Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

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.)

No one is claiming that evolution is the only process in biology. That it is not is not evidence against the theory of evolution.

Good luck with the roaches. They can be tenacious pests. I've had success with baited traps and it avoids some of the issues with sprays.

 

[YoursTrue]

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???

No, soft hard shells. OK, bye for now.

 

[LIIA]

Darwin did not know the details of how and why.

I’m not concerned about Darwin; my point is the status of the theory today.

What is being proposed is merely changing the title because some additional factors have been discovered.

False, the core concern is about the challenges/contradictions posed against Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis because of the recent scientific development and the evident need to replace the outdated/disproved theory.

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

If a theory is disproved, then conclusions on the basis of a false framework are necessarily false.

Without establishing explanatory theoretical framework consistent with empirical evidence, any beliefs/ assumptions about evolution wouldn’t be justified or supported.

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.

Nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

The origin of life is entirely different than the evolution of life. We do not have a scientific theory explaining the origin of life. If the impossible were to happen and divine creation was found to be scientifically verifiable as life's origin, evolution would still be the process driving and connecting it all together.

The scientific reports of evolution are not conjectures. Repeating it won't make it so.

Evolution in roach populations has lead to the selection of populations resistant to insecticides, just as selection has lead to antibiotic-resistant bacterial populations. You could spend a lifetime researching just that aspect of evolution and there are thousands of papers on the subject.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, soft hard shells. OK, bye for now.

Good night. Good luck with the roaches.

 

[LIIA]

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?

Islam being refuted or not has nothing to do with current absence of any agreed upon evolutionary theoretical framework consistent with empirical evidence. none.

See #2399, #2370, #911 & #781.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not concerned about Darwin; my point is the status of the theory today.

If you mean the modern synthesis? It is still very healthy. One thing that you need to understand about scientist is that they are human too. Sometimes when one makes a new discovery he will say "Well this explains everything". It usually does not. People often over estimate the strengths of their own discoveries. The modern synthesis will be updated but I do not see it being dropped at all.

False, the core concern is about the challenges/contradictions posed against Neo-Darwinism/Modern Synthesis because of the recent scientific development and the evident need to replace the outdated/disproved theory.

That may be being proposed by some zealots that over estimate their own contribution. But once again it is not happening. At least not was you envision it.

If a theory is disproved, then conclusions on the basis of a false framework are necessarily false.

Without establishing explanatory theoretical framework consistent with empirical evidence, any beliefs/ assumptions about evolution wouldn’t be justified or supported.

Sorry, but you have no clue at all how science works.

Nonsense.

Nope, it is fact. You are a monkey. And all of the people that you site would agree with that. You can't pick and choose if you are going to use those people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Islam being refuted or not has nothing to do with current absence of any agreed upon evolutionary theoretical framework consistent with empirical evidence. none.

See #2399, #2370, #911 & #781.

Please do not refer to your old refuted posts. Yo9 are just admitting that you are wrong by doing so.

And once again, it is your poor logic that says that Islam is refuted. Why do you keep saying that?

 

[LIIA]

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

You wish

It will be replaced some day by a better version.

A meaningless empty claim, what really matter is the facts today. See #2399

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.

It appears to be “The ostrich effect". Would it be evidence for sharing common ancestor with an ostrich?

 

[LIIA]

Please do not refer to your old refuted posts. Yo9 are just admitting that you are wrong by doing so.

you wish.

have a good night

 

[Subduction Zone]

You wish
[/quiote]
No, that is the way that science works.

A meaningless empty claim, what really matter is the facts today. See #2399

No thank you. But I do thank you for admitting that you are wrong.

It appears to be “The ostrich effect". Would it be evidence for sharing common ancestor with an ostrich?

LOL!! You are the one burying your head. You get corrected and all that you can do is to ignore it.

You have no evidence for your false beliefs. I have endless evidence for mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you wish.

have a good night

Projection again. All that you can do is to make failed argument after failed argument. You do not have to believe me. Look up the people that you are referring to. See what they believe. None of them deny the fact that you are an ape. Or are you claiming to be a tree today?

 

[gnostic]

Islam being refuted or not has nothing to do with current absence of any agreed upon evolutionary theoretical framework consistent with empirical evidence. none.

See #2399, #2370, #911 & #781.

You said it yourself to others, actually reflect back to your own arguments:

“You wish.”​

Your posts are just claims, unsubstantiated assumptions and dishonest misinformation.

Evolutionary biology aren’t “theoretical”, as there are more evidence to support the various mechanisms than even theory of gravity and the theory of quantum mechanics.

But it isn’t a contest between biology and physics, because they are respectively exploring and investigating very different natural phenomena.

And I am not saying evolutionary biology is infallible or inerrant...no theories are. Maybe in the future, someone will provide a better alternative to explain biodiversity of life that support past, present e& future evidence, but as of now, the theory of Evolution is solid, despite your dishonest claims there are no evidence and ineffectual logic.

You keep saying there are no evidence, but that’s just misinformation coming off from you, and almost everyone can see your lack of credibility in your false claims...

...the only ones who agree with you, are themselves creationists. They are entitled to their personal beliefs and personal opinions just as you are...but that’s all they are - beliefs and opinions - wishful fantasies.

Making claims are not evidence. Nor are opinions & beliefs.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think it is that and the fact that many of them know so little about the actual science that they think they have come up with some new, never-before-seen, gotcha denial that is just the same old, same old.

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.

I realized a while ago that this "debate" is effectively dead and that creationists really don't have any new arguments, which means any attempts at debate are going to just be rehashing of old talking points, most of which are decades old. IOW, the "incessant parroting of dead claims" as you so aptly described it.

I really need to let it go and stop engaging with the tiny handful of creationists who are left. For years many of us on the science side eagerly awaited the day when this wasn't a debate any more. Well, that day is here, and we need to accept it and move on to other things.

It looks like you've already done that, which is commendable. More of us need to follow your example.

 

[cladking]

Evolutionary biology aren’t “theoretical”, as there are more evidence to support the various mechanisms than even theory of gravity...

This is a very apt analogy.

We have a theory of gravity that tells us neither what gravity is nor how it works. We can see things attract one another and that dead individuals don't have off spring. Obviously death attracts all unfit things and all individuals attract either for food or sex. Reality is very simple once you accept the basic principles and begin rushing around in circles. Species change and unfit individuals die. Obviously species are composed only of the most fit and it looks like they are changing so slowly we can never observe it.

It all makes perfect sense. Who needs to know what causes gravity when you can see its effects from tides to every single event everywhere.

Anyone who believes in "gravity" can adopt "evolution". Run it around the block a few times and see if it grows on you. Don't worry if it dies since there's always a fitter and healthier theory coming along.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a very apt analogy.

We have a theory of gravity that tells us neither what gravity is nor how it works. We can see things attract one another and that dead individuals don't have off spring. Obviously death attracts all unfit things and all individuals attract either for food or sex. Reality is very simple once you accept the basic principles and begin rushing around in circles. Species change and unfit individuals die. Obviously species are composed only of the most fit and it looks like they are changing so slowly we can never observe it.

It all makes perfect sense. Who needs to know what causes gravity when you can see its effects from tides to every single event everywhere.

Anyone who believes in "gravity" can adopt "evolution". Run it around the block a few times and see if it grows on you. Don't worry if it dies since there's always a fitter and healthier theory coming along.

You can always try to refute gravity where I live. Let's go for a hike. You will have numerous opportunities to do so.

 

[gnostic]

This is a very apt analogy.

We have a theory of gravity that tells us neither what gravity is nor how it works. We can see things attract one another and that dead individuals don't have off spring. Obviously death attracts all unfit things and all individuals attract either for food or sex. Reality is very simple once you accept the basic principles and begin rushing around in circles. Species change and unfit individuals die. Obviously species are composed only of the most fit and it looks like they are changing so slowly we can never observe it.

It all makes perfect sense. Who needs to know what causes gravity when you can see its effects from tides to every single event everywhere.

Anyone who believes in "gravity" can adopt "evolution". Run it around the block a few times and see if it grows on you. Don't worry if it dies since there's always a fitter and healthier theory coming along.

I didn’t say gravity don’t exist, as there are plenty evidence for gravity, not only on earth, but for every objects in our Solar System, other stars in the Milky Way, and other galaxies in the universe.

Theoretical physicists are still trying to work gravity “at the quantum level”...anyone who can find the solution to “Quantum Gravity” may finally find the answer that combine General Relativity (GR) with Quantum Field Theory (QFT), the so-called “Theory of Everything” that even Einstein couldn’t solve.

There are number of unanswered questions to physics and mathematics...that remained to be solved.

But biology on Earth, is better understood, including Evolution, and tested.

There are even more than testable evidence to support the various evolutionary mechanisms (mechanisms like Mutations, Genetic Drift, Natural Selection, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking, have all been tested).

Do I think it is possible for biologists to find alternative answers to biodiversity of life?

My answer would be:

SURE, but until someone can present testable alternative that meet with past and present evidence, as well as backed by any future evidence, the current (modern) evolutionary biology hasn’t been refuted.

It will take time...People, whether it be physicists or biologists can always generate theoretical framework or hypothesis...but sometimes it could take decades or even a century or more, to find some ways to test the theoretical framework or hypothesis.

Take Peter Higgs and other theoretical physicists coming up with theoretical hypothesis that explain particle mass generation of other particles (the Higgs Boson), way back in 1964 (for Higgs).

It was only in 2013 that they were able to test the Higgs Mechanics, using the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. That’s almost 50 years.

Now, there may well be alternative to the current theory of Evolution, but some biologists have offered some alternatives, but so far, these alternatives have fallen short in the testing department.

I am “open” to alternative solutions to physics fields or to biology fields, and to other sciences, but until they are testable and more importantly tested, these alternatives aren’t “science”.

 

[LIIA]

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

False, the experiment proved directed adaptation not random evolution. It’s a totally different process.

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.

False, Lenski’s “Escherichia Coli” experiment is another example of directed adaptation not random evolution. See the last item in #1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

Look up the people that you are referring to. See what they believe. None of them deny the fact that you are an ape. Or are you claiming to be a tree today?

You still fail to get it, I don’t need to look them up, as I said many times, I only quote evolutionist scientists because you wouldn’t accept otherwise, would you? My point is not what anyone believes or doesn’t believe, My point is the absence of established agreed upon theoretical framework, unless it gets established, any claims are baseless, do you understand? See #2399

Darwin's Illusion | Page 120 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

Evolutionary biology aren’t “theoretical”, as there are more evidence to support the various mechanisms than even theory of gravity and the theory of quantum mechanics.

This is one of the most ridiculous claims I’ve seen on this thread so far. Such oxymoron is typically expected from you. Do you even understand what you are talking about?

The theoretical framework provides explanation, proposes mechanisms and makes predictions. The observations/empirical evidence are either consistent with the predictions/proposed mechanisms then it gets accepted as evidence for the theory otherwise it would be evidence against the theory. You cannot separate “evidence” from “theoretical framework, evidence must be with or against a theory. Without a theory, evidence has no meaning. Didn’t I explain the same to you before?

See #2164 & #331.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 109 | Religious Forums
Darwin's Illusion | Page 17 | Religious Forums

but as of now, the theory of Evolution is solid

You wish.

Such an ignorant wishful thinking, how can a theory (Modern Synthesis) be solid if empirical evidence of latest science challenged/disproved all of its fundamental assumptions/mechanisms?

You really shouldn’t engage in this kind of arguments. You neither have the knowledge of the subject matter nor the ability of logical thinking. You’re incapable of understanding the most basic concepts of the theory that you’re advocating as clearly seen in your claim that selection works independently as a separate mechanism without any need for random mutations (see your post #2245 and my response #2248 & #2257). It’s another oxymoron of yours similar to your illogical separation of evidence from theoretical framework as explained above.

You see yourself as someone who know/understand. You need to know that both are not true. Here is an advice, take it or leave it. Don’t jump to conclusions. Try to think, understand and get the knowledge of the subject matter before you talk.

Peace.