Darwin's Illusion

[We Never Know]

I have no idea what that means. Bacteria, for instance, do not show any indication of consciousness. Yet they function. Their behavior is guided by response to the environment without consciousness.

So does that show consciousness is not needed for survival or a survival trait?

 

[LIIA]

It is a global claim that is not supported.

You’re sidetracking from the subject of my post “How genetically similar are humans to chimpanzees". Read further if you will, then we may have a rational argument.

What global claim? If you mean “dogmatic control”, I did support it. In fact, the non-objective conclusion as clarified, proves the claim. Again, Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016 “challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous”, “the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.” Here is the link for the article that was published in 2017.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Everyone in the field knows that “dogmatic control” is a fact, the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence/causation is not allowed to be published in mainstream journals. But since you and others asked for evidence, I’ll provide more examples of it.

A study by a Chinese team published on January 5, 2016 in “Plos One”, studied the human hand, the researchers mentioned the “Creator” three times as follows:

- “The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristics of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulation is the proper design by the creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way"

- “Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the creator's invention”

- “In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of ancestral hand for millions of years."

The team was under vicious attack, they defended themselves claiming it was a translation error but regardless, “PLOS ONE” retracted the article and stated “the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.”

Nature wrote “Researchers who wrote, “design by the Creator” in a paper about the function of the human hand have triggered a debate over the quality of editing and peer review at the journal that published it — and ultimately retracted it.”
Paper that says human hand was 'designed by Creator' sparks concern | Nature

A documentary film by Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" discussed the freedom of speech suppression to which Intelligent Design proponents are being subjected to by the atheistic American academic dictatorship.

Here are some examples of scientists who have been oppressed and excluded because they mentioned intelligent design

Richard Von Sternberg
Evolutionary biologist
Lost his office, his political and religious beliefs were investigated, was pressured to resign. He was called an intellectual terrorist. He said, “There is this fear that if one aspect of a theory is closely scrutinized, there’s going to be an unraveling”

Congressman Mark Souder uncovered a targeted campaign led by individuals within the Smithsonian and national center for science education to destroy Dr. Sternberg’s credibility. He said “If you want peer reviews, if you want to be published, if you want to go to respected institutions, the core view does not tolerate dissent. There’s kind of a "this is the way it is," and anybody who's a dissenter should be squashed.”

Smithsonian Controversy | Richard Sternberg

Dr. Caroline Crocker
George Mason University
Her career came to an abrupt end, blacklisted unable to find a job anywhere.
Caroline Crocker (freescience.today)

Dr. Michael Egnor
Neurosurgeon
Was amazed by the viciousness of the response because of his views on Intelligent Design
Michael Egnor - Wikipedia

Professor Robert J. Marks
Baylor University shut down his research website, forced him to return grant money, he said that he was never been treated like this in about 30 years in academia
Dr. Robert J Marks II | School of Engineering and Computer Science | Baylor University

Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez
Astronomer
His career was put in jeopardy till finally was accepted in Ball state university after he promised not to discuss Intelligent Design in his class, He advised scientists who value their careers to keep quite about their intelligent design views.
Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer) - Wikipedia

Journalist Larry Witham said, "once you're thick in science, you can't question the paradigm. If you want to get grants, if you want to be elected to high positions, if you want to get awards as a promoter of public education of science, you can't question the paradigm.”

“I interviewed dozens and dozens of scientists, and when they’re amongst each other or talking to a journalist who they trust, they’ll speak about, you know "it's incredibly complex,” or “molecular biology’s in crisis." but publicly they can't say that.”

“If a reporter decides to take a more balanced approach to intelligent design, there might be remarkable pressure on that reporter not to side against the evolutionists.”

Author and journalist Pamella Winnick said, “If you give any credence to intelligent design whatsoever, just writing about it, you are finished as a journalist.”

Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz said” this conflict over the principles of evolution has become a religious war, is no longer about scientific investigation.”

Oxford professor Alister Mcgrath said "Richard Dawkins has a charming and very interesting view of the relationship between science and religion, they’re at war with each other, and in the end, one’s got to win. And it’s going to be science. It’s a very naive view. Its based on a complete historical misrepresentation of the way science and religion have interacted. Dawkins seems to think that scientific description is an anti-religious argument. Describing how something happens scientifically, somehow explains it away. It doesn’t. but the question of purpose, intentionality, the question why, still remain there on the table.”

Virginia Steen Mcintyre
Tephrochronologist
Her career was put in jeopardy. Her comments against the mainstream scientists in her letter to Estella Leopold, an editor of Quaternary Research, “The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data,’ data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.”

Scientists couldn’t find a flaw in Steen-McIntyre and her team’s testing.

Again, Everyone in the field knows that “dogmatic control” is a fact.

My conclusion was logical and correct. I saw no evidence to consider it otherwise.

I wonder why you didn’t see it? Most likely because you didn’t read it.
Read it if you will, then lets talk.

You can’t conclude that I don’t like science simply because you said so. Then you insist that your conclusion was logical, again because you said so. This is not a logical reasoning.

 

[LIIA]

here is the link for the retracted article that I mentioned in #202 about the human hand

Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living (plos.org)

 

[ppp]

You can’t conclude that I don’t like science simply because you said so. Then you insist that your conclusion was logical, again because you said so. This is not a logical reasoning.

Your reasoning is flawed. You have listed complaints. As though people simply complaining that their views are rejected by the relevant scientific body indicates dogma. If I enumerate all of the people whose work has significantly remodeled the scientific consensus does that prove no dogma?

 

[cladking]

You cannot answer the questions. You just claims some imaginary "number" of experiment, without showing one that demonstrate your claim?

NO!!!!!

Read what I write not what you think I mean. Then try to figure out what I might mean.

Every experiment ever done supports the importance of consciousness.

Experiments in neuroscience in the last five decades are especially relevant.

 

[cladking]

Can you even demonstrate that consciousness is possible for organisms that have no brains (eg plants, fungi)?

There is no point in making an argument you can't follow. Until such time as you can show you understanding my claim and my beliefs you will just dismiss all the "evidence" and interpret every experiment differently.

Essentially "science" is reductionary but what people can't see is that consciousness, life, and the nature of reality, which science purports to study, are not at all reductionary. You can't take reality apart and understand each of its parts separately just as you can't understand life in such a way, nor consciousness. Everything is ONLY a part of a whole and nothing is an abstraction like recuctionistic science or, more accurately, the way most individuals understand reductionistic science. I don't believe it can be stated more simply than this.

As a way of seeing reality religion is generally a better estimation than most individuals' models. Religion was founded on human science and "science" is founded on abstractions. Reductionistic science is excellent for building simple models that reflect reality but these model differ one person to the next and reality is NEVER so simple. This last paragraph is for those who understand what I'm saying.

 

[ppp]

NO!!!!!

Read what I write not what you think I mean. Then try to figure out what I might mean.

yes.....
We are reading you sentences, and they convey no complete thoughts.

Every experiment ever done supports the importance of consciousness.

Importance? To what? To whom? In what manner does it lend support? What kind of support?

Experiments in neuroscience in the last five decades are especially relevant.

Relevant how? Relevant to what? Which experiments?

Simply saying all experiments conveys no information.

Until you can focus on one thing at a time and provide a series of cogent and connected thoughts with the understanding that you are not currently successfully communicating, you are going to be continually frustrated. You will never get your point across, assuming that you have one, until you can bring yourself to start a place of mutual understanding with your audience and build your argument up small step by small step from there.

 

[gnostic]

NO!!!!!

Read what I write not what you think I mean. Then try to figure out what I might mean.

Every experiment ever done supports the importance of consciousness.

Experiments in neuroscience in the last five decades are especially relevant.

You keep saying that, but you have presented no report, you haven’t cited any, that demonstrated all life must have “consciousness”.

Experiments in neuroscience in the last five decades are especially relevant.

Neuroscience only focused on humans, or more precisely the humans’ brains. Especially the health of human brain and treatments and medicine for brains that that suffered trauma (eg head injury) or suffered from diseases that might affect the brains.

I don’t disagree with you if you are only talking about human “life”, they do have consciousness. But this topic on Evolution, while humans are one of those “life”, not all life or all organisms are humans.

This is your original post that I replied to:

And without consciousness there is no life at all. There would also be no point in life and no means for it to evolve or for species to change. But we still believe we can just ignore all the hard questions and peak ahead at the answers.

Do see what I had highlighted, especially the “enlarged” text?

You talked of “species” evolving required “consciousness”, and I am assuming not only talking humans as species, but other life too, non-human organisms, such as other animals, or plants, fungi or bacteria.

So to clarify everything, are we only focusing on human evolution and human brain/consciousness, or are we talking about any life forms, the evolution of other organisms, too?

 

[LIIA]

Your reasoning is flawed.

If you want to use logical reasoning, start with the correct “quote”. You quoted my response to Dan about his claim that I don’t like science, it was not about dogmatic control.

You have listed complaints. As though people simply complaining that their views are rejected by the relevant scientific body indicates dogma.

Is “the pressure on journalists not to side against evolutionists” a rejection by a scientific body?

Is the freedom of speech suppression, oppression and exclusion to which Intelligent Design proponents are being subjected to” acceptable or justifiable?

Does the retraction of already published research without proper justification, demonstrate freedom of the scientific inquiry?

Does the rejection of the legitimate scientific findings such as the finding of the human habitation at the Hueyatlaco site by Virginia Steen Mcintyre, only because it challenges the mainstream theory, without scientific ground to justify the rejection, demonstrate freedom of the scientific inquiry?

Dogmatic control is a fact, with many examples across multiple disciplines.
Your denial doesn’t change that.

If I enumerate all of the people whose work has significantly remodeled the scientific consensus does that prove no dogma?

No, it doesn’t simply because if you want to be published, if you want to get grants, if you want to be elected to high positions, if you want to go to mainstream institutions, if you want to get awards, you can't question the paradigm. The core view does not tolerate dissent.

The study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence/causation is not allowed to be published in mainstream journals. this perspective may be used to get the research done but you’re not allowed to talk about it in public.

To stay on track, Just remember, we’re not debating now whether “Intelligent Design” is a fact or not. We’re only discussing the fact that Intelligent Design proponents are subject to freedom of speech suppression, oppression and exclusion by the academic dictatorship.

 

[ppp]

Is “the pressure on journalists not to side against evolutionists” a rejection by a scientific body?

Pressure?. That could be anything from "those guys don't have any scientific product to back up their claims" all the way to "if you print that creationist stuff, tomorrow you will be sleeping with the fishes!" I was hoping that if you responded that you would step out of the realm of mere innuendo.

Is the freedom of speech suppression, oppression and exclusion to which Intelligent Design proponents are being subjected to” acceptable or justifiable?

I am unconvinced that any of that stuff is happening. One does not get to be published in a scientific journal just because one has an opinion. One must produce legitimate scientific output.

Produce a rejected journal article that meets the standards of a mainstream journal in objective, methodology, and conclusion. Produce the reasons provided by the reviewers for the rejection. Not your summary, but the actual text with a citation.

Also, the freedom of speech clause applies to the government. Not private citizens or private organizations. You might accuse some organization of discrimination, blackmail, extortion, intimidation, kidnapping or the like. But not a freedom of speech violation.

Does the rejection of the legitimate scientific findings such as the finding of the human habitation at the Hueyatlaco site by Virginia Steen Mcintyre, only because it challenges the mainstream theory, without scientific ground to justify the rejection, demonstrate freedom of the scientific inquiry?

This question is trying to force me to assume that everything in that sentence is true. Can you actually demonstrate any of this?

1. Do you know what his findings were? Can you produce the paper?
2. How do you know his findings were legitimate? Do you understand the paper well enough to discuss it?
3. What is your evidence that his paper was rejected "only because it challenges the mainstream theory"?

Quit jumping around. I am not going to entertain a Gish Gallop.

If you want to discuss this, I am happy to do so reasonably. Pick one paper that was submitted to peer review and (unfairly) rejected. Provide a link to the paper. Provide the actual response with citation - not some summary. Be prepared to discuss the contents of the paper. And the reasons given for rejection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You’re sidetracking from the subject of my post “How genetically similar are humans to chimpanzees". Read further if you will, then we may have a rational argument.

What global claim? If you mean “dogmatic control”, I did support it. In fact, the non-objective conclusion as clarified, proves the claim. Again, Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016 “challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous”, “the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.” Here is the link for the article that was published in 2017.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Everyone in the field knows that “dogmatic control” is a fact, the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as a result of intelligence/causation is not allowed to be published in mainstream journals. But since you and others asked for evidence, I’ll provide more examples of it.

A study by a Chinese team published on January 5, 2016 in “Plos One”, studied the human hand, the researchers mentioned the “Creator” three times as follows:

- “The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristics of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulation is the proper design by the creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way"

- “Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the creator's invention”

- “In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of ancestral hand for millions of years."

The team was under vicious attack, they defended themselves claiming it was a translation error but regardless, “PLOS ONE” retracted the article and stated “the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.”

Nature wrote “Researchers who wrote, “design by the Creator” in a paper about the function of the human hand have triggered a debate over the quality of editing and peer review at the journal that published it — and ultimately retracted it.”
Paper that says human hand was 'designed by Creator' sparks concern | Nature

A documentary film by Ben Stein "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" discussed the freedom of speech suppression to which Intelligent Design proponents are being subjected to by the atheistic American academic dictatorship.

Here are some examples of scientists who have been oppressed and excluded because they mentioned intelligent design

Richard Von Sternberg
Evolutionary biologist
Lost his office, his political and religious beliefs were investigated, was pressured to resign. He was called an intellectual terrorist. He said, “There is this fear that if one aspect of a theory is closely scrutinized, there’s going to be an unraveling”

Congressman Mark Souder uncovered a targeted campaign led by individuals within the Smithsonian and national center for science education to destroy Dr. Sternberg’s credibility. He said “If you want peer reviews, if you want to be published, if you want to go to respected institutions, the core view does not tolerate dissent. There’s kind of a "this is the way it is," and anybody who's a dissenter should be squashed.”

Smithsonian Controversy | Richard Sternberg

Dr. Caroline Crocker
George Mason University
Her career came to an abrupt end, blacklisted unable to find a job anywhere.
Caroline Crocker (freescience.today)

Dr. Michael Egnor
Neurosurgeon
Was amazed by the viciousness of the response because of his views on Intelligent Design
Michael Egnor - Wikipedia

Professor Robert J. Marks
Baylor University shut down his research website, forced him to return grant money, he said that he was never been treated like this in about 30 years in academia
Dr. Robert J Marks II | School of Engineering and Computer Science | Baylor University

Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez
Astronomer
His career was put in jeopardy till finally was accepted in Ball state university after he promised not to discuss Intelligent Design in his class, He advised scientists who value their careers to keep quite about their intelligent design views.
Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer) - Wikipedia

Journalist Larry Witham said, "once you're thick in science, you can't question the paradigm. If you want to get grants, if you want to be elected to high positions, if you want to get awards as a promoter of public education of science, you can't question the paradigm.”

“I interviewed dozens and dozens of scientists, and when they’re amongst each other or talking to a journalist who they trust, they’ll speak about, you know "it's incredibly complex,” or “molecular biology’s in crisis." but publicly they can't say that.”

“If a reporter decides to take a more balanced approach to intelligent design, there might be remarkable pressure on that reporter not to side against the evolutionists.”

Author and journalist Pamella Winnick said, “If you give any credence to intelligent design whatsoever, just writing about it, you are finished as a journalist.”

Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz said” this conflict over the principles of evolution has become a religious war, is no longer about scientific investigation.”

Oxford professor Alister Mcgrath said "Richard Dawkins has a charming and very interesting view of the relationship between science and religion, they’re at war with each other, and in the end, one’s got to win. And it’s going to be science. It’s a very naive view. Its based on a complete historical misrepresentation of the way science and religion have interacted. Dawkins seems to think that scientific description is an anti-religious argument. Describing how something happens scientifically, somehow explains it away. It doesn’t. but the question of purpose, intentionality, the question why, still remain there on the table.”

Virginia Steen Mcintyre
Tephrochronologist
Her career was put in jeopardy. Her comments against the mainstream scientists in her letter to Estella Leopold, an editor of Quaternary Research, “The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data,’ data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.”

Scientists couldn’t find a flaw in Steen-McIntyre and her team’s testing.

Again, Everyone in the field knows that “dogmatic control” is a fact.



I wonder why you didn’t see it? Most likely because you didn’t read it.
Read it if you will, then lets talk.

You can’t conclude that I don’t like science simply because you said so. Then you insist that your conclusion was logical, again because you said so. This is not a logical reasoning.

Not sidetracking at all. You made an opening claim that you haven't supported. Your reference is 20 years old. I know there are more recent papers on the subject of the comparative genomics of ape species and I am familiar with what they say. They do not talk about dogma directing the outcome of research.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no point in making an argument you can't follow. Until such time as you can show you understanding my claim and my beliefs you will just dismiss all the "evidence" and interpret every experiment differently.

Essentially "science" is reductionary but what people can't see is that consciousness, life, and the nature of reality, which science purports to study, are not at all reductionary. You can't take reality apart and understand each of its parts separately just as you can't understand life in such a way, nor consciousness. Everything is ONLY a part of a whole and nothing is an abstraction like recuctionistic science or, more accurately, the way most individuals understand reductionistic science. I don't believe it can be stated more simply than this.

As a way of seeing reality religion is generally a better estimation than most individuals' models. Religion was founded on human science and "science" is founded on abstractions. Reductionistic science is excellent for building simple models that reflect reality but these model differ one person to the next and reality is NEVER so simple. This last paragraph is for those who understand what I'm saying.

You never present evidence for anyone to dismiss and your arguments are just your claims that lay their starving for support.

 

[LIIA]

I am not going to entertain a Gish Gallop.

You're in denial and selectively ignore the facts that you don’t like. you're free to do so.
Thank you for helping me presenting my argument.

 

[LIIA]

Your reference is 20 years old. I know there are more recent papers on the subject of the comparative genomics of ape species and I am familiar with what they say.

What's your favorite paper?
I mentioned the other published papers with varying but typically lower percentages of similarity than the alleged 98.8%. but again, you didn’t read.

They do not talk about dogma directing the outcome of research.

Do you expect the published paper to talk about dogma directing the outcome?

 

[ppp]

You're in denial and selectively ignore the facts that you don’t like. you're free to do so.
Thank you for helping me presenting my argument.

Or, dear LIIA. I ask you for a discussion of the details of the strongest case for your claim....and you immediately peace out. No one is even vaguely imagines that you are doing anything but reciting someone else's script and then bailing before $4!7gets real.

Have a lovely night.

 

[LIIA]

Or, dear LIIA. I ask you for a discussion of the details of the strongest case for your claim....and you immediately peace out. No one is even vaguely imagines that you are doing anything but reciting someone else's script and then bailing before $4!7gets real.

Have a lovely night.

Moving the goalposts, first to “Dogmatic Control” and then to “Virginia Steen McIntyre”, it’s a typical fallacious tactic to get the discussion off-track. I’m not interested to entertain it.

The Hueyatlaco archeological site controversy is well known, “Dogmatic Control” is a fact. Many would agree but you’re free to deny it if you wish. It’s not about wining a false argument or personal credit, I do cite others whenever necessary and argue about what I know is true.

Nonetheless, info about Virginia Steen McIntyre is available for whoever is interested to know more about her and Hueyatlaco site. Here is a summary of the Hueyatlaco controversy.

In 1981, Steen-McIntyre published a paper in the journal Quaternary Research that defended an anomalously distant age of human habitation at Hueyatlaco. The paper reported the results of four sophisticated, independent tests: uranium-thorium dating, fission track dating, tephra hydration dating and the studying of mineral weathering to determine the date of the artifacts. These tests, among other data, validated a date of 250,000ybp for the Hueyatlaco artifacts. She wrote: "The evidence outlined here consistently indicates that the Hueyatlaco site is about 250,000 yr. old. We who have worked on geological aspects of the Valsequillo area are painfully aware that so great an age poses an archeological dilemma. In our view, the results reported here widen the window of time in which serious investigation of the age of Man in the New World would be warranted. We continue to cast a critical eye on all the data, including our own."

The mainstream doctrine was that humans did not enter the Americas any earlier than 30,000 years ago. Steen-McIntyre tried to spread the word about the true age of the site. Because of this, she began to get a bad reputation in her profession. She lost a teaching position she held, and all of her opportunities for advancement were blocked.

Biostratigraphic researcher Sam VanLandingham has published two peer-reviewed analyses that confirm the earlier findings of ca. 250,000ybp for the tool-bearing strata at Hueyatlaco. His 2004 analysis found that Hueyatlaco samples could be dated to the Sangamonian Stage. VanLandingham's 2006 paper refined and re-confirmed his 2004 findings.

 

[ppp]

Moving the goalposts, first to “Dogmatic Control” and then to “Virginia Steen McIntyre”, it’s a typical fallacious tactic to get the discussion off-track. I’m not interested to entertain it.

Yes, you certainly did.

 

[Valjean]

You're in denial and selectively ignore the facts that you don’t like. you're free to do so.
Thank you for helping me presenting my argument.

Your definition of "fact" seems pretty broad....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What's your favorite paper?
I mentioned the other published papers with varying but typically lower percentages of similarity than the alleged 98.8%. but again, you didn’t read.



Do you expect the published paper to talk about dogma directing the outcome?

You are right. I did not read it. I got everything I needed to know from your opening statement. Thank you.

 

[LIIA]

Yes, you certainly did.

It was not for you but it can be.