Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

it's actually more, but you didn't address the point. the point is randomness vs. purpose. if the changes are random/nononpurposeful, then the majority would be random damages/errors. why the vast majority are "benign"? mutations are not random errors; mutations are directed beneficial changes/adaptations.

I suspect you are right and have read studies in the past that support this.

I suspect it could be caused by simple synchronicity and mostly an artefact of consciousness. Obviously this is highly complex and could be the hand of a greater "consciousness" or the Creator. We're a long way from the point this can even be studied and as long as Look and See Science is wedded to the status quo we might never be able to study such things. For all practical purposes most science is stuck in the 1880's but this isn't apparent because human knowledge is increasing exponentially anyway. If it's true that science is stuck then knowledge technology will eventually will eventually stop and there will be hell to pay.

 

[cladking]

Even many of the neurons in brain are not fully-functional (we have 86 billion of them). Evolution has put a huge reserve in all our body functions. LIIA, you are not using all the capabilities that evolution has provided to you.

You seem to be assuming some ancestor species didn't need these neurons for some purpose (such as communication) and now the function is obsolete. People are born without these and grow them at two.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This has been the answer ever since it was noted that there are missing links.

The very occurrence of "missing links" is a certainty if one understands how fossils form.
There will always be "missing links" in the fossil record. Another way of saying this is that there will always be "gaps" in the fossil record. It can't be any other way.

An individual of EVERY GENERATION that ever lived would have to fossilize AND be found by us for there to be no "missing links". And that is an impossibility for obvious reasons.

The world doesn't owe you any fossils. We are lucky to have as many as we do.

Thus to use "missing links" as an argument against evolution, is to expose ones ignorance on the matter.
It's like arguing against you aging by saying that you can't show us a picture of your face of every second that you were alive to show the continues stream of your face growing older without "missing links".

It's ridiculous at best.

But it is not the answer because each changed fossil tends to be found at the beginning of its era at the bottom of a stratum.

more bs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You've been asked dozens of times to show a single instance of gradual change over a long period of time and have never responded.

I responded. You just ignored it.

Every cultivation program in the world is an example.

Or did you think that the chiquita banana that you buy at the store was created overnight in a single generation of cultivation of wild banana's?

How about Brussel sprouts and broccoli? Both have been cultivated by humans through artificial selection from the SAME ancestor plant.

Speciation happens and it never occurs in a single generation.
This is so because micro-changes are accumulated over many generations.

Derp.

If we had a complete fossil record of everything

An impossibility, as anyone who has the slightest clue about how fossils form would realize.

I have little doubt you could find evidence for just such a thing for one or two species but the time period would be far shorter than you imagine.

We don't need fossils to demonstrate that speciation happens gradually.
We see the gradual nature of change every day on every farm.



Not to mention plain old common sense.
Every new born has a set of mutations. The human mutation rate is ~55 per newborn.
That's 55 things in your DNA (among billions of datapoints) that you didn't get from your parents and which are unique to YOU.
When you get kids, they inherit those 55 from you. They add their own 55 mutations. Now they have 110. That's 110 things in their DNA that your parents didn't have.
They get kids and pass them on. Their kids add 55 of their own. Now those kids have 165 things in their DNA that their great grandparents (your parents) didn't have.

And so on and so on.

DNA is inherited.
Mutations are past on.
Thus the changes obtained through mutation accumulate over the generations.


How do you NOT walk a mile taking steps of 1 inch at a time?
It's really simple. So simple that I can not really take it seriously when someone opposes such simple concepts.

1+1+1+1+1+...........................................+1 = big number.

Derp.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

it's actually more, but you didn't address the point. the point is randomness vs. purpose. if the changes are random/nononpurposeful, then the majority would be random damages/errors. why the vast majority are "benign"? mutations are not random errors; mutations are directed beneficial changes/adaptations.

The majority of mutations are neutral because they happen in noncoding DNA.
Then there's also plenty of mutations that are neutral eventhough they happen in active DNA yet result in synonyms. As in: they don't actually change the workings of the DNA sequences. Or they introduce things that do impact phenotype but have no effect on overall fitness. Like for example a new eye color. If potential partners don't care about eye color (sexual selection) and if the new color doesn't affect the workings of the eyes, then there are no selection pressures working on it. By any and all accounts such mutations are also neutral.


That's why most are neutral.


Also, and this is something many people ignorant of the mechanisms of evolution have a hard time understanding... "beneficial" and "harmful" are also quite situational.

People hear "harmful" and they think "defects". Like being born with 3 arms or missing chromosomes or whatever. This is not the case. Obviously such things are harmful, but those are like literally direct health hazards, regardless of habitat.

There's also harmful mutations that pose no direct health hazard, but which hurt overall fitness due to not fitting well with the habitat.

A polar bear with a mutation that changes the color of his fur, would see his fitness reduced because it would affect his ability to hunt against a snowy background.

Having white fur while being a hunter living in a snowy background is beneficial.
Having white fur while being a hunter living in a brownish background is harmful.

What works in one situation doesn't necessarily work in another.

 

[cladking]

The very occurrence of "missing links" is a certainty if one understands how fossils form.
There will always be "missing links" in the fossil record. Another way of saying this is that there will always be "gaps" in the fossil record. It can't be any other way.

I didn't say there should be no missing links. I said you have been challenged to provide any instance of gradual change over a long period of time and continually fail. This is not relevant to missing links.

It seems believers are reading from a playbook instead of thinking.

You must be able to show evidence experiment and evidence for a real theory and you have neither. The ToE is bunk and does not represent how or why species change.

 

[cladking]

I responded. You just ignored it.

But you can't even prod my memory can you?

"Responding" with soundbites from a playbook is neither science nor argument.

We see the gradual nature of change every day on every farm.

ROFL.

Sounds a little like sudden change doesn't it.

1+1+1+1+1+...........................................+1 = big number.

Looks like about 6 to me if solved mathematically. If solved linguistically it is more than 6 which may or may not be a big number. Solved symbolically it might be ~55 which is not a big number.

Are you rephrasing your belief in Evolution?

 

[cladking]

The very occurrence of "missing links" is a certainty if one understands how fossils form.

While this is NOT relevant to anything it also is not strictly true.

If a large handful of needles are thrown into a haystack you don't need to find every one to deduce a pattern. Obviously you aren't going to find every needle all at once; it might take centuries and be a gradual process.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't say there should be no missing links. I said you have been challenged to provide any instance of gradual change over a long period of time and continually fail

So you are just going to ignore the post 2 posts above yours?

It seems believers are reading from a playbook instead of thinking.

You must be able to show evidence experiment and evidence for a real theory and you have neither. The ToE is bunk and does not represent how or why species change.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you can't even prod my memory can you?

"Responding" with soundbites from a playbook is neither science nor argument.



ROFL.

Sounds a little like sudden change doesn't it.

Funny how you ignored every major point in the post by simply editing it out.

And then you wonder why I don't bother with endlessly repeating myself.

Looks like about 6 to me if solved mathematically. If solved linguistically it is more than 6 which may or may not be a big number. Solved symbolically it might be ~55 which is not a big number.

This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.
And the reason why I am nuts to even bother with you.

 

[cladking]

Funny how you ignored every major point in the post by simply editing it out.

If you actually read my post you'd see that this is nonsense...

"An individual of EVERY GENERATION that ever lived would have to fossilize AND be found by us for there to be no "missing links". And that is an impossibility for obvious reasons."

...in the terms I'm talking about. And it is also an illogical non sequitur. You don't need a fossil from every generation you merely need to show that the fossils available make a gradual change. Your arguments are wholly illogical in terms of definitions and experiment.

You are merely making excuses for the lack of evidence. Of course the ramps were removed after the pyramid was built. Of course we don't have a fossil for every animal that ever lived or even from every generation.

You do not have evidence for gradual change and your evidence for survival of the fittest is far more contrived than experimental. You have defined terms and methods so that the ToE was was virtually determined in advance. Like all argument not based in experiment on logical foundations it is circular.

I address every single one of your points every single time and you rarely even seem to understand mine and more rarely ever address it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This has been the answer ever since it was noted that there are missing links. But it is not the answer because each changed fossil tends to be found at the beginning of its era at the bottom of a stratum.

Check, that is not correct.
@TaglIaliatelliMonster gave a nice example a few posts ago.

You seem to be assuming some ancestor species didn't need these neurons for some purpose (such as communication) and now the function is obsolete. People are born without these and grow them at two.

Tht again is not true. I am surprised as to where you get your information from?
"Neurogenesis is most active during embryonic development and is responsible for producing all the various types of neurons of the organismm .." Wikipedia - Neurogenesis

 

[cladking]

Check, that is not correct.
@TaglIaliatelliMonster gave a nice example a few posts ago.


Tht again is not true. I am surprised as to where you get your information from?
"Neurogenesis is most active during embryonic development and is responsible for producing all the various types of neurons of the organismm .." Wikipedia - Neurogenesis

You are interpreting "evidence" to support your theory. The existence of distinct horses hardly proves or is even evidence for a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. In order to fit with all experiment, logic, and evidence it must be interpreted to demonstrate three sudden changes in species and sheds no light at all on the causation. I would suggest however that each of these fossils is of an individual and they were each alive before fossilization. Since consciousness is life each of these individuals was conscious and this certainly played a role in their entire life as well as their deaths. It was a long series of conscious decisions that led inextricably to their death and fossilization.

 

[cladking]

Tht again is not true. I am surprised as to where you get your information from?

It is a discovery I have made. If you start with the premises that reality is exactly what it appears and all individuals always make perfect sense in terms of their premises and live my life, my individuality, you'd have probably made the exact same discovery. But if you actually consider those premises I believe you'll note that they are highly atypical and rarely fundamental to any individual's beliefs.

Nature would never provide a species with something that is unnecessary, never necessary, and superfluous. Just like goosebumps they are an artefact of a time they were needed.

And by the way some people are hairier and goosebumps also make it easier to detect touch. With the hair standing up touch can also be detected from a greater distance.

All my information is interpretation of experiment and filtered only by a few simple axioms. This means ALL EXPERIMENT, not just whatever seems to apply.

 

[cladking]

"Neurogenesis is most active during embryonic development and is responsible for producing all the various types of neurons of the organismm .." Wikipedia - Neurogenesis

Obviously an individual is born with more brain cells then he grows later! This is very pervasive throughout all mammals and most other species.

I'm not confident wiki is correct in this instance since a few analog brain cell have recently been found. It would be logical if these were unique to our species, homo omnisciencis, but I have no idea. If unique then they are almost necessarily grown after birth.

Be this as it may there are still billions of disused or barely used brain cells that are grown by every individual between two and three years of age. Every individual who learns language also grows a speech center in undifferentiated tissue. Logically if this speech center were natural to the species we would have been born with it. I simply maintain they mustta had a function and I suggest this function was to manipulate and use a representative, digital, and metaphysical language which is indirectly the basis of "all" religion. We "think" instead of reacting to stimuli in terms of knowledge as people did before the "tower of babel". We think religion is founded on nothing and we think we know everything because we reason in circles and color in our ignorance through extrapolation and interpolation. Such it has always been every day since the tower fell. At night we lie in fear because our brains still know of our ignorance.

The ToE is simply a generational circular argument that is unsupported by experiment. 2 + 2 certainly equals 4 but it not the same thing as 2 x 2 or the square root of 16. We are describing a very complex process that always results in one (the individual) as something exceedingly simplistic and essentially wholly incorrect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't need a fossil from every generation you merely need to show that the fossils available make a gradual change.

Ok

Denial in 3...2...1...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a discovery I have made.

I'm sure the academic world is tripping over itself about it.

 

[cladking]

Ok

View attachment 68568

Denial in 3...2...1...

*** mod delete ***

I say you don't need a fossil from every generation and you present four fossils from more than 10,000,000 generations as proof of gradual change.

 

[cladking]

I'm sure the academic world is tripping over itself about it.

It's more like they are holding their breath at this point in time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are interpreting "evidence" to support your theory.

Hahaha.... I didn't even have to wait for the denial. There it is already.

So, we don't need fossils from every generation, we just need a series that exhibits gradual change - your own words.

Then when you get exactly that, this is your response.

Great.

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

So tell me, what series of fossils would satisfy you?
What properties would they have to have for you to acknowledge that they show gradual change?

I would suggest however that each of these fossils is of an individual and they were each alive before fossilization.

No..... really? WOW! Who would have thought!!!! THIS IS BRAND NEW INFORMATION!!!





I have a headache from the massive facepalm.