Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

It's amazing how those believing unequivocally in the theory will stand by it even though there is no substantiation except in conjecture and some fusion/fission in a testtube. (yikes)

They cannot differentiate between their opinion/understanding of evolution as an axiomatic system and the fact that currently there is no agreed upon coherent explanatory theoretical framework for the theory of evolution. See # 2399

Per the article below, Critics in connection with the many recent developments that pose deep challenges/contradictions to Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis invoked terms like” postmodern synthesis,” “integrative synthesis,” and “extended evolutionary synthesis”. However no explicit alternative was offered that could provide agreed upon unifying theoretical paradigm.

In absence of an established agreed upon scientific theory, evolutionists don’t have any ground to stand on.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s not one source. Multiple sources were provided specifically addressing the fact about Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis being challenged and in need for replacement. See #2370, #911 & #781.

The article below stated, “There is a growing constituency among biologists and other evolutionary theorists these days in favor of the once heretical idea that the time has come to move decisively beyond the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary biology”

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

What you and others repeatedly failed to understand is that I’m addressing current status of the evolutionary theoretical framework not what you, other evolutionists or scientists believe or don’t believe about evolution as an axiom. It’s irrelevant to my argument. Can you understand the difference?

Here is summary of the overall status/facts today specifically with respect to the explanatory theoretical framework concerning the concept of evolution:

a) Abiogenesis didn’t get established or accepted as a scientific theory because of the lack of evidence.

b) Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis (MS) contradicts empirical evidence of latest science; it’s an outdated theory that should be replaced.

c) Currently there is no alternative theory that could provide an agreed upon theoretical paradigm as an acceptable replacement to the disproved MS.

The facts above cannot be disputed. You may dwell in your denial if you wish but that doesn’t change the fact that currently evolution as a theory does not have any agreed upon explanatory theoretical framework consistent with latest empirical evidence of the 21st century.

Without established agreed upon theoretical framework, evolution as a theory has no basis to stand on.

You do not even understand what that means. I do not know why you keep brining it up. Darwin only pointed out the obvious. Well I guess it was not so obvious before his time. Darwin did not know the details of how and why.

Since them we have moved on and found out more and more about how evolution happens and if even changed the title a couple of times. What is being proposed is merely changing the title because some additional factors have been discovered.

None of these discoveries refute the fact of evolution. The people that you are referring to would still know that you are a monkey.

They would still know that you share a common ancestor with horses, dogs, cats, pigs, and going further back snakes and lizards, Going even further back you share a common ancestor with carp and trout.

Going way way back you share a common ancestor with a banana.

These new works do not refute those facts at all.

 

[LIIA]

don't you believe we all come from Adam and Eve?

Sure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, even so I doubt it would be of benefit to you, but I’ll explain.

In your post # 2369 you said, “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.”

You imagined a scenario that you found the credible expert, shared the info about Islam with me, then I rejected it hence my imagined rejection of the info that you didn’t provide is your reason to conclude that my declaration about the MS is false!!! Do you even understand what you’re talking about?

Find the credible expert, share the info with me, find out whether I would accept the info or provide logical reasons to refute it and finally after you do all of that whatever my reaction is, it’s still totally irrelevant to my specific declaration about the Modern Synthesis being outdated theory in need of replacement. Your speculation of my reaction to your imagined argument about Islam has nothing to do with our discussion about the MS.

And your use of one small group of people, that do not even refute evolution has been rejected. Once again by your logic Islam has been refuted. I am not making the claim that it has been. I am merely pointing out the folly of your way of debating.

 

[LIIA]

I was hoping that this thread might develop into a genuine discussion of science coming out of those posts. I did appreciate the articles that were posted and that they were more than just Denis Noble says touch your toes.

Are you sure you actually appreciated the articles confirming that the Modern Synthesis is outdated theory that should be replaced? That is a great progress!!

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)

Even so "LegionOnomaMoi” is on the opposite side of my argument but he is one of the most knowledgeable persons about the subject matter on this thread. He debates ethically and doesn’t rely on ignorant denial or fallacious tricks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure.

And that part of the Bible has been shown to be a myth.

Do you believe the fairy tale of Noah's magic boat?

Perhaps we should start there since that was known to have never happened long before Darwin came along.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What's a "creationist"? @metis also.

OK, I realize you may not comprehend what I'm saying because we are speaking two different languages although English. Thus I speak to you in the best way possible.
I worked for a professor at one time. He was the head of a lab in a technical college. His goal was working with students and separating water into hydrogen and oxygen. In order to do so, of course you and others must know this, a current must pass through a water electrolyte. So experiments do not demonstrate how evolution occurs. Yes, no matter what a person thinks or believes, it is God that will make the grand decision about outcome.

I fully understand what you are claiming. Yet, it is not true.

Experiments do demonstrate evolution. You just don't want to hear that.

This paper exactly describes an experiment that demonstrates the action of natural selection on a population and how that population evolves. You will no doubt deny it, but that won't change the fact that it is a demonstration of evolution through experimentation which you continually repeat doesn't exist.
http://176.9.41.242/docs/genetics/selection/natural/2019-barrett.pdf

The Lenski experiment is another well-known example. There are literally thousands of experiments that demonstrate evolution. Even the authors that have been cited in support of the extended synthesis have experiment demonstrating evolution on which they are basing the challenge to existing theory. I find the denial of the existing experimental and observational evidence of evolution to be one of the most ridiculous claims used to reject the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you sure you actually appreciated the articles confirming that the Modern Synthesis is outdated theory that should be replaced? That is a great progress!!

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 67771

Even so "LegionOnomaMoi” is on the opposite side of my argument but he is one of the most knowledgeable persons about the subject matter on this thread. He debates ethically and doesn’t rely on ignorant denial or fallacious tricks.

Two points. First Dan has you on ignore. He cannot see your nonsense when you post it.

Second, that is not a refutation of evolution. It is only a proposal to take into consideration other factors such as epigenetics. You are still the product of evolution even if they are right.

 

[LIIA]

And your use of one small group of people, that do not even refute evolution has been rejected. Once again by your logic Islam has been refuted. I am not making the claim that it has been. I am merely pointing out the folly of your way of debating.

It’s fine with me if you insist that somehow Islam was refuted. That is your concern/wish not mine. unless you substantiate a claim, its meaningless.

You still fail to get it, my point is not exactly the refutation of evolution, my point is current absence of explanatory theoretical framework consistent with latest empirical evidence. See # 2399.

Without established agreed upon theoretical framework to support the concept of evolution, the ToE as a theory has no basis to stand on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s fine with me if you insist that somehow Islam was refuted. That is your concern/wish not mine. unless you substantiate a claim, its meaningless.

You still fail to get it, my point is not exactly the refutation of evolution, my point is current absence of explanatory theoretical framework consistent with latest empirical evidence. See # 2399.

Without established agreed upon theoretical framework to support the concept of evolution, the ToE as a theory has no basis to stand on.

No no no!

I am not saying that Islam is refuted. Can't you listen to others.

I am saying by your bad logic Islam has been refuted.

If you can see the flaw in refuting Islam, and if you demand an example I promise that it will be terribly flawed, then by your same standards the poor arguments that you use do not refute evolution.

Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?

 

[LIIA]

First Dan has you on ignore

sure, he is

Second, that is not a refutation of evolution. It is only a proposal to take into consideration other factors such as epigenetics. You are still the product of evolution even if they are right.

I’m not concerned about any attempt for any emerging or future explanation/framework that didn’t materialize yet; my point is the absence of that framework now, which doesn’t appear that it would emerge any time soon. Currently there no legitimate scientific theory consistent with latest empirical evidence to support the alleged concept of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Certainly belief counts for a lot, either way. However things were made, I no longer believe they happened by chance or sheer natural selection as to survival.

That is another straw man that is constantly offered as a reason to reject the science. There is no claim in science that evolution is a completely random process. The word selection in the term natural selection is the give away. Selection is not a random process.

As to survival, a mutation that increases the survivability of a population and can be screened through natural selection will give that population greater fitness under the conditions of selection. Some of citizens of Limone sul Garda in Italy have a mutation the results in a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease giving those members of that population with the mutation increased fitness and longevity. Another set of mutations in human populations allow some of us to better utilize lactose into adulthood meaning those with the mutation have an additional protein source available to them and all that advantages that entails. All evidence of evolution. You can deny it, but that is weak sauce to reject a theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sure, he is



I’m not concerned about any attempt for any emerging or future explanation/framework that didn’t materialize yet; my point is the absence of that framework now, which doesn’t appear that it would emerge any time soon. Currently there no legitimate scientific theory consistent with latest empirical evidence to support the alleged concept of evolution.

Sorry, but the framework is still there. It is working fine. A new one may work better.

Put it this way, Einstein refuted Newton's version of gravity. He had a more thorough explanation. That did not mean that when Newton's work was shown to be incorrect that people started to float away. The various theories of evolution are the same way. The modern synthesis is surely not perfect. It will be replaced some day by a better version. But like it or not that is no more a "refutation" of evolution than Einstein's work was. Einstein merely explained more and better. The same will happen in the future with evolution. But you will still be an ape no matter how much you complain.

EDIT: And yes. Dan put you on ignore. He could guess who I was talking to. He can see my response to you, but he cannot even see the quoted parts of my posts. When you put someone on ignore if someone else responds to him you can only see what the other person wrote.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, that is why evolution is treated as a fact. Just like gravity. All of the scientific evidence supports evolution and none of it refutes it. Just as all of the scientific evidence supports the concept of gravity.

Creationism on the other hand has no evidence. Most creationists do not even understand the concept of evidence and are afraid to learn The few that do understand the concept never can seem to find any evidence for creationism.

By the way, you do not know that "things were made". You only believe that and worse yet that is a belief that you cannot support with evidence. In a debate evidence can be your friend or it can be your enemy. In evolution debates creationists always treat evidence as if it were the enemy, though for anyone to accept their irrational beliefs they should realize that they need to support them with evidence.

It is clear to me that most people that reject the theory of evolution as a mandate of a sectarian doctrine don't understand that the process of evolution identified by all the observations and the theory that explains evolution are two different things. The tendency is to conflate the two with the idea that they are killing two birds with a single stone. Again, back to the old Default Paradigm.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is another straw man that is constantly offered as a reason to reject the science. There is no claim in science that evolution is a completely random process. The word selection in the term natural selection is the give away. Selection is not a random process.

It's not a straw man. I don't think selection has been proven. Yes, I mean 'natural selection.' I'm not going into a discussion of mutations now but I am inclined to ask if you think that forming a different organism that survives whatever the previous type doesn't can be demonstrated. I understand the theory but I don't believe it has been shown, and yes by shown I mean proven as if it happened and/or is happening. Even those hard shells do not indicate evolution to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is clear to me that most people that reject the theory of evolution as a mandate of a sectarian doctrine don't understand that the process of evolution identified by all the observations and the theory that explains evolution are two different things. The tendency is to conflate the two with the idea that they are killing two birds with a single stone. Again, back to the old Default Paradigm.

I'm not going to get into philosophy. What I am going to say, and it's getting late, is that looking at an ant run away and seeing a bird fly tells me it cannot come about by means of (sheer) evolution. And that is how I am going to settle it now. Hope you are well, I'm still trying to kill those roaches that worked their way into my apartment. They run really fast when they sense my presence coming close to smashing one. (I don't think they did that by selection of a natural kind.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a straw man. I don't think selection has been proven. Yes, I mean 'natural selection.' I'm not going into a discussion of mutations now but I am inclined to ask if you think that forming a different organism that survives whatever the previous type doesn't can be demonstrated. I understand the theory but I don't believe it has been shown, and yes by shown I mean proven as if it happened and/or is happening. Even those hard shells do not indicate evolution to me.

If you do not think that natural selection has not been shown to be a fact then you probably do not understand what it is in the first place.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not a straw man. I don't think selection has been proven. Yes, I mean 'natural selection.' I'm not going into a discussion of mutations now but I am inclined to ask if you think that forming a different organism that survives whatever the previous type doesn't can be demonstrated. I understand the theory but I don't believe it has been shown, and yes by shown I mean proven as if it happened and/or is happening. Even those hard shells do not indicate evolution to me.

Your not thinking something hasn't been demonstrated is not a standard for accepting or rejecting explanations and conclusions in science. Sorry. Given that you are wrong eliminates it as a reason entirely. I posted one article that shows experimental demonstration of natural selection and mentioned the work of others that you can look up for yourself.

I have no idea what you are asking me.

I'm sorry, but I have read nothing that you have posted that would lead me to conclude that you have a very good understanding of theories in science, evolution or any other.

I'm not going down the road of "proven" anymore. In my view it is a straw floating in water for the drowning.

Hard shells???

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your not thinking something hasn't been demonstrated is not a standard for accepting or rejecting explanations and conclusions in science. Sorry. Given that you are wrong eliminates it as a reason entirely. I posted one article that shows experimental demonstration of natural selection and mentioned the work of others that you can look up for yourself.

I have no idea what you are asking me.

I'm sorry, but I have read nothing that you have posted that would lead me to conclude that you have a very good understanding of theories in science, evolution or any other.

I'm not going down the road of "proven" anymore. In my view it is a straw floating in water for the drowning.

Hard shells???

Fossils?

 

[YoursTrue]

I fully understand what you are claiming. Yet, it is not true.

Experiments do demonstrate evolution. You just don't want to hear that.

This paper exactly describes an experiment that demonstrates the action of natural selection on a population and how that population evolves. You will no doubt deny it, but that won't change the fact that it is a demonstration of evolution through experimentation which you continually repeat doesn't exist.
http://176.9.41.242/docs/genetics/selection/natural/2019-barrett.pdf

The Lenski experiment is another well-known example. There are literally thousands of experiments that demonstrate evolution. Even the authors that have been cited in support of the extended synthesis have experiment demonstrating evolution on which they are basing the challenge to existing theory. I find the denial of the existing experimental and observational evidence of evolution to be one of the most ridiculous claims used to reject the theory.

It's not that I don't want to hear it. Upon reading various treatises as well as reports of experiments, and yes, coming to believe what the Bible says about creation, I no longer believe life just "came about" by melding without an intelligent force behind it. And that, my friend, is where I stop. Because -- while there are conjectures and experiments, at least there are vaccines to clamp down on some illnesses, and hopefully roach poison works.