Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I love a good reverence to Peers to ocassionally.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I love a good reverence to Peers to ocassionally.

That whole Peers thing is homage to conspiracy theories by believers that don't understand science, evidence or have either one. Seems like sour grapes too.

I suppose if you can't come up with anything valid, the next best thing is to smear the group that has.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I love a good reverence to Peers to ocassionally.

I don't see the posts, but oddly I can tell who is getting responded to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see the posts, but oddly I can tell who is getting responded to.

The upper case "P" in the responses is usually a huge hint.

What is so hard to understand is that it is possible to learn the basics if one cares to. Every science denier that I have seen is always scared spitless and refuses to even give it an honest try.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.



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.



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

To that last point, I am in total agreement. But it is difficult to teach science to believers. Field studies are science. Examining the evidence and finding patterns that support predictions and further study is science. It doesn't require that everything be set up in a controlled laboratory environment to be science.

It is difficult to have these sorts of discussions with those that don't know science and reject any attempt to teach it to them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The upper case "P" in the responses is usually a huge hint.

What is so hard to understand is that it is possible to learn the basics if one cares to. Every science denier that I have seen is always scared spitless and refuses to even give it an honest try.

Do you think it is out of fear that they might begin to understand and then be faced with the fact that science doesn't support the claims of what they want to believe is true?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The upper case "P" in the responses is usually a huge hint.

What is so hard to understand is that it is possible to learn the basics if one cares to. Every science denier that I have seen is always scared spitless and refuses to even give it an honest try.

I've always wondered what drives this rejection of science. If it is more than just zealotry that causes someone to reject valid and logical conclusions based on evidence. I wonder if for some it is doubling down out of pride and hubris as well as fear of finding one has been so vehemently wrong.

It could be a good thread to consider.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think it is out of fear that they might begin to understand and then be faced with the fact that science doesn't support the claims of what they want to believe is true?

Honestly I think that is what it is. They never get past the fossil record, even though that is not the strongest evidence for evolution. They can see those changes in species. The trend is very clear. But at that point it is too late. All that they have is denial.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Sure. I was thinking more about the type of change / difference that would make paleontologists infer that it's not the same species.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Yes. An enormous set of fossils.
Like the picture of the series that you edited out of the post you are currently replying to and completely ignored.



This intellectual dishonesty confirms post after post why I shouldn't bother.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

His demands are unrealistic.

But clearly the fossil record shows gradual change.
There's plenty of series of lineages like the few pictures I posted here.

Here's another one, showing the gradual moving of the nostrils from the front of the face to the top in whale evolution as they gradually became sea dwelling mammals over the past 50 million years.

The fossil record is literally filled with such series.

All creationists like cladking can do, is handwave it away.

I don't see how such series are not evidence of gradual change over time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

His demands are unrealistic.

But clearly the fossil record shows gradual change.
There's plenty of series of lineages like the few pictures I posted here.

Here's another one, showing the gradual moving of the nostrils from the front of the face to the top in whale evolution as they gradually became sea dwelling mammals over the past 50 million years.

View attachment 68592

The fossil record is literally filled with such series.

All creationists like cladking can do, is handwave it away.

I don't see how such series are not evidence of gradual change over time.

he wants a Simpsons style motion picture. I tired to explain to him using T-Rex as an example of why his demand to see very small changes was unreasonable and he totally botched the understanding.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Well, what drugs are you taking? Can I try some?

This conspiracy theory fantasies of yours, about peers are just paranoid delusions.

This is topic about Darwin’s delusions, but all I see are yours. And then you go on another episode of the anti-ramps, which have absolutely nothing to do with the evolution vs creation debate. The whole thing about Egyptology is just another off-topic delusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, what drugs are you taking? Can I try some?

This conspiracy theory fantasies of yours, about peers are just paranoid delusions.

This is topic about Darwin’s delusions, but all I see are yours. And then you go on another episode of the anti-ramps, which have absolutely nothing to do with the evolution vs creation debate. The whole thing about Egyptology is just another off-topic delusion.

No! Not peers. It is Peers. That upper case P is very important. It let's others know that, yes, you are dealing with a conspiracy theorist.

 

[gnostic]

Demanding to see a gradual change is unrealistic.

No, demanding to see every generations of every single changes, and demanding to find every fossils for every generations - yes, these are unrealistic demands you are making.

We are lucky to find the numbers of fossils we do have.

You - not “you”, personally, because are definitely no scientist, I meant “you” as those scientists that worked as biologists or paleontologists - “you” (scientists) would work with and test whatever “you” have, acquiring as much as information as you could gather from the physical evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure. I was thinking more about the type of change / difference that would make paleontologists infer that it's not the same species.

I know you know, but I think that most creationists and those similar think that every living thing is static and without change. But the reality is that living things change over time even if it is subtle and doesn't indicate speciation. There is no instant change in all living things or instant speciation as some believe, but can't ever demonstrate. I love that one as much as time travelling to study the remote past or beavers farming fish for food.

Even in the stasis of Gould and Eldridge there is change taking place. Just more slowly and less dramatic. But when the change speeds up it still is not instant like some--I'm not sure if creationist is the right term here--believe.

In a side note, I appreciate your posts. Always something useful I get from them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Honestly I think that is what it is. They never get past the fossil record, even though that is not the strongest evidence for evolution. They can see those changes in species. The trend is very clear. But at that point it is too late. All that they have is denial.

They do need a new needle when they play the fossil record. The old one is worn out.

There is the conflation of the theory of evolution and the phenomena of evolution. As if not have the best theory or controversy over the current theory means we don't have a theory, the phenomena of evolution mysteriously and illogically vanish and they win by default. There's that Default Paradigm again.

At some point, since creationists cannot poke holes in the science, they switch to trying to ridicule other posters as a means to win. Falsely associating winning a debate--at any cost--with demonstrating an argument is another default.

By now, I think it is just a matter of keeping the debate alive so that it seems a particular version of creationism is still in the game. I think you are right and now it is just denial driving the position.

 

[gnostic]

he wants a Simpsons style motion picture. I tired to explain to him using T-Rex as an example of why his demand to see very small changes was unreasonable and he totally botched the understanding.

I think cladking take the cake with the most absurd notion of Evolution, that speciation occurred at individual level, where a single organism can “consciously” choose to evolve into new species.

No biologists think that possible, not even among the world of Bacteria, where a single generation or even within 2 generations.

Bacteria age of death and age of reproduction rates varied widely, but they do have very short lifespan, so they reproduce earlier than the eukaryotes.

In the lab somewhere, they have tested that a single particular bacteria can start binary fission at 19 minutes old.

Let’s say we rounded that up to 20 minutes (eg E.coli), so by 1 hour, you would have 3 generations of bacteria (4 generations if you count the original bacteria) with population of 8. By end of the day, there could be as many as 71 generations, and I don’t have calculator to do the population, I can certainly write computer codes. In one month, there would be 2150 generations.

Now supposedly, this bacteria is a cause of bacterial disease, and you administered antibiotic that either kill or stop the growth of the pathogens. Now, there might be mutations that don’t kill of this disease, but in order for the bacteria to shared the resistance of this particular antibiotic, for new strain of bacteria. New strain don’t instantly occur in the next generation. It would still take months for the original pathogen, to form into new strain.

So even with bacteria, it will still take time and so many numbers of generations for speciation to occur.

The Evolution that cladking have claiming, where speciation can occur almost instantaneously, only exist in sci-fi (novels, tv or films) or in cartoons and comics.

Worse of all, he seriously believe that consciousness play a key role of evolution, an organism being able to decide whether to biologically evolve or not. That’s just more comic book type “evolution”.

I have to wonder where he has been getting these ridiculous idea from.

 

[gnostic]

To that last point, I am in total agreement. But it is difficult to teach science to believers. Field studies are science. Examining the evidence and finding patterns that support predictions and further study is science. It doesn't require that everything be set up in a controlled laboratory environment to be science.

It is difficult to have these sorts of discussions with those that don't know science and reject any attempt to teach it to them.

Sciences, in particular Natural Sciences, are studies of nature, and you cannot confine and control nature in the labs.

But even you present experiments to someone, like @cladking and @LIIA, they will still always have some lame excuses to dismiss, hand-wave or ignore the experiments, often by moving the bloody goalpost, a favorite tactics used by creationists.

Show them physical evidence and in their eyes, they are not good enough, but when in fact, they don’t know what evidence are or how evidence are use. Plus, they will never present any real evidence themselves, but they do make demands that others show evidence, which are, another favorite tactics among creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sciences, in particular Natural Sciences, are studies of nature, and you cannot confine and control nature in the labs.

But even you present experiments to someone, like @cladking and @LIIA, they will still always have some lame excuses to dismiss, hand-wave or ignore the experiments, often by moving the bloody goalpost, a favorite tactics used by creationists.

Show them physical evidence and in their eyes, they are not good enough, but when in fact, they don’t know what evidence are or how evidence are use. Plus, they will never present any real evidence themselves, but they do make demands that others show evidence, which are, another favorite tactics among creationists.

I agree. I know that evidence or scientific reports defeating their claims or answering their challenges have been presented on this very thread and those are dismissed or unanswered.

I posted the work demonstrating natural selection in field populations of mice. Not a peep. I posted the work explaining how claims of directed mutation were wrong. Nothing. I posted the quote from Gould that directly obliterated the claim that Gould and Eldridge refuted gradual change over time. No admission. No recognition. Just ignored.

I always find that amusing that people that have no evidence demand unrealistically high resolution evidence that cannot reasonably exist in most cases.

It is typical to see people that cannot present a valid argument for their position seek to find any gap to undermine the science. Borrowing that, it just becomes tearing up others that disagree with them or have repeatedly shown them how wrong they are.

That or you get those that seem to make up their own pseudoscience to get attention or whatever.

I think at this stage it is just a matter of keeping the argument alive so creationists can lull themselves into believing they hold the high road.