Darwin's Illusion

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why? I believe it’s the other way around. Here is why,

The concept of the ToE eliminates all references of morality/values and doesn’t make distinction between being human or animal.

Do you also complain that gravity doesn't include moral values?
It's a theory that explains how species originate. What processes bio-population are inevitably subject to.

It's not a model on how to organize a society. Why would it include morality or values?
What a stupid strawman.

The only principal that remains in effect is the struggle for survival and survival of the fittest. Honesty/Morality is nonexistent in that model. We discussed that before. See #1031

Darwin's Illusion | Page 52 | Religious Forums

In his book “The Descent of Man”, Darwin said, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world”. Darwin made tribal and racial conflict the engine of human evolution. A very dangerous principle that legitimizes racial extermination as the natural law to move forward. Darwin ideas played a role in the adaptation of racism in the world.

See the link below for the “The Descent of Man”

darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1889_Descent_F969.pdf

Yes, darwin said a lot of stupid things.
Newton was wrong about gravity in several ways also.

Not sure how you think this affects modern biology in any way.

 

[cladking]

So, you’re wrong.



What is the meaning that you understood from my post and didn’t agree with?

Ernst Walter Mayr was one of the 20th century’s leading evolutionary biologists, (he was called “the Darwin of the 20th century”). In the 2004 edition of his book “What Makes Biology Unique?” He addressed the German concept of the “Geisteswissenschaften” as it relates to evolutionary biology.

“Geisteswissenschaften” is the German word for the humanities. Everything that is included in the humanities is referred to in the German literature as “Geisteswissenschaften". Mayr's point of view was that the methodology of “historical narratives" that is typically used in evolutionary biology is more similar to the “Geisteswissenschaften" than to the exact sciences. On the other hand, Mayr stated that functional biology belongs to the “exact sciences”.

What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (wordpress.com)

Again, your imagined/claimed “historical narrative" belongs to the “Geisteswissenschaften” as stated by Ernst Mayr, it’s not science.



Again, alleged examples don’t cut it. The ToE, predicts Gradualism to have a massive dominance over the geological history. Statistical significance of evidence in the fossil record must be in favor of Gradualism if the ToE is true. IOW, It should be the dominant rule, not merely some alleged exceptions. To the contrary, real-world data as confirmed by prominent paleontologists show that the dominant rule in the geological history is the fact that Gradualism is nonexistent, some alleged examples don’t cut it.

From the very beginning, Darwin was aware of this issue. He wrote " Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”

Darwin conveniently speculated that the facts of the fossil record that extremely contradict his predictions are due to extreme imperfection of the geological record. Proponent of the ToE assumed that future discoveries would resolve the problem, but it never did. An alleged exception never proves a rule.

Great link. Of course it's lost on most of the people here.

“Geisteswissenschaften" is simply the study of what seems to be true or must be true in terms of very highly limited human knowledge. I never knew that anyone else including Darwin who invented all this claptrap saw the numerous flaws in it. I didn't know there were people far smarter than me trying to piece together the facts in other ways. It is remarkably strengthening to see that not all scientists share a narrative based on what they want to be true and have come to some of the same hypotheses as I.

It is quite apparent all the real sciences are not exactly right but the fake ones couldn't be more wrong. They literally couldn't be any more wrong than they are today. By excluding everything they didn't want and including everything they did they have created a frankensteins's monster of anthropology, archaeology, Evolution, and all the “Geisteswissenschaften". We have a weird and convoluted understanding of what it means to be an individual, a person, and alive.

Somehow or other those who come at these "sciences" directly are taken in and most of those who are not taken in come from the outside. We rush headlong toward oblivion singing Kumbaya and we like it.

 

[Audie]

Great link. Of course it's lost on most of the people here.

“Geisteswissenschaften" is simply the study of what seems to be true or must be true in terms of very highly limited human knowledge. I never knew that anyone else including Darwin who invented all this claptrap saw the numerous flaws in it. I didn't know there were people far smarter than me trying to piece together the facts in other ways. It is remarkably strengthening to see that not all scientists share a narrative based on what they want to be true and have come to some of the same hypotheses as I.

It is quite apparent all the real sciences are not exactly right but the fake ones couldn't be more wrong. They literally couldn't be any more wrong than they are today. By excluding everything they didn't want and including everything they did they have created a frankensteins's monster of anthropology, archaeology, Evolution, and all the “Geisteswissenschaften". We have a weird and convoluted understanding of what it means to be an individual, a person, and alive.

Somehow or other those who come at these "sciences" directly are taken in and most of those who are not taken in come from the outside. We rush headlong toward oblivion singing Kumbaya and we like it.

Notable how you endorse
he who specializes in
misrepresentation

Like all creationists, you are
all talk.
No data, no facts.
Pretending to know more
than any scientist.
Claim fraud and scientific dishonesty.
Etc. Cookie cutter.

We have a saying that means like,
"a man is most angry about what
he himself is".

Give us your disproof of ToE or admit
you are just gibbering.

 

[cladking]

Give us your disproof of ToE or admit
you are just gibbering.

I don't need to disprove nonsense.

I have already provided extensive evidence for seeing all the facts from a different perspective (a new paradigm) that doesn't require magic and the ability to discern reality through observation alone. "Look and See Science" isn't really science at all. It is a belief system that works less well to explain what is known than even Genesis. "Look and See Science" isn't even “Geisteswissenschaften". It is simply circular reasoning.

 

[Audie]

I don't need to disprove nonsense.

I have already provided extensive evidence for seeing all the facts from a different perspective (a new paradigm) that doesn't require magic and the ability to discern reality through observation alone. "Look and See Science" isn't really science at all. It is a belief system that works less well to explain what is known than even Genesis. "Look and See Science" isn't even “Geisteswissenschaften". It is simply circular reasoning.

You must be very lonely

 

[cladking]

You must be very lonely

If you mean that nobody agrees with me about anything and most are adamantly opposed then I may be the loneliest man on earth. But every day the world moves in my direction. I had no idea that many very bright people agree with my take on Evolution and my other "theories" are gaining traction as well. It will be many years until we know how any species changed but we'll have a framework finally for studying the reality within the next half a century.

Before we can learn anything about life we must cast off the nonsense that underlies our beliefs and this will take time. Some of this nonsense affects the hard sciences as well but they can cope whereas Evolution and archaeology will be cast adrift.

 

[Audie]

If you mean that nobody agrees with me about anything and most are adamantly opposed then I may be the loneliest man on earth. But every day the world moves in my direction. I had no idea that many very bright people agree with my take on Evolution and my other "theories" are gaining traction as well. It will be many years until we know how any species changed but we'll have a framework finally for studying the reality within the next half a century.

Before we can learn anything about life we must cast off the nonsense that underlies our beliefs and this will take time. Some of this nonsense affects the hard sciences as well but they can cope whereas Evolution and archaeology will be cast adrift.

You will remain lonely in your fantasies.


It's a cousin to the Sci fi genre of Frankenstein,
The invisible man, 20k leagues, back to,the
future and the Elvis movie about the young
rebel chemist : D

You weren't supposed to internalize it and
think you too could operate beyond the limits of
all others on earth.

Sorryah, but you ain't Elvid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you mean that nobody agrees with me about anything and most are adamantly opposed then I may be the loneliest man on earth. But every day the world moves in my direction. I had no idea that many very bright people agree with my take on Evolution and my other "theories" are gaining traction as well. It will be many years until we know how any species changed but we'll have a framework finally for studying the reality within the next half a century.

Before we can learn anything about life we must cast off the nonsense that underlies our beliefs and this will take time. Some of this nonsense affects the hard sciences as well but they can cope whereas Evolution and archaeology will be cast adrift.

I see that the reality the you are wrong in your Egyptology and evolutionary beliefs is still overwhelming to you.

 

[cladking]

You will remain lonely in your fantasies.


It's a cousin to the Sci fi genre of Frankenstein,
The invisible man, 20k leagues, back to,the
future and the Elvis movie about the young
rebel chemist : D

You weren't supposed to internalize it and
think you too could operate beyond the limits of
all others on earth.

Sorryah, but you ain't Elvid.

No, sorry, you are very wrong. I was an observational scientist/ generalist/ nexialist/ metaphysician/ "ancient scientist"/ intuitor/ etc even before I knew what all of these terms meant and even before formally studying modern science. More importantly it was many years before I began reading science fiction which was one of the few sources of real culture back in the 1940's to 1970's. You know, back when culture still existed. I didn't read science fiction because it was "true" merely because it was actual culture in those days. I "never" claimed to be smarter than other people or more enlightened, just different.

I have not deluded myself into believing I've made any important discoveries but rather made a major rediscovery and laid the ground work for a new paradigm that will require the hard work of people way "smarter" than me to bring to fruition. Anyone could have made any "discovery" I have. I merely took a route that is less traveled.

Just as this thread is about the way things change science changes as well; as one wise man said "time don't fly, it bounds and leaps". That's what we have here is bounding time because everything is going to change at once just like real life. And just like real life it changes one birth and one death at a time and has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" and everything to do with what works in the here and now. All of reality is hopelessly intertwined and every part necessary to the whole. Every part is dependent on every other part at all times and "science" is a microcosm of the exact same thing because science is an attempt to understand reality itself. When you cast off all the important characteristics of change in species you should hardly be surprised when it turns out you are wrong. When you use reductionistic science it behooves you to at least use all the evidence and all the experiment to draw conclusions or develop paradigms and theory. You can't understand life without some understanding of its most fundamental characteristic. Peering at fossils is not science at all whether it is done today or was done by Darwin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, sorry, you are very wrong. I was an observational scientist/ generalist/ nexialist/ metaphysician/ "ancient scientist"/ intuitor/ etc even before I knew what all of these terms meant and even before formally studying modern science. More importantly it was many years before I began reading science fiction which was one of the few sources of real culture back in the 1940's to 1970's. You know, back when culture still existed. I didn't read science fiction because it was "true" merely because it was actual culture in those days. I "never" claimed to be smarter than other people or more enlightened, just different.

I have not deluded myself into believing I've made any important discoveries but rather made a major rediscovery and laid the ground work for a new paradigm that will require the hard work of people way "smarter" than me to bring to fruition. Anyone could have made any "discovery" I have. I merely took a route that is less traveled.

Just as this thread is about the way things change science changes as well; as one wise man said "time don't fly, it bounds and leaps". That's what we have here is bounding time because everything is going to change at once just like real life. And just like real life it changes one birth and one death at a time and has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" and everything to do with what works in the here and now. All of reality is hopelessly intertwined and every part necessary to the whole. Every part is dependent on every other part at all times and "science" is a microcosm of the exact same thing because science is an attempt to understand reality itself. When you cast off all the important characteristics of change in species you should hardly be surprised when it turns out you are wrong. When you use reductionistic science it behooves you to at least use all the evidence and all the experiment to draw conclusions or develop paradigms and theory. You can't understand life without some understanding of its most fundamental characteristic. Peering at fossils is not science at all whether it is done today or was done by Darwin.

Uh huh. Sure you were. And yet you cannot seem to understand the concept of evidence.

 

[gnostic]

No, sorry, you are very wrong. I was an observational scientist/ generalist/ nexialist/ metaphysician/ "ancient scientist"/ intuitor/ etc even before I knew what all of these terms meant and even before formally studying modern science. More importantly it was many years before I began reading science fiction which was one of the few sources of real culture back in the 1940's to 1970's. You know, back when culture still existed. I didn't read science fiction because it was "true" merely because it was actual culture in those days. I "never" claimed to be smarter than other people or more enlightened, just different.

Nexialism isn’t a thing, it is piece of fiction, created by sci-fi novelist, van Vogt.

Nexialism isn’t a philosophy, nor a culture, and there are certainly no science in Nexialism.

So basically, you are nexialist that don’t exist except in fiction.

And you haven’t offer any rediscovery.

And you have egotistically believe that you are intellectually superior to everyone else, refusing to even admit any errors when corrected, let alone learn from your errors.

You are the same as you were in your Ancient Reality, spinning & repeating the same fantasies (eg ancient science and single ancient language that existed 40,000 years ago, and the nonexistent Tower of Babel and your invention, the Homo omniscensis) and conspiracy theories (on evolutionary biology, on Peer Review and on history & archaeology, and especially on Egyptology), thinking yourself a genius and smarter than every single scientists.

You say a lot of things, none of them with any testable evidence.

 

[Audie]

I don't need to disprove nonsense.

I have already provided extensive evidence for seeing all the facts from a different perspective (a new paradigm) that doesn't require magic and the ability to discern reality through observation alone. "Look and See Science" isn't really science at all. It is a belief system that works less well to explain what is known than even Genesis. "Look and See Science" isn't even “Geisteswissenschaften". It is simply circular reasoning.

Just admit you can't.

 

[cladking]

Nexialism isn’t a thing, it is piece of fiction, created by sci-fi novelist, van Vogt.

No. "Nexialist" is a word. The individual who coined every single word is irrelevant to the meaning or referent of that word.

Nexialism isn’t a philosophy, nor a culture, and there are certainly no science in Nexialism.

No word is "a philosophy, or a culture,". Our language is not representative.

And you haven’t offer any rediscovery.

I've rediscovered ancient people didn't believe in Evolution and survival of the fittest.

You say a lot of things, none of them with any testable evidence.

I shy away from making hypotheses that can't be tested right now or in the near future. Yes, I make a few but this is to show that everything ties together just like reality itself. You simply choose to latch onto things that can't be shown instead of what can be and already has been.

You keep making comments about me personally but this is not the subject here and neither are my beliefs and models. The subject is Darwin and I can hardly remember the last time a believer in Evolution addressed any of these points. Of course beliefs and models of other "heretics" are also rarely addressed except to name them "creationist". Darwin was wrong. Survival of the fittest isn't a thing. Life occurs only in the here and now and not even "random chance" cares about Evolution. Life occurs only as consciousness which doesn't care about how fit any individual is and only his genes and behavior. We are analog in a digital world which gave rise to a belief in Evolution. It's no rounding error but rather an error caused by perspective and assumption. It is caused by reductionism and the belief that everything seen by those standing on the shoulders of giants is real.

I haven't learned these things because I'm a genius but rather because like the boy in the story I can see the kings have no clothes. If I were smarter or more more knowledgeable then just maybe I would see the clothes that don't exist also. But alas it is what it is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you also complain that gravity doesn't include moral values?
It's a theory that explains how species originate. What processes bio-population are inevitably subject to.

It's not a model on how to organize a society. Why would it include morality or values?
What a stupid strawman.



Yes, darwin said a lot of stupid things.
Newton was wrong about gravity in several ways also.

Not sure how you think this affects modern biology in any way.

I'm concerned about the effect of gravity on moral values. It's a heavy burden. Especially since we don't have a complete theory and full understanding of gravity, our morals are just as like to float away when we need them the most.

 

[gnostic]

I've rediscovered ancient people didn't believe in Evolution and survival of the fittest.

The subject is Darwin and I can hardly remember the last time a believer in Evolution addressed any of these points. Of course beliefs and models of other "heretics" are also rarely addressed except to name them "creationist". Darwin was wrong. Survival of the fittest isn't a thing. Life occurs only in the here and now and not even "random chance" cares about Evolution. Life occurs only as consciousness which doesn't care about how fit any individual is and only his genes and behavior. We are analog in a digital world which gave rise to a belief in Evolution. It's no rounding error but rather an error caused by perspective and assumption. It is caused by reductionism and the belief that everything seen by those standing on the shoulders of giants is real.

I think I have told this before, but it could be someone I had corresponded with others in this thread, in regarding to “survival of the fittest”.

It’s Sunday morning, I have just woken up, I am in no mood to search & chase if we had this conversation before. so forgive me if i had addressed this before, but I will say these anyway:

A) The “survival of the fittest” was invented by a British sociologist and philosopher, Herbert Spencer, not by Darwin.

Spencer had indeed been inspired by Darwin’s On Origin Of The Species (1859), that Spencer had coined that phrase to describe biological mechanism of Natural Selection, from his view, however it was also mainly used in Spencer’s sociology work, especially Social Darwinism, which had nothing to do with Darwin’s Natural Selection. Darwin had nothing to do with Social Darwinism.

My point here, is that the evolutionary mechanism is Natural Selection, NOT "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST".


B) Second, even when “survival of the fittest” are being used in biology context, it is often misunderstood by people, who confuse “fittest” with being stronger, larger, faster, smarter, meaner, etc.

It has nothing to do with these things. The “fitness”, referred the abilities of the population to reproduce in environments that have changed, and the species have being able to physically adapt to the environment changes.

It has nothing to do with killing or murder or war, as @LIIA falsely postulated, since he or she, believe that Darwin was responsible for the Nazi mass-murdering Jews in the Holocaust, during WW2. As I said earlier, Social Darwinism was political and social philosophy invented by Herbert Spencer, not by Charles Darwin.


C) Natural Selection applied to biology of all living organisms, not just with humans. Natural Selection is just biology, not political and social endeavors of humans.

For instance, other animals (other than humans), plants, fungi, bacteria & archaea have no concept of politics, eg wars, and social behaviors, eg racism. Politics play no part in Natural Selection.


D) The teaching of Darwin's original theory have been corrected and updated to the modern version of Natural Selection.

The "updated" Natural Selection, included other tested knowledge in other fields of biology, such as modern genetics, the newer clade classification in modern taxonomy, DNA testings, molecular biology, biochemistry, and so on.

All these other fields, also verify that Natural Selection is still a working mechanisms in evolutionary biology.
​

Now if you think there are better alternative (and working) hypothesis to replace Natural Design, then please, by all means, can you present this alternative?



As to the subject of "consciousness".

What I do remember, is having arguments with you before, in regarding to consciousness.

Consciousness is only natural capabilities of higher functions of certain animals, meaning animals with brains and sensory nervous systems (I am not referring to only humans; it could be other mammals, reptiles, birds, fishes, etc).

Sensory nervous systems include any of the sensory organs (eg eyes, ears, nose, etc) that provide provide level of awareness to any organism of its surroundings, in which are rely back to brains via the nervous systems. The sensory organs are all parts of the nervous systems of certain animals.

• The complex nerves system of the eyes, provide visual awareness, that the visual information are process by the brain’ visual cortex.
• The ears work with the auditory cortex located in the temporal lobe, that process sounds.
• The olfactory system that include the functions of the nose, which provide some animals (eg mammals, reptiles) with the sense of smell. As I said before, I am not a biologist, so I am uncertain of which part(s) of the brain control the olfactory system.
• Taste, I don’t know how the system of taste work, except that is part of woking with the mouths of animals, during the eating process.
• Somatosensory system provide the senses to touch and pain, and I don’t know which part of the brain control this system (somatosensory cortex?). The somatosensory system also play role in reflex and balance.

Not all animals have central nervous systems (eg brain, spinal cord), or any of these sensory nervous systems, eg sponges, corals are marine invertebrates that have no central nervous systems. Whether these animals (with no central nervous systems) have consciousness or not, cannot be tested.

And not all living organisms are animals, such as plants, fungi and bacteria haven’t nervous systems.

So consciousness isn’t requirements for all life.

Like LIIA, you are mainly focused on humans. Natural Selection as well as other evolutionary mechanisms (eg mutations, genetic drift, etc) are the studies in biology of all living organisms, not just human biology.

You are so focused in your little world and fantasy, you forget that biology is more than those of humans. Consciousness played no parts with plants, fungi, bacteria & archaea, and even not with a number of species of animals (mainly invertebrates).

 

[cladking]

B) Second, even when “survival of the fittest” are being used in biology context, it is often misunderstood by people, who confuse “fittest” with being stronger, larger, faster, smarter, meaner, etc.

It has nothing to do with these things. The “fitness”, referred the abilities of the population to reproduce in environments that have changed, and the species have being able to physically adapt to the environment changes.

It has nothing to do with killing or murder or war, as @LIIA falsely postulated, since he or she, believe that Darwin was responsible for the Nazi mass-murdering Jews in the Holocaust, during WW2. As I said earlier, Social Darwinism was political and social philosophy invented by Herbert Spencer, not by Charles Darwin.

We've already spent page after page after page in this very thread discussing "survival of the fittest" and how it is part of Darwin's illusion. And we discussed at great length (more pages and pages) how the militarily, economically, and power rich of the world use it as an excuse to step on those who are less "fit" and less able to survive and reproduce. Suffice to say you've already lost this argument. Changing the name to 'natural selection" changes nothing at all. It's still just a fancy dressed up "survival of the fittest". And you continue to ignore the fact that I dispute its existence. Every individual is equally fit and equally likely to be naturally selected dependent on the specific prevailing conditions.

As believers are always wont to do you are still trying to obfuscate using semantics and words. Darwin was wrong and the arguments that show he was wrong are being ignored.

Consciousness is only natural capabilities of higher functions of certain animals, meaning animals with brains and sensory nervous systems (I am not referring to only humans; it could be other mammals, reptiles, birds, fishes, etc).

Thank you for actually addressing this very critical issue. However a fundamental flaw exists in your definition. Rather than define it you have simply delineated which creatures you believe might possess it based on whether a brain exists or not. Slime molds appears to act consciously and uses memory yet you refuse to grant it consciousness. If a single celled organism can be conscious then obviously there is a massive flaw in your definition which even precludes trees and far more complex invertebrates.

I still say that without an understanding of consciousness or the consciousness of ANY species it is impossible to determine how a species changes. This is virtually a truism once it is accepted that there's no such things "survival of the fittest" and almost all chang4e in every species is known to occur over brief time periods and often simultaneously with the changes in other species. Life always changes suddenly on all levels and types. Life adapts to the here and now by means of consciousness and genetics at the individual level. Species change when the behavior of its individuals change. It changes at bottlenecks and is more likely to survive in a changed state if there were many local bottlenecks in its history to provide the unusual genes needed to adapt as individuals and mostly as a species.

This is not really at all complicated but when reductionistic science is applied to so many things that can't be reduced and experiment is ignored then you get warped perspectives. Peers are simply no better at making guesses about reality than anyone else. Sure they're better at prediction and an understanding of state of the art but their guesses otherwise are still just guesses.

Darwin's guesses created an illusion and it is not consistent with all the evidence. when you start jettisoning unsubstantiated or contradicted parts of Evolution there is very little that is left. There is no such thing as Evolution. Species change but they do not normally evolve. Reading the fossil record is akin to reading tea leaves or parsing the sentences of those you deem to be "creationists".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fact: The term natural selection was first coined by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, two preeminent biologists of their time, in 1858.
Fact: The term "survival of the fittest" was first coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864.

The latter term was coined from the former and is a very poor approximation of the former.

It is hard to take a claim that natural selection is a dressed up, watered down version of the term survival of the fittest when the latter term was not used until six years after natural selection was coined. It does illustrate how little the people pushing anti-science and conspiracy theories know about actual science and history.

Natural selection doesn't mean that the "strong survive". It refers to a differential reproductive success of phenotypes interacting and under selection from the environment.

How people claiming to know all things and possess all knowledge manage to get things so wrong so often might constitute a "negative miracle" of sorts. But it is just really very sad in a day and age when valid information is easily available at the touch of a finger.

But I should hardly wonder why some people think scientific theories possess inherent evil that result in all the horrors of mankind. By that kind of logic, a framing hammer is inherently evil, because it can be used to kill. I wonder what the cause of the horrors was before theories came along?

People use things and twist them to their own ends. Good or bad. Scientific theories are not immune to that any more than religion is.

No one has shown Darwin to be wrong about the conclusion that populations of living things change over time and new species form as a result of these changes. No one has been able to refute natural selection as the predominant mechanism of that change. Beyond that exceptional contribution and other contribution contemporary to his life, however, Darwin has been deceased for 150 years and attacking him now makes as much sense as attacking Napoleon, Tiberius or Pontious Pilot today for their failure to behave like modern, civilized people in their times.

I won't bother to address the many other fantastical claims that keep getting repeated and refuted on this thread. They are dead issues and only exist in the minds of believers that have no science or evidence to back them up.

Even repeating what Denis Noble says is not going to magically change existing human knowledge in favor of claims that have no support.

 

[gnostic]

We've already spent page after page after page in this very thread discussing "survival of the fittest" and how it is part of Darwin's illusion.

So we did debate this before?

Then it is very apparent you still haven't understood a single thing that Natural Selection don't have anything to do with human politics (eg wars) and human cultures or social issues (eg racism, murders, and so on).

You are still confusing Natural Selection with Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism concerned with only social, legal and political issues, not biology, not DNA, and so on.

I didn't lose anything. All you did, was arguing with misinformation (as you usually do) that are completely unrelated to Evolutionary Biology.

What the Nazi did to the Jews were criminal behaviors and great tragedy, but none of that have to physical and biological diversity. Germans and Jews are humans.

What you and LIIA did, was take a swipe at Darwin, who played no part in WW2 politics. All you are doing is playing stupid blame games.

What you did is similar to anachronism too. Darwin died 50 years before WW2 started, and yet you blame him for genocide of Jews.

You are forgetting that Germany and Western European kingdoms have a very long history of anti-Semitic sentiments, going back to the Visgothic kingdom in Spain, a thousand years before Darwin.

The Visgoths were Eastern Germanic tribe that have migrated into Roman Spain during the 4th century CE. They persecuted the Jews in the 6th century, are you going to blame Darwin for this too.

Jews were made scapegoats for any misfortunes in European kingdoms, natural eg famines, droughts, pestilence, etc, or man-made crises, eg Jews become rich due to their astute business investment, so they persecute Jews for their poverty.

Germans weren't the only ones persecuted Jews during the Middle Ages, they were poorly mistreated by Spaniards, French, English, and so on.

And none of that have anything to with Natural Selection.

Blaming Darwin for racism towards Jews being persecuted and mass-executed is level of dishonest ignorance.

Isn't it funny, how no one (like you or LIIA) blame Faraday or Maxwell, who discovered EM fields and EM waves, for people building bombs that can be triggered by radio-waves?

Why haven't you blaming Benjamin Franklin for his works on electricity, where people use electricity to torture people and even murder or execute people?

No one is blaming some Chinese who accidentally invented gunpowder. Gunpowder have been used as explosive and for firearms.

Your arguments back then about Natural Selection, and now, are weak. You haven't won anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I will, however, repeat one other thing. Perhaps it will be heeded, but I doubt it. Genetic bottlenecks occur when populations are radically and rapidly reduced in number, eliminating genetic variation that does not lead to the creation of novel genes that increase fitness. It reduces the available genes in the population, sometimes to detrimental effect.

The classic example is the cheetah. Bottlenecks in the history of that species have reduced variation so low that most cheetahs are genetically very similar to each other. So similar to the point that tissue grafts from one individual to another are readily accepted. This bottleneck and associated reduction in genetic variation is what has driven them to the brink of extinction.

The claims about history, consciousness, speciation and genetic bottlenecks I have seen reveal a knowledge that is as much more fantasy that fact. I would recommend that people making such claims and redefining terms willy nilly read the actual science on these things, learn the language and learn what is known. Again, that will not likely be advice that is taken seriously.

 

[rational experiences]

As a woman realising man's historic behaviour of our human female abuses.

Until you right that wrong as a human in men's society. I understand you will continue to behave as if an adult man is a God.

And not just a natural mutual equal human.

As a basic question you can ask is why did you thesis teach a human is closest in living biology to a monkey in our life?

Human behaviour dictated it.

Humans as just men as life's equal but in monetary control stated what I believe I control as belief.

Ordered it. If you contested the advice they just murdered you.

Isn't humans truth.

So the man's behaviour to act as a biological authoritarian emerged as a scientific human behaviour.

Bio truth is far more important a teaching than self idolisations. Pretending by man only theism you created life ...all of it by talking.

The exact reason for theories was about dominion as a human owning position place evolution.

Highest greatest now status knowing no more evolution growth of a human cell into a higher body not human was real.

By all stated living evidences.

Types of constant heavens gases.
Water oxygenated life forms.

If evolution was a science they'd expect a human would by law then emerge into a different higher life form not human.

So humans said I am position evolution.

Dominion on earth conscious awareness does not actually rationally support any other bodies abuse.