Darwin's Illusion

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are ridiculous.

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.

Then what DO you need?
Fossils from every other generation?



This series is exactly the kind of series we would expect to find.

Also: 10 million generations is waaaaay to much.

 

[cladking]

Then what DO you need?
Fossils from every other generation?

I would need to see any gradual change over a span of more than a 500,000 years as demonstrated by a minimum of 20 evenly spaced individuals. This is largely to eliminate the influence of atypical individuals.

Longer time spans are perfectly acceptable.

This series is exactly the kind of series we would expect to find.

It is is exactly what my theory predicts as well but my theory was founded on all experiment rather than just what seems to be applicable.

This "evidence", this "fossil record" simply does not support your beliefs preferentially to others' beliefs. It is not experiment. It is Look and See Science and mostly represents belief in Peers and expertise. Ancient people used a different interpretation to invent agriculture.

Again I remind you that science was invented to exclude opinion, even expert opinion, from the study of reality. Without experiment which is the only means to exclude opinion, there is no science. Experiment is a manifestation of an aspect of reality in the lab. Without these peeks at reality our study quickly goes astray. Without experiment to tie theory to reality there can be no theory and no science at all. Experiment is the scientific method not Peer review.

 

[cladking]

Optimistic x 1
TagliatelliMonster

It's been three years since I heard any Egyptologist say they mustta used ramps. When I started it was a steady cacophony of ramps this and ramps that coming from them.

Meanwhile the scientific testing done in 2015 STILL has not been allowed to be published while other testing that doesn't preferentially support my theory from as recently as 2022 has been released.

The harder I listen, the less I hear.

Shhhhh...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would need to see any gradual change over a span of more than a 500,000 years as demonstrated by a minimum of 20 evenly spaced individuals. This is largely to eliminate the influence of atypical individuals.

Longer time spans are perfectly acceptable.

That is a very unreasonable demand. Fossilization is extremely rare for land animals. What makes you think that such a demand is reasonable? Let's take the T-Rex for example. They lasted about 2.5 million years and it is calculated that there were about 2.5 billion of them:


How many T. rexes were there? Billions.

Meanwhile only 32 T Rex skeletons or partial skeletons have been found. That is roughly one out of 80 million, and T Rexes are BIG. Large animals fossilize more easily than smaller ones. It is more likely that they will get buried before they either rot away or get eaten.

Let's do a little math and I will use the T-Rex since that helps your case. A T Rex generation is estimated to be 19 years. let's be really generous, and make the math easier and call it 25 years. That means that there have been 100,000 generations of T Rex fossils. To accept T Rex evolution you want one per 20 generations that means that you think that there should be 5,000 T Rex fossils to accept evolution. Do you see how you were being unreasonable? We would not expect to see anywhere near that number of human fossils.

It is is exactly what my theory predicts as well but my theory was founded on all experiment rather than just what seems to be applicable.

This "evidence", this "fossil record" simply does not support your beliefs preferentially to others' beliefs. It is not experiment. It is Look and See Science and mostly represents belief in Peers and expertise. Ancient people used a different interpretation to invent agriculture.

And you forgot already that you do not know what a theory is. You do not know what evidence is. And you do not know what qualifies as an experiement.

Again I remind you that science was invented to exclude opinion, even expert opinion, from the study of reality. Without experiment which is the only means to exclude opinion, there is no science. Experiment is a manifestation of an aspect of reality in the lab. Without these peeks at reality our study quickly goes astray. Without experiment to tie theory to reality there can be no theory at all.

But I need to repeat, you do not understand the concept of what an experiment is.

 

[cladking]

Meanwhile only 32 T Rex skeletons or partial skeletons have been found. That is roughly one out of 80 million, and T Rexes are BIG. Large animals fossilize more easily than smaller ones. It is more likely that they will get buried before they either rot away or get eaten.

Jeesh!!!

That's one individual in 80,000,000 not one in 80,000,000 generations. 32 over 2 1/2 million years should be ample. Just show a gradual change that is represented in most of the fossils. Any change will do. Outliers are not always excludable but I'm easy.

There are lots of fossils of horses and i wager plenty enough to show a gradual change if such actually existed. I've never seen such evidence and therefore believe it most probably does not exist. What we don't see can be just as important as what we do when it comes to human behavior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jeesh!!!

That's one individual in 80,000,000 not one in 80,000,000 generations. 32 over 2 1/2 million years should be ample. Just show a gradual change that is represented in most of the fossils. Any change will do. Outliers are not always excludable but I'm easy.

There are lots of fossils of horses and i wager plenty enough to show a gradual change if such actually existed. I've never seen such evidence and therefore believe it most probably does not exist. What we don't see can be just as important as what we do when it comes to human behavior.

I did not say or imply one in 80,000,000 generations. Where did you get that idea from? The one out of 80 million clearly referred to the number of fossils found compared to their total number. Reread the post.

 

[Valjean]

You acknowledged that we see design in nature. Design is essentially a functional arrangement of entities for a purpose.

The 'design' is neither intentional nor purposive. It's the predicted order and function you'd expect given the applicable natural laws.

Regardless of any explanation of why the observed design exist, it’s irrelevant to the fact that we do see design in nature. Design/purpose is an evidenced fact. Attempts of explanations are merely assumptions/claims.

How evidenced? We see order; you can call it design if you want, but there's no reason to believe it's intentional, nor is there any evidence of intentional purpose. There is just natural function.

The complexity of structure that successfully achieves a function always equals intentional design even If the cause is not known or understood. The lack of knowledge of the cause is never a justification to deny the evidenced characteristics of design/purpose in nature.

No! Your claim doesn't follow, and it's a black or white fallacy. The complexity and function are just mindless physics and chemistry

IOW, you can always recognize a design when you see it. Your knowledge of the designer or the lack thereof is irrelevant. It doesn’t change this fact. Its illogical to claim that a design is not designed simply because we don’t have knowledge of the design process or who is the designer. The design itself is the evidence for the designer.

I claim the 'design' results from largely known laws of physics, and there's no evidence of purpose, just function.

It’s an empty claim, the evidence is that neither the formation of the universe would be possible nor there is any other physical life system possible other than the carbon-based life.

I know of no such evidence.
The universe happened. There is no reason to presume a conscious creator, not would such a creator explain the mechanisms involved.
We know of only one kind of life. It's carbon based. How do you come to the conclusion that no other life is possible, from a sample size of one?

Not true, the evidence is that the constants are extremely fine-tuned.

The constants are what they are. Why do you say they're 'tuned' to anything?

This is exactly what you are doing!! You insert unevidenced variables and assume it would produce unevidenced universe and unevidenced life form. It’s an empty claim.

What unevidenced variables have I introduced? It's you making extraordinary and unevidenced claims.

It’s a flawed logic in many ways.

First, you make an empty claim that any set of constants/variables would give rise the formation of a universe and some life form without any evidence.

I said an alternate set of laws and constants could produce a different universe, or no universe. I made no claims about the probability of different life forms. We don't really understand the 'life' we know.

Second, “statistical chances” is necessarily the function of the interaction of existing entities that create the required perquisites of chance. If nothing exists (no matter, no radiation, no physical laws, no space, no time) then there is no statistical chance of any kind.

????. Not following.

Statistical chance of our world being as is would be only possible if we accept the unevidenced/ unfalsifiable assumption of Multiverse.

??? How so? How do you come to such a conclusion?

Mutations are a known and common phenomenon but there is absolutely no evidence that advantageous mutations emerge accidentally among endless other non- advantageous random mutations. Advantageous mutations emerge as a result of directed mutations.

There's plenty of evidence.
Mutations happen all the time, by chance. Some are advantageous -- in a particular environment. Eg: Lactase persistence into adulthood, plague/AIDS resistance, tolerance for high-altitude, low oxygen environments, sickle cell trait, &al. In other environments the same mutation might be harmful. Most of the many mutations in each of us seems to have no effect on survival.

Not true, there is no evidence for the alleged endless non- advantageous random mutations that is constantly getting eliminated by selection.

Yet most of the world has seen this evidence. You're willfully ignoring it.

The criteria that identify design/intention are not dependent on our knowledge of the causes. It’s simply the successful/efficient arrangement of entities to achieve a purpose. The design is the evidence of the designer.

There is no evidence of purpose. There is evidence of chemistry and adaptation. "Design" emerges naturally, by known and demonstrable mechanisms.You're presupposing an unnecessary god.

A virus is not considered alive, you may say it’s not as complex as a single-celled organism but yet a virion is still a very complex structure.

I don't see your point. Components of life are created all the time, by ordinary chemistry. Some self-replicate. They interact. They combine. They increase. Their interactions begin to exhibit more and more of the features we associate with life.
Viruses? They can't proliferate without living cells already existing.
Alternative generative mechanisms? Magic! Theists believe magic more rational than chemistry.
[qote]Low entropy as previously explained.[/quote] How is low entropy intelligence?

It’s a flawed logic; purpose/intension can be seen and recognized independent from our knowledge of the designer.

No. The 'design' is explainable by simple, known, observable mechanisms.

The design itself is the evidence of the designer. You cannot see a design and claim that you don’t have evidence of the designer. You cannot claim that the design is not designed simply because you don’t have the knowledge/understanding of the designer or the design process.

I claim quite the opposite. Our knowledge of the natural, unguided mechanisms involved makes an intentional magician extraneous and unnecessary. It renders God a special pleading.

Again, totally false, in your post #2593, you said,” If intentional, the operator is a very incompetent engineer, judging by how poorly designed and haphazard his creations are.”, you made a claim, demonstrate it and I’ll respond.

As I said before, perfection of a system is the level of adequacy/success of a system in achieving a goal. The extremely fine-tuned universe is perfection. The fact that every living organism is equipped with all vital systems that ensure its success in its environment is perfection.[/quote]Any first year engineering student could improve on anatomical design, and any physician or biochemist could improve most organisms; physiology. I can't believe you haven't heard this before.
Nature works with what it has; with preëxisting designs. It cannot design de novo. It Jerry-rigs. "Good enough" is what usually results.

You’re making a fallacious argumentum ad populum.

Not exactly populum. I'm saying the experts in this field can point to empirical evidence supporting their positions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would need to see any gradual change over a span of more than a 500,000 years as demonstrated by a minimum of 20 evenly spaced individuals. This is largely to eliminate the influence of atypical individuals.

That is unreasonable.
For example, Homo Sapiens is some 200.000 years old.
A skull from that age will look pretty much like a skull of a human of today.

Longer time spans are perfectly acceptable.

The series I already gave you is evenly spaced by around 10 tot 15 million years.

Here's another series with the oldest one being just 3.2 million years

More denial in 3..2..1...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Optimistic x 1
TagliatelliMonster

It's been three years since I heard any Egyptologist say they mustta used ramps. When I started it was a steady cacophony of ramps this and ramps that coming from them.

Meanwhile the scientific testing done in 2015 STILL has not been allowed to be published while other testing that doesn't preferentially support my theory from as recently as 2022 has been released.

The harder I listen, the less I hear.

Shhhhh...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You sound butthurt tbh

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

JJust show a gradual change that is represented in most of the fossils. Any change will do.

You already received such, but you rejected it with a handwave.

There are lots of fossils of horses and i wager plenty enough to show a gradual change if such actually existed.
I've never seen such evidence and therefore believe it most probably does not exist.

I just gave you such evidence and you handwaved it away

What we don't see can be just as important as what we do when it comes to human behavior.

Not to mention what you don't see by ignoring it because your head is firmly buried in the ground.

 

[cladking]

That is unreasonable.
For example, Homo Sapiens is some 200.000 years old.
A skull from that age will look pretty much like a skull of a human of today.

Then we can state categorically that there is no gradual change in humans (or their predecessors), that affected the skull for at least 200,000 years.

Exactly as I said.

Do you have anything else? Do you have anything at all to show a gradual change?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You sound butthurt

You said my post was 'optimistic". Your words, not mine.

I am very disappointed in several disciplines who call themselves "scientists" but are not. It's not only biology that has everything wrong because some reality can not be reduced. The problem is pervasive today because there is so much statistics, computer modelling, and reliance on opinion. We have created a world run on greed, corruption and waste that could hardly be less efficient. People starve while enough is wasted that everyone could have more than they want or need.

We are rushing headlong toward a reckoning that could result in countless millions of deaths or even extinction for homo omnisciencis. Peers fiddle as the world turns into kindling. The status quo has been enshrined everywhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then we can state categorically that there is no gradual change in humans (or their predecessors), that affected the skull for at least 200,000 years.

Exactly as I said.

Do you have anything else? Do you have anything at all to show a gradual change?



You said my post was 'optimistic". Your words, not mine.

I am very disappointed in several disciplines who call themselves "scientists" but are not. It's not only biology that has everything wrong because some reality can not be reduced. The problem is pervasive today because there is so much statistics, computer modelling, and reliance on opinion. We have created a world run on greed, corruption and waste that could hardly be less efficient. People starve while enough is wasted that everyone could have more than they want or need.

We are rushing headlong toward a reckoning that could result in countless millions of deaths or even extinction for homo omnisciencis. Peers fiddle as the world turns into kindling. The status quo has been enshrined everywhere.

Demanding to see a gradual change is unrealistic. Once again the post where I explained this and you could not understand explained how rare it is even with a large dinosaur.

 

[cladking]

Demanding to see a gradual change is unrealistic.

Yet I repeatedly show sudden change in all life and in species!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Asking for you to support your beliefs is "unrealistic".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet I repeatedly show sudden change in all life and in species!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Asking for you to support your beliefs is "unrealistic".

Nope, you have never done that. I supported my beliefs. I explained why you were wrong and used appropriate articles. it went over your head.

 

[cladking]

I supported my beliefs.

You just said supporting your beliefs is unrealistic.

If you don't even read your own posts how do you expect to remember anything I said???

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just said supporting your beliefs is unrealistic.

If you don't even read your own posts how do you expect to remember anything I said???

No, I did not. You need to work on your reading comprehension quite a bit. You are way off today.

 

[cladking]

Demanding to see a gradual change is unrealistic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Demanding to see a gradual change is unrealistic.

In the fossil record? Yes, it is extremely unrealistic. You already forgot the example of the T Rex.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Mostly correct, but there may be exceptions through mutation. For example, a tribe in Africa has just two toes. Sure, there always are left-overs, like appendix or coccyx.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is unreasonable.
For example, Homo Sapiens is some 200.000 years old.
A skull from that age will look pretty much like a skull of a human of today.




The series I already gave you is evenly spaced by around 10 tot 15 million years.

Here's another series with the oldest one being just 3.2 million years

View attachment 68569

More denial in 3..2..1...

Actually no. The skull of early Homo sapiens is different than the skull of modern Homo sapiens. Our faces are getting smaller. Our jaws have been getting smaller. The shape of the inner cranium differs between modern and early Homo sapiens. According to what I have read, even comparison between current H. sapiens skulls and those of just 500 years ago will show differences. More evidence of the gradual change that believers deny in favor of Peer beliefs.