to believe his grandfather; it was an idea whose time had come and it fit with other new learning. It made sense not because it was right but because it was logical and reality itself is logical. Despite being obviously wrong it still had the ring of truth to it and our species can accept anything at all when we want to believe or when it is common practice. Fitting into the status quo and believing what everyone else does is a defining characteristic of our species.

Science is simply on a detour that started with Darwin. But this hardly means every experiment has to be reinvented and reworked. It merely means there is widespread reinterpretation required after we have a new paradigm. Science will not only be changed but it will be strengthened. Theory will become more robust and allow (support) fewer anomalies. New experiment design will become more apparent leading to more progress.

Science is about experiment and I should guess the reason we aren't getting progress is that we are misinterpreting existing experiment. We are misinterpreting it because some basic assumptions are flawed and some definitions are not appropriate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If the theory of evolution is so obviously wrong, why is it that no one can point out the obvious?

 

[Jose Fly]

My point again and as quoted from the lecture of Gerd B. Müller is that the view that a major revision or even A REPLACEMENT of the standard theory of evolution (modern synthesis) is a widespread view among scientists.

You kept saying that there is no evidence that "the need to replace the ToE" is a majority view and I kept repeating that I never used the word majority and the word I used is “widespread” which is the same word Müller used in his lecture.

You’re responding to my post #2133, do you see me advocating for the EES in #2133? (Or in any of my other posts?)

The link to the lecture says why an EES is necessarily, it’s only a reference for the source of my quote, I cannot change how the link is written and I don’t advocate for the EES.

Yes, Top scientists such as Gerd B. Müller and Denis Noble are advocating for the EES, but I’m only concerned about the reasons why they are adapting this view. As they explained multiple times, it’s because all the central assumptions of the neo darwinism/modern synthesis are disproved (see #781). You cannot keep/ teach a theory as a legitimate theory after all of its fundamental assumptions got disproved. This is my point. Yet, this is exactly what is happening simply because of the dogmatic resistance.

Again, whatever theory/myth replaces the neo darwinism/modern synthesis in the future is neither my concern nor I’m advocating for the EES or any other new theory. I hope that is clear enough and in case you did understand my point, please don’t argue for the sake of argument.

You're still not making any sense.

Recall, that according to the Wiki page that you linked to, the EES is the addition of "multilevel selection, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche construction, evolvability, and several concepts from evolutionary developmental biology" as mechanisms that drive evolution.

So no, the EES does not have anything to do with the central assumptions of the modern synthesis being disproved.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nonsense, Let’s assume you elected a president or a politician, do you necessarily have to agree with everything he does? If you disagree with some of his actions for good reasons, is that cherry picking?

Oh brother...not the same thing at all. Voting for a politician is not the same as citing someone as such an authority in a subject that everyone must pay heed to what they say, but then waiving away other things they say in the same subject.

If you can't grasp the difference, I can't help you.

When it comes to his opinion (axiom) about evolution, why should I adapt it if Gould himself acknowledged that the real-world data don’t support it? He said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”

Like all evolutionists, He held evolution as an axiom regardless and before any evidence. Why should I do the same? And if I don’t, is that cherry picking?

Now you're just doing it again. If you have to frequently stoop to this sort of behavior, I'll let that speak for itself.

Nonsense, the attributes of the person making an argument is not your concern. Your concern is the argument itself, and again, it’s not my claim, it’s the assertion of the experts as you have seen above. Gould said, “we never see the very process we profess to study.” The problem is never the facts, it's the interpretations.

And you just keep on doing it. Sad.

Again, it’s not my word, attacking the attributes of the person making an argument is a fallacious "ad hominem". Your concern is the argument not the person. Your argument that the majority think so is a fallacious “argumentum ad populum". Widespread acceptance is not a justification of validity. Most of these scientists that you are referring to are followers not leaders. The leaders such as Denis Noble and Gerd B. Müller and many others are advocating for a change because the ToE (MS) invokes a set of unsupported assumptions. These leaders are disputing the assumption of random mutations and the assumed role natural selection as well as all central assumptions of the MS.

Yes, these scientists are evolutionists; they hold evolution as an axiom " it must be evolution one way or another” same as you and any other evolutionist, for any evolutionist, evolution is true before the evidence. The difference is that these scientists know that the assumptions of the modern synthesis that all of you accept blindly are false/disproved.

If you want, you can insist to be an evolutionist, but you should know that all assumptions and concepts in your head that you accepted blindly about evolution are false, and again it’s not my claim. It's the assertions of the top scientists.

The moon is made of cheese.

What? My mere say-so wasn't sufficient to convince you to change your mind about the composition of the moon? Well now you know how your empty assertions come across.

It's not about the data, it's about how you interpret it. Data shouldn’t be interpreted individually based on axiom/priori. It should be interpreted collectively based on the logical rules of valid inference. If gradualism is a global hypothesis/claim for every organism ever lived, then relative frequency of evidence is a decisive factor either with or against the hypothesis. If it’s against, then the hypothesis is false and shouldn’t be used to interpret individual observation.

Again, I'm not about to go with your empty and uninformed assertions. You can believe whatever you want, but I have a hard time believing that you actually think you're being persuasive here. Are you really expecting folks here to change their views based on your say-so?

"Well I know the world's life scientists have all agreed that evolution happens, but some anonymous Muslim at a religious message board says it doesn't, so I guess all those scientists are wrong!"

Is that what you're expecting?