Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

I'm still waiting for one of these evolution deniers to publish their refutations of the millions of data points proven in evolution and collect their Nobel Prize.
It's 52 years and counting.....

In actuality, the data used by scientists promoting the theory of evolution are showing that it is not possible that life evolved. Even if they say it has evolved. Again -- and I use this as an example of the type of thinking promoted, scientists say that (some scientists) that men, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc., have an "Unknown Common Ancestor." It - does - not - make - sense. They haven't found this "UCA" yet. "It" somehow disappeared. Maybe it's buried somewhere.

 

[Firenze]

In actuality, the data used by scientists promoting the theory of evolution are showing that it is not possible that life evolved. Even if they say it has evolved. Again -- and I use this as an example of the type of thinking promoted, scientists say that (some scientists) that men, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc., have an "Unknown Common Ancestor." It - does - not - make - sense. They haven't found this "UCA" yet. "It" somehow disappeared. Maybe it's buried somewhere.

Yes - I will await your peer reviewed paper on this.... instead of your empty claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes - I will await your peer reviewed paper on this.... instead of your empty claim.

On many, many occasions it has been pointed out that the logic used to deny common ancestry of humans is the same logic that would mean all people are unrelated due to gaps in our specific genealogies. Our LUCGP (Last Unknown Common Grandparent) cannot be found. Therefore, all humans are unrelated. I wonder, on that logic, that I cannot even establish my own existence, since there are more UCGP in my genealogy that I cannot show than those that I can. It must mean I don't exist.

Nice to have never met you.

You can't argue with that kind of high caliber logic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On many, many occasions it has been pointed out that the logic used to deny common ancestry of humans is the same logic that would mean all people are unrelated due to gaps in our specific genealogies. Our LUCGP (Last Unknown Common Grandparent) cannot be found. Therefore, all humans are unrelated. I wonder, on that logic, that I cannot even establish my own existence, since there are more UCGP in my genealogy that I cannot show than those that I can. It must mean I don't exist.

Nice to have never met you.

You can't argue with that kind high caliber logic.

Another variant is the picture line as per evolution. Take a picture of your mother and then her mother and so on. When going back through the pictures, when are you not related, because your mother's mother's ... is not a human.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Another variant is the picture line as per evolution. Take a picture of your mother and then her mother and so on. When going back through the pictures are you not related because your mother's mother's ... is not a human.

And, at what point in that series of photos of matriarchs stretching back in time is it a picture of a non-human? Much as taking a single series of daily photos of the same person from birth to death. At what point were they no longer a baby? No longer a child? What photos definitively shows them as an adult? As middle-aged? As old?

The evidence from a top level view shows a progression, just as such a view of the fossil record.

Demanding conclusions that cannot be drawn from the evidence and then declaring from that failure that the evidence shows us nothing is the sort of logic that has trapped some in dogmatic reliance on doctrine over reason.

 

[cladking]

And, at what point in that series of photos of matriarchs stretching back in time is it a picture of a non-human? Much as taking a single series of daily photos of the same person from birth to death. At what point were they no longer a baby? No longer a child? What photos definitively shows them as an adult? As middle-aged? As old?

You are assuming there is a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. Our species reasons circularly. You are assuming two things that aren't true or at least have never been shown experimentally.

All observed change in life is sudden and all life is individual.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes - I will await your peer reviewed paper on this.... instead of your empty claim.

MY peer reviewed paper? It's not an empty claim. If you find in your search (?) a Known Common Ancestor, please do provide. Are you saying there is a Known Common Ancestor for those considered by believers in the theory to have branched out from those called apes such as gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees, and of course, humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Another variant is the picture line as per evolution. Take a picture of your mother and then her mother and so on. When going back through the pictures, when are you not related, because your mother's mother's ... is not a human.

ok, all I can say is: huh?

 

[YoursTrue]

On many, many occasions it has been pointed out that the logic used to deny common ancestry of humans is the same logic that would mean all people are unrelated due to gaps in our specific genealogies. Our LUCGP (Last Unknown Common Grandparent) cannot be found. Therefore, all humans are unrelated. I wonder, on that logic, that I cannot even establish my own existence, since there are more UCGP in my genealogy that I cannot show than those that I can. It must mean I don't exist.

Nice to have never met you.

You can't argue with that kind of high caliber logic.

LOL, I like that. Although I must disagree with you in that I think you DO exist.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm still waiting for one of these evolution deniers to publish their refutations of the millions of data points proven in evolution and collect their Nobel Prize.
It's 52 years and counting.....

Only 52 years? False ideas have lasted longer than that sometimes. There is nothing to prove the theory of evolution is truly -- true. It cannot be proved, and never will be.
Famous Scientific Theories That Were Proven Wrong (grunge.com)

 

[YoursTrue]

The intent from the creationist position here is to use the extended synthesis to declare the theory of evolution dead and slander anyone that accepts it as some sort of religious believer. If you do not think the modern synthesis requires replacement you are doomed to be labelled dogmatic. If you do accept the extended evolutionary synthesis, then you are doomed for jumping blindly from belief in one theory to the next I suppose.

There are many reasons why the EES has been proposed and many reasons why most do not accept it. All of these that I have read are based on evidence, how that evidence is weighed and where one places a perspective with regards to a genetic or organismal basis. Acceptance of the current theory based on the evidence does not render a person a dogmatist. Both are scientific, using evidence and logical argument. The creationist dogma all boils down to the "Default Paradigm" Declare the theory of evolution dead and whatever belief desired becomes the replacement by default. But no rational person is going to accept the declaration of some random poster on an internet forum as the final say in the acceptance of a scientific theory.

The facts of evolution exist. Darwin's original theory was formulated to explain those facts. In the mid-20th Century, a revised version of the theory (the Modern Synthesis) was formulated to include new information on population biology and genetics. The facts of evolution remained and many, many more had become known at that point. If the EES survives to become a new formulation of the theory of evolution, there will be even more facts for it to explain. Clearly, creationists equate the facts of evolution and theories of evolution to be the same thing. Kill one and all the facts are scattered with it by default. But we were still held to the Earth when Einstein came along and upturned Newton's theory. It isn't as if we all suddenly flew into space. And we still use Newton to this day, despite it being incomplete in comparison to Einstein's.

It is ridiculous to consider such an irrational position in light of the evidence and the explanatory power of theory. I know that some people are simply ignorant and don't know enough to properly evaluate these things, but some know enough to know what they are doing and the ethics associated with that effort. It would be difficult to convince me otherwise from what I have seen of wordy mantras placed in heavy rotation, declarations of a win that hasn't happened and passive aggressive defamation. That is the chess we all see played here.

Unfortunately I have seen slander towards those not believing the theory of evolution from those firmly believing in the theory of evolution as if it must be true. But I have read nothing, absolutely nothing, that really supports the theory of evolution in reality. Frankly, not even historically. In other words, fossils. This is not to say that viruses and bugs mutate, but -- bugs stay as bugs, and viruses stay as viruses. I know viruses mutate but they don't become anything but viruses, not sure about bugs. But I know there are lots of them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ok, all I can say is: huh?

I need to know how you understand evolution.

 

[LIIA]

You are not me and I can still do it differently no matter how much it doesn't make sense to you. You do as you do and I do as I do.

Sure, we are different individuals and what you do has to make sense to you not me, but as individuals, would it make sense if everyone of us maintains his own different answer to the exact same question? Is it merely a matter of a relative perception of an individual? If this is the case, what would make anything right, wrong or have any meaning at all? What is the defining reference?

Is there a reference to define entities independent from our relative perception?

Is there an absolute or everything is relative? Can the relative entities exist independently without being referenced to or grounded in an absolute?

Logic/causality constitutes independent self-evident reference that can be used to draw conclusions. If we allow a pure input to merely pass through the clear lenses of logic, then the output would always be the same for all of us, but the tinted lenses imposed by our (biased) “Will" is what dictates the color of the distorted output that is unique to each individual.

We never see things as it is, (if we do, then we all would see the same thing). We see things, as we want to be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, we are different individuals and what you do has to make sense to you not me, but as individuals, would it make sense if everyone of us maintains his own different answer to the exact same question? Is it merely a matter of a relative perception of an individual? If this is the case, what would make anything right, wrong or have any meaning at all? What is the defining reference?

Is there a reference to define entities independent from our relative perception?

Is there an absolute or everything is relative? Can the relative entities exist independently without being referenced to or grounded in an absolute?

Logic/causality constitutes independent self-evident reference that can be used to draw conclusions. If we allow a pure input to merely pass through the clear lenses of logic, then the output would always be the same for all of us, but the tinted lenses imposed by our (biased) “Will" is what dictates the color of the distorted output that is unique to each individual.

We never see things as it is, (if we do, then we all would see the same thing). We see things, as we want to be.

Well ,there is the objective part, the social part and the individual part. And right and wrong and even logic works different for those 3 parts.

 

[LIIA]

The intent from the creationist position here is to use the extended synthesis to declare the theory of evolution dead and slander anyone that accepts it as some sort of religious believer. If you do not think the modern synthesis requires replacement you are doomed to be labelled dogmatic. If you do accept the extended evolutionary synthesis, then you are doomed for jumping blindly from belief in one theory to the next I suppose.

I never advocated for the EES. How many times should I repeat?

In a nutshell, Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis (MS) contradicts empirical evidence of latest science, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) is not agreed upon. This is where the ToE stands today.

Without an agreed upon, coherent explanatory framework/mechanisms consistent with empirical evidence, you have nothing.

All central assumptions of the theory that you are advocating and being taught in biology textbooks (MS) are challenged/disproved. There is no point of arguing about future framework (EES) yet to be agreed upon or established to replace the MS.

 

[LIIA]

If you do not think the modern synthesis requires replacement you are doomed to be labelled dogmatic. If you do accept the extended evolutionary synthesis, then you are doomed

A rational argument is not about which position would better help you to win a false argument, it's about acknowledging the facts when/if you are aware of it. A rational/ethical argument wouldn’t be doomed; it would be respected and appreciated. The purpose of the forum is to share thoughts/views for the benefit of all, it's not a fight and shouldn’t be. You’re free to adopt whatever view you wish to accept. You’re free to reject every word I say. It’s up to you.

 

[LIIA]

Well ,there is the objective part, the social part and the individual part. And right and wrong and even logic works different for those 3 parts.

No relative entity of any kind would have any meaning without a defining reference. At the end of the chain, relative entities may get its meaning by being referenced to each other but collectively, at the roots, it must be grounded in an absolute.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No relative entity of any kind would have any meaning without a defining reference. At the end of the chain, relative entities may get its meaning by being referenced to each other but collectively, at the roots, it must be grounded in an absolute.

No! Because that we can disagree means that there are in effect no one absolute.

 

[LIIA]

In actuality, the data used by scientists promoting the theory of evolution are showing that it is not possible that life evolved. Even if they say it has evolved. Again -- and I use this as an example of the type of thinking promoted, scientists say that (some scientists) that men, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc., have an "Unknown Common Ancestor." It - does - not - make - sense. They haven't found this "UCA" yet. "It" somehow disappeared. Maybe it's buried somewhere.

If you go further back in time, the common ancestor of tetrapods (including humans) is allegedly Tiktaalik.

Let alone that there is no established lineage (coherent evolutionary developmental line of gradual transitional variants) from the alleged common ancestor to modern humans, but there is definitely no lineage from Tiktaalik to Homo sapiens (or any tetrapod for that matter).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you go further back in time, the common ancestor of tetrapods (including humans) is allegedly Tiktaalik.

Let alone that there is no established lineage (coherent evolutionary developmental line of gradual transitional variants) from the alleged common ancestor to modern humans, but there is definitely no lineage from Tiktaalik to Homo sapiens (or any tetrapod for that matter).

Therefore Satan is true and our Master. Replace it with your version as you like.
And then tell me, how in both cases it is an invalid deduction.