Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

Analogies seem to be a weakness among those defending some version of creationism over the evidence and explanations of that evidence using science.

If a person is photographed daily from birth to death, how do you know which photos express the full and clear transition from infant, toddler, pre-teen, teen, young adult, mature adult and old adult? You are claiming cutoffs that are clearly demarcated, when reality and the evidence do not provide such information in any way that a person could know that. Yet the photos looked at as a whole show a clear change over time. They can be roughly grouped to show periods of age with fuzzy borders demarcating those periods.

Even if such transitional periods were obvious, the photo may have been taken at the wrong time of day to capture it. That doesn't mean that a transition didn't occur. Perhaps the more logical view would be that the transition took place over more than just a day or a part of a day. Just as the transition between our ancestors took place over generational periods of time and not just a single birth.

Claiming that common ancestry fails because some individual ancestor that is clearly the common ancestor cannot be found is a ridiculous and illogical basis to deny a valid conclusion of the evidence.

If an evolutionary process is allegedly what gives an organism the vital functions necessary for survival, then no organism would ever survive to allow an evolutionary process to emerge. Organisms don’t evolve, organisms Adapt.

See #2329, #2330 and #2137
Darwin's Illusion | Page 117 | Religious Forums
Darwin's Illusion | Page 107 | Religious Forums

The success/survival of any living system depends on the functional/purposeful flow/exchange of information, energy and matter. No living system of any kind is simple. Even a single-celled organism utilizes extremely complex functional systems/life processes that are essential to allow the organism to GROW, REPRODUCE AND SURVIVE. If the organism doesn’t have essential vital systems for survival from day one, it will not survive till day two. IF IT DOESN’T SURVIVE, IT DOESN’T EVOLVE.

The alleged causal relationship between “survival” and “evolution” constitutes a fallacious circular reasoning. A caused B and B caused A.

Whether the entity subject to the alleged gradual change is an organic molecule or actually a living system, survival/persistence is an absolute prerequisite before any gradual change process of any kind may emerge/materialize. Neither a living system can survive without the vital functions from day one nor a biomolecule can persist for a long time without getting decomposed/disintegrated. If survival/persistence of a system is not possible, then no evolutionary process of any kind is possible. On the other hand, a perfect organism equipped with all required vital functions for survival from day one may persist and adapt through directed mutations. What we witness in the real world is directed adaptation not random microevolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If an evolutionary process is allegedly what gives an organism the vital functions necessary for survival, then no organism would ever survive to allow an evolutionary process to emerge. Organisms don’t evolve, organisms Adapt.

See #2329, #2330 and #2137
Darwin's Illusion | Page 117 | Religious Forums
Darwin's Illusion | Page 107 | Religious Forums

The success/survival of any living system depends on the functional/purposeful flow/exchange of information, energy and matter. No living system of any kind is simple. Even a single-celled organism utilizes extremely complex functional systems/life processes that are essential to allow the organism to GROW, REPRODUCE AND SURVIVE. If the organism doesn’t have essential vital systems for survival from day one, it will not survive till day two. IF IT DOESN’T SURVIVE, IT DOESN’T EVOLVE.

The alleged causal relationship between “survival” and “evolution” constitutes a fallacious circular reasoning. A caused B and B caused A.

Whether the entity subject to the alleged gradual change is an organic molecule or actually a living system, survival/persistence is an absolute prerequisite before any gradual change process of any kind may emerge/materialize. Neither a living system can survive without the vital functions from day one nor a biomolecule can persist for a long time without getting decomposed/disintegrated. If survival/persistence of a system is not possible, then no evolutionary process of any kind is possible. On the other hand, a perfect organism equipped with all required vital functions for survival from day one may persist and adapt through directed mutations. What we witness in the real world is directed adaptation not random microevolution.

Sorry but your garbled version of evolution fails because it is too simple. It is a strawman argument.

 

[LIIA]

Sorry but your garbled version of evolution fails because it is too simple. It is a strawman argument.

It’s not my version. I don’t have any version. It’s yours, you advocate it, but you don’t see it or understand it, you insist that the modern synthesis is a solid theory yet ignorant of the fact that it’s a theory without any basis to stand on after all of its fundamental assumptions already got disproved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s not my version. I don’t have any version. It’s yours, you advocate it, but you don’t see it or understand it, you insist that the modern synthesis is a solid theory yet ignorant of the fact that it’s a theory without any basis to stand on after all of its fundamental assumptions already got disproved.

Nope. It is not. That misunderstanding is all yours.

And no. None of its fundamental assumptions have been disproved. You never came even close to that,.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry but your garbled version of evolution fails because it is too simple. It is a strawman argument.

I'm not sure who you are responding to here. But I can guess. Personally, I see no value in the biased, uninformed positions that are just the incessant parroting of dead claims with no substance. So I fixed it to no longer see them at all. I found those words to be unimportant and not worth seeing.

As an example, I think the Default Paradigm is one of the key straw men that is thrown out to be beaten to death as if it means something and achieves something. The only achievement I have seen here is that the anti-science, "my ideology wins by default" crowd know so little about the science they deny that their versions of if cannot be anything but garbled, simple and generally inconsistent with facts and logic.

What have we seen here to be hurled at theory? Repetitive written versions of the Gish Gallop repeated ad nauseum. Failed. Denis Noble says "touch your toes" isn't an argument. It comes off looking like a parrots playing chess.

Constantly conflating the origin of life with the evolution of life so that they can defeat an argument that doesn't exist. Beating a dead horse comes to mind.

Misrepresenting what anyone supporting science says and then demeaning those folks by claiming they are children without anything valid to contribute against the opposing the position. We don't really need to see that, let alone see it repeated as if it is a significant argument against science. It is as meaningful as the central theme of this thread of attacking poor old, dead Darwin.

Then there is the old and getting older attempt to take any disagreement or argument in science as the collapse of the entire field. How many times have we seen that lead to premature and flaccid declarations of victory? More of the same old chess.

You and I and many of us are aware that a scientific theory stands until new information comes along that clearly and consistently stumps that theory. Something new is not only unexplained by the existing theory, but can't be explained by it. Even if that has happened or will happen to the existing theory of evolution, that doesn't mean what creationists want it to mean no matter how hard they click their ruby slippers together and chant "There's no place for science". Explanations that supplant existing theory are going to be scientific and not "my favorite belief system wins by default". Not only that, but claims here that all the assumptions of the theory of evolution have been refuted are untrue.

It is my opinion that all that we have seen here are either the same old dead claims and meaningless attempts at arguments or a few slightly modified versions of those. I would love to see an expanded discussion of the extended evolutionary synthesis, but you won't see that here. Here claims about it are used as if it were a bludgeon with no attempt to explain it, support or provide unbiased discussion of the points and counterpoints. It's only purpose seems to be in declaring it refutes the theory of evolution, which makes no sense at all. A theory of evolution defeats a theory of evolution therefore there is no such thing as evolution? What kind of nonsense is that and to see it fronted as if it were some sort of reasoned explanation that requires no support. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I would have thought it was some sort of really bad joke. About as irrational as claiming the theory of evolution is inherently evil.

Good to see you back. I'm still considering a few subjects for threads including an actual discussion of the theory of evolution and the extended evolutionary synthesis. When I get to feeling better, I may set one up. No straw men allowed.

To think we saw it all here on Mulberry Street.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure who you are responding to here. But I can guess. Personally, I see no value in the biased, uninformed positions that are just the incessant parroting of dead claims with no substance. So I fixed it to no longer see them at all. I found those words to be unimportant and not worth seeing.

As an example, I think the Default Paradigm is one of the key straw men that is thrown out to be beaten to death as if it means something and achieves something. The only achievement I have seen here is that the anti-science, "my ideology wins by default" crowd know so little about the science they deny that their versions of if cannot be anything but garbled, simple and generally inconsistent with facts and logic.

What have we seen here to be hurled at theory? Repetitive written versions of the Gish Gallop repeated ad nauseum. Failed. Denis Noble says "touch your toes" isn't an argument. It comes off looking like a parrots playing chess.

Constantly conflating the origin of life with the evolution of life so that they can defeat an argument that doesn't exist. Beating a dead horse comes to mind.

Misrepresenting what anyone supporting science says and then demeaning those folks by claiming they are children without anything valid to contribute against the opposing the position. We don't really need to see that, let alone see it repeated as if it is a significant argument against science. It is as meaningful as the central theme of this thread of attacking poor old, dead Darwin.

Then there is the old and getting older attempt to take any disagreement or argument in science as the collapse of the entire field. How many times have we seen that lead to premature and flaccid declarations of victory? More of the same old chess.

You and I and many of us are aware that a scientific theory stands until new information comes along that clearly and consistently stumps that theory. Something new is not only unexplained by the existing theory, but can't be explained by it. Even if that has happened or will happen to the existing theory of evolution, that doesn't mean what creationists want it to mean no matter how hard they click their ruby slippers together and chant "There's no place for science". Explanations that supplant existing theory are going to be scientific and not "my favorite belief system wins by default". Not only that, but claims here that all the assumptions of the theory of evolution have been refuted are untrue.

It is my opinion that all that we have seen here are either the same old dead claims and meaningless attempts at arguments or a few slightly modified versions of those. I would love to see an expanded discussion of the extended evolutionary synthesis, but you won't see that here. Here claims about it are used as if it were a bludgeon with no attempt to explain it, support or provide unbiased discussion of the points and counterpoints. It's only purpose seems to be in declaring it refutes the theory of evolution, which makes no sense at all. A theory of evolution defeats a theory of evolution therefore there is no such thing as evolution? What kind of nonsense is that and to see it fronted as if it were some sort of reasoned explanation that requires no support. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I would have thought it was some sort of really bad joke. About as irrational as claiming the theory of evolution is inherently evil.

Good to see you back. I'm still considering a few subjects for threads including an actual discussion of the theory of evolution and the extended evolutionary synthesis. When I get to feeling better, I may set one up. No straw men allowed.

To think we saw it all here on Mulberry Street.

It was a wise decision to put the person that I responded to on ignore.

Perhaps I should use his "logic" against him. I am sure that I can find a theologian that claims his particular brand of religion has been refuted. That's all it takes according to him. I wonder if he would accept an argument based upon his logic. I have a feeling that it is not too likely.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're talking about creationism, and frankly I'm not sure what you mean by that. Let me put it this way to you -- I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Does that mean He made deformities? No. It means that "In the beginning," God created the heavens and the earth. He started the perfect mechanism for life to continue. But things changed and yes, He allowed that. Does that mean God created the Devil? No. And that's the rub for so many. It does require a more detailed explanation, but perhaps we can discuss that another time.
Do I KNOW how all the different bugs came about? No, you guessed it, I don't know. I don't know because they're there -- unless you know that bugs are evolving NOW, please do help. Unless of course, the fittest are content with not changing.

It is the literal view of an allegory as if it were a word for word factual recounting of events that took place as described.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding deformities.

Your ignorance of the origin and evolution of insects is a gap argument. That you do not know does not mean there isn't an explanation based on evidence to be found using science and logic. Isn't claiming your ignorance delimits human knowledge a sort of hubris?

Attacking what I believe is meaningless in a discussion of science, knowledge acquired through logical means based on evidence and rationally conclusions based on that. Attacking what you believe is of no value to me. You believe something, yet having that belief has done you no good here. All you have achieved is to declare you have a doctrine and that you must deny science to adhere to that doctrine. We may both be Christian, but I don't follow you doctrine and am no less Christian for that. The evidence remains and the explanations of that evidence require knowledge, understanding and reasoning to support or alter them. Belief does nothing in the context.

 

[LIIA]

Nope. It is not. That misunderstanding is all yours.

And no. None of its fundamental assumptions have been disproved. You never came even close to that,.[/QUOTE

We’re a little beyond that, where have you been? The traditional framework of the Modern Synthesis is outdated and should be replaced. See #781

Regardless of any disagreement or actually being at the opposite end of the argument but "LegionOnomaMoi" showed a rare example of ethical/rational argument that is very rarely seen in discussions with evolutionists. He shared the articles below for the benefit of everyone. You may want to review it and review his post #2266 and #2286. We don’t have to be in agreement, but we can debate in an ethical manner beyond denial and fallacious tricks.

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis (religiousforums.com)

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis (religiousforums.com)

 

[Subduction Zone]

@LIIA , one source is not a "refutation". By that standard Islam has been refuted. I can find one expert that will say that Islam is a false religion. By your standards your religion is false.

 

[LIIA]

Nope. It is not. That misunderstanding is all yours.

And no. None of its fundamental assumptions have been disproved. You never came even close to that,.

We’re a little beyond that, where have you been? The traditional framework of the Modern Synthesis is outdated and should be replaced. See #781

Regardless of any disagreement or actually being at the opposite end of the argument but "LegionOnomaMoi" showed a rare example of ethical/rational argument that is very rarely seen in discussions with evolutionists. He shared the articles below for the benefit of everyone. You may want to review it and review his post #2266 and #2286. We don’t have to be in agreement, but we can debate in an ethical manner beyond denial and fallacious tricks.

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis (religiousforums.com)

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis (religiousforums.com)

 

[rational experiences]

A man is first.

His beliefs are second.

His thesis by machine says...I designed machines by thinking.

Congratulations man egotist.

Did your thoughts own any of the physical materials?

No.

Science is observation he says.

First.

In my rational life I look...I see. It's called observing.

Without words I see everything as it is.

My rational mind says the science.....created creation is seen.

Either as it's living now as presence...or the anti clause...it's dead decayed corpse.

So seeing says biology gets destroyed.

Now to live I evolved my biological life by eating food energy. So my cellular function oxygenated can be replenished. I evacuate the energy waste. I'm functional physical.

Humans eating very little are extremely thin meditate....remain alive. Yet don't exert physical.

Proof evolution of is just a thought.

Hence mechanical physical I state needs evolution of my cellular life continuance with an input of energy to be physical....I'm biology I'm not any machine.

Yet men who claim sanity compare me to a machine.

So I ask why. Why do you man thinker compare my living life to everything I'm not?

Real logic answer. As one human the man ignored the physical presence woman and became the theist.

So a book for you to read daily many times said life human is with God mutual and equal.

And like the body God by explanation a base cycle of a cell it replenishes itself in cooling modules. Yet is ever present.

Remove cooling no bio life is existing.

The teaching equal mutual read constantly yet ignored by a huge male population. Yet you write your own reminder.

You said any status not seen in a body is because sex hadn't allowed it's formation.

Pretty basic science advice.

What's not seen isn't there.

You seem to have a problem accepting that status.

So you then pretended dead things by thesis were living.

It's one of your human man's teachings about how evil your thinking is. It's about the scientist life's destroyer researching the advice.

To data detail non humans existence by exact comparisons to everything else.

When cosmic law itself owns why it's destroyed or not existing.

Is a study about evil human men as chosen men human bad behaviours just because you are a man.

As it's written in your own presence by your own man self.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was a wise decision to put the person that I responded to on ignore.

Perhaps I should use his "logic" against him. I am sure that I can find a theologian that claims his particular brand of religion has been refuted. That's all it takes according to him. I wonder if he would accept an argument based upon his logic. I have a feeling that it is not too likely.

You don't even need a theologian for that do you? Personally, I don't care what belief someone holds. That is up to them. But when they start publicly declaring scientific explanations are dead without any valid reason and for the sake of their personal doctrines alone, I take issue with that. When they put pseudoscience on heavy rotation in an add campaign that has less strength than wet tissue paper, I take issue with that.

Based on what I have seen, I would agree. The logic I have seen most prominently displayed is of the fallacy type more than any other. I'm not sure what fallacy it is that leads to the claim that the theory of evolution has been refuted by a theory of evolution, therefore there is no evolution. That's a puzzler.

If the volume of material presented wasn't present like a massive add campaign I might not be so inclined to ignore. But in many instances it is so voluminous it overwhelms the presence of other posters that I may actually want to read. I have missed posts in that constant deluge only to find them much later by accident. Probably missed some.

 

[LIIA]

@LIIA , one source is not a "refutation". By that standard Islam has been refuted. I can find one expert that will say that Islam is a false religion. By your standards your religion is false.

Islam has nothing to do with our argument about the ToE and specifically the MS being disproved. see these articles

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis (religiousforums.com)

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis (religiousforums.com)

 

[LIIA]

I'm not sure who you are responding to here. But I can guess. Personally, I see no value in the biased, uninformed positions that are just the incessant parroting of dead claims with no substance. So I fixed it to no longer see them at all. I found those words to be unimportant and not worth seeing.

As an example, I think the Default Paradigm is one of the key straw men that is thrown out to be beaten to death as if it means something and achieves something. The only achievement I have seen here is that the anti-science, "my ideology wins by default" crowd know so little about the science they deny that their versions of if cannot be anything but garbled, simple and generally inconsistent with facts and logic.

What have we seen here to be hurled at theory? Repetitive written versions of the Gish Gallop repeated ad nauseum. Failed. Denis Noble says "touch your toes" isn't an argument. It comes off looking like a parrots playing chess.

Constantly conflating the origin of life with the evolution of life so that they can defeat an argument that doesn't exist. Beating a dead horse comes to mind.

Misrepresenting what anyone supporting science says and then demeaning those folks by claiming they are children without anything valid to contribute against the opposing the position. We don't really need to see that, let alone see it repeated as if it is a significant argument against science. It is as meaningful as the central theme of this thread of attacking poor old, dead Darwin.

Then there is the old and getting older attempt to take any disagreement or argument in science as the collapse of the entire field. How many times have we seen that lead to premature and flaccid declarations of victory? More of the same old chess.

You and I and many of us are aware that a scientific theory stands until new information comes along that clearly and consistently stumps that theory. Something new is not only unexplained by the existing theory, but can't be explained by it. Even if that has happened or will happen to the existing theory of evolution, that doesn't mean what creationists want it to mean no matter how hard they click their ruby slippers together and chant "There's no place for science". Explanations that supplant existing theory are going to be scientific and not "my favorite belief system wins by default". Not only that, but claims here that all the assumptions of the theory of evolution have been refuted are untrue.

It is my opinion that all that we have seen here are either the same old dead claims and meaningless attempts at arguments or a few slightly modified versions of those. I would love to see an expanded discussion of the extended evolutionary synthesis, but you won't see that here. Here claims about it are used as if it were a bludgeon with no attempt to explain it, support or provide unbiased discussion of the points and counterpoints. It's only purpose seems to be in declaring it refutes the theory of evolution, which makes no sense at all. A theory of evolution defeats a theory of evolution therefore there is no such thing as evolution? What kind of nonsense is that and to see it fronted as if it were some sort of reasoned explanation that requires no support. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I would have thought it was some sort of really bad joke. About as irrational as claiming the theory of evolution is inherently evil.

Good to see you back. I'm still considering a few subjects for threads including an actual discussion of the theory of evolution and the extended evolutionary synthesis. When I get to feeling better, I may set one up. No straw men allowed.

To think we saw it all here on Mulberry Street.

sorry but you need to wake up, see # 2370

Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis (MS) contradicts empirical evidence of latest science; it’s an outdated theory that should be replaced. Other than that, currently there is no alternative that could provide an agreed upon theoretical paradigm as an acceptable replacement to the disproved MS. This is where the ToE stands today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We’re a little beyond that, where have you been? The traditional framework of the Modern Synthesis is outdated and should be replaced. See #781

Regardless of any disagreement or actually being at the opposite end of the argument but "LegionOnomaMoi" showed a rare example of ethical/rational argument that is very rarely seen in discussions with evolutionists. He shared the articles below for the benefit of everyone. You may want to review it and review his post #2266 and #2286. We don’t have to be in agreement, but we can debate in an ethical manner beyond denial and fallacious tricks.

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis (religiousforums.com)

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis (religiousforums.com)

View attachment 67734

View attachment 67735

That does not mean that it is wrong. You really are struggling here. And once again, that appears to be a minority view. Even if the "replace the framework" you will still be a monkey. You will still share a common ancestor with a cow. In fact you even share a common ancestor with a pig.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Islam has nothing to do with our argument about the ToE and specifically the MS being disproved. see these articles

Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis (religiousforums.com)

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis (religiousforums.com)

View attachment 67736

View attachment 67737

It is the same "logic".

Your logic is fallacious and even you can see it. You just admitted that it was since you refuse to be consistent in its application.

 

[rational experiences]

Natural man's living presence versus the theist scientist.

Who as a man theoried creationist evolution theories.

So it's natural human living rights versus any other type of human theist rationally.

Instead theists all making the same claim by variances of word use who had all argued against presence of human life.

Was always the actual argument.

Humans who pretended....when the earth hadn't existed when law said it does.

Humans who pretended no created creation existed....when it had.

Humans who pretended no biological life existed....when law of nature says it had.

Everything did exist with a human.

The theory of theorising is a human story why they began theorising after they lost their human man conscious mind.

By brain prickling burn. CH themes.

Who had been given advice how to convert all forms.

Was the human warnings...natural human rights to live in nature versus theists who pretend we don't exist where we exist.

Is the argument itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sorry but you need to wake up, see # 2370

Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis (MS) contradicts empirical evidence of latest science; it’s an outdated theory that should be replaced. Other than that, currently there is no alternative that could provide an agreed upon theoretical paradigm as an acceptable replacement to the disproved MS. This is where the ToE stands today.

View attachment 67739

One week source that you did not understand is not a refutation.

And even worse, that is merely a proposal that how evolution occurs needs a more thorough explanation. It is not a refutation of evolution. All of those people know that you are still a monkey.

By the way, that is not an insult. It is a fact. All people are "monkeys'.

 

[LIIA]

That does not mean that it is wrong. You really are struggling here. And once again, that appears to be a minority view. Even if the "replace the framework" you will still be a monkey. You will still share a common ancestor with a cow. In fact you even share a common ancestor with a pig.

I don’t share the same lineage with you.

Do you even see how ridiculous is your claim? I guess you don’t.

 

[LIIA]

It is the same "logic".

Your logic is fallacious and even you can see it. You just admitted that it was since you refuse to be consistent in its application.

You are making an irrelevant empty claim about Islam in an attempt to get the discussion about the MS out of track. Islam has nothing to do with our discussion. I never claimed the MS is false because of any religious beliefs