Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

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.

You’re confirming everything I said yet blaming me for your own lack of understanding!!

It would be a real ignorance of a proponent of the ToE to deny the great influence of the theory on social sciences and political sciences, a strong influence that gave rise to new adopted ideologies by societies and governments.

Yes, the ToE doesn’t include moral values; it took it off its roots and eliminated its references. Can you understand the difference between a theory and its impact/influence? See # 3235

Yes, darwin said a lot of stupid things.

These stupid things (which are necessarily immoral) are directly related/influenced by the core evolutionary concept. It was not merely some irrelevant ideas that he wanted to entertain in his books for no reason.

See the link below for the “The Descent of Man”.
darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1889_Descent_F969.pdf

 

[LIIA]

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

I didn’t see you on the thread for some time. Great to have you back!

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.

The challenges to Darwinian theory have led more than 600 scientists from major universities such as Stanford, Berkeley, Cambridge, Chicago and many other major universities throughout the world to sign a document titled: “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”

These are scientists who've looked into the facts/evidence and became skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Microsoft Word - 2021 Dissent List_May_Final_Update1.docx (discovery.org)

Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

We have a weird and convoluted understanding of what it means to be an individual, a person, and alive.

I agree, other that some empty claims, they don’t have a clue what life really is.

The video below discusses the origins/diversity of life, the ToE, Abiogenists, fine tuning of the universe, the multiverse theory, etc. it’s a long but interesting video that sheds light on the subject and tries to connect the dots.

Is There Scientific Evidence That God Exists? | The Case For A Creator | Parable - YouTube

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the functions of claimed vestigial (useless) organs have been empirically documented. If diseases affect organs during the aging process, it doesn’t mean that these organs are vestigial.

Vestigial does not mean useless. That is the incorrect creationist definition. A vestigial organ no longer does its original job. It may have a new one.

See the article below; it sheds light on the function of the appendix. The article clearly stated “THE IDEA OF THE APPENDIX BEING A VESTIGIAL ORGAN SHOULD THEREFORE BE DISCARDED.”

Here is quote from the conclusion of the article:

“The vermiform appendix is not a rudimentary organ, but rather an important part of the immune system with a distinct function within the GALT different from lymphoid tissue in other parts of the intestine.”

The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature - PMC (nih.gov)

Yes, scientists may have made a mistake when they classified that as a vestigial structure. Or it may still be vestigial. It could have had a different original purpose.

But we still have a ton of vestigial structures in our body.

For example some humans can still move their ears. Not as much as modern day monkeys, but it can be done for some. Apart from possibly getting a strange female's attention this structure does no serve any purpose today.

We have wisdom teeth. Well most of us do. A few of us no longer make them. Wisdom teeth no longer fit in our small mouths very well. That is why so many dentists want to pull them. They cause more health problems than they solve.

We still have a tailbone. Yes, it has a different use today. But it no longer does its original job. We still have the remnants of a nictating membrane for our eye, but no such membrane. There are even more here. You can scoff when you see that appendix is still listed. But as I said, if its original function is found then it would also still be vestigial.

Human vestigiality - Wikipedia

- Asthma alone (not considering other lung diseases) affects 1 in 13 people or 8%.

- Kidney disease affect 1 in 7 or 15% of American adults.

- Cardiovascular diseases affect nearly half of American adults (48%).

The appendix problems are comparatively rare and associated with the aging process; it has nothing to do with the ignorant claims about the appendix being unnecessary.

the 3 articles below clarify the importance of the appendix.

The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature - PMC (nih.gov)

The Appendix Protects Us From Germs And Protects Good Bacteria (medicalnewstoday.com)

Your Appendix Could Save Your Life - Scientific American

Oh, just more stuff about the appendix. Okay, you found one. When you find a needed use for the ability to move one's ears call us. But remember, vestigial does not mean useless.

 

[LIIA]

But it is not. You do not know where to look for gradualism and why. Examples have been given.



There are results from mass extinctions, that is the point.

Jumping Muhammad on a tricycle! Why did you edit my post? Using the back arrow I found that the answers to the questions you ask were in that post:

"No, sorry, you merely do not understand the difference between geological time and biological time. Yes, there are long periods of stasis. But if you change things too quickly mass extinctions occur. Changes will appear to be quick in the geological record, but a million years is almost a blink of an eye in most depositional environments. Look to sea life if you want to see gradualism. There is no reason to expect it in terrestrial life at all."

Time is relative and totally irrelevant in this context. The point is not about how long is a period in the geological history; it’s about the absence of gradualism.

The alleged LUCA is dated about 4 billion years ago. About 530 million years ago, and in a geological instant, the Cambrian explosion of life revealed preserved fossils of virtually every major animal phyla not gradually/slowly as Darwin speculated but with astonishing suddenness. About 3.5 billion years from the alleged LUCA, there was nothing but single-celled microbial life, then the sudden explosion of life appeared with most of the major animal forms with a massive leap from single-celled organisms to extraordinary complex creatures.

The record of this explosion of life looks nothing like Darwin’s speculated slowly branching tree of life where you have one organism diverging into many other organisms. The alleged tree does not exist in the fossil record, neither before nor after the Cambrian explosion.

The Cambrian explosion is a refutation of the alleged tree of life. Again, Darwin was aware of it but instead of admitting that his theory extremely contradicts observations, he conveniently speculated that the geological record is extremely imperfect. Yet after two centuries of research, the only fact confirmed in the fossil record is the absence of Darwin’s alleged tree of life.

False exceptions never prove a rule.

 

[LIIA]

Morality is a human invention, though formed somewhat by evolution. We do not need a book of myths to be moral.

It’s meaningless in your dictionary.

 

[LIIA]

You only focus on terrestrial fossils where huge gaps are expected

I’m not concerned about land or see fossils. It’s irrelevant. The point is the absence of gradualism/tree of life in the entire geological history. alleged exceptions are irrelevant, it doesn’t prove an allegedly dominate rule.

Again, in the Cambrian period, suddenly (in a geological instant) all major animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record. See # 3244

 

[LIIA]

For example some humans can still move their ears.

So what?

Any trained regularly used muscle gets stronger with better ability. If you don’t use it, the muscle loses its strength/ability. Moving the ears helps focusing on sounds, studies showed that learning to move the ears is possible with practice and training.

Can you learn to wiggle your ears? | Live Science

We have wisdom teeth. Well most of us do. A few of us no longer make them. Wisdom teeth no longer fit in our small mouths very well. That is why so many dentists want to pull them. They cause more health problems than they solve.

See #2876

Darwin's Illusion | Page 144 | Religious Forums

We still have a tailbone. Yes, it has a different use today. But it no longer does its original job

“Despite its small size, the coccyx has several important functions. Along with being the insertion site for multiple muscles, ligaments, and tendons, it also serves as one leg of the tripod—along with the ischial tuberosities—that provides weight-bearing support to a person in the seated position.”

Coccydynia: An Overview of the Anatomy, Etiology, and Treatment of Coccyx Pain - PMC (nih.gov)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Time is relative and totally irrelevant in this context. The point is not about how long is a period in the geological history; it’s about the absence of gradualism.

The alleged LUCA is dated about 4 billion years ago. About 530 million years ago, and in a geological instant, the Cambrian explosion of life revealed preserved fossils of virtually every major animal phyla not gradually/slowly as Darwin speculated but with astonishing suddenness. About 3.5 billion years from the alleged LUCA, there was nothing but single-celled microbial life, then the sudden explosion of life appeared with most of the major animal forms with a massive leap from single-celled organisms to extraordinary complex creatures.

The record of this explosion of life looks nothing like Darwin’s speculated slowly branching tree of life where you have one organism diverging into many other organisms. The alleged tree does not exist in the fossil record, neither before nor after the Cambrian explosion.

The Cambrian explosion is a refutation of the alleged tree of life. Again, Darwin was aware of it but instead of admitting that his theory extremely contradicts observations, he conveniently speculated that the geological record is extremely imperfect. Yet after two centuries of research, the only fact confirmed in the fossil record is the absence of Darwin’s alleged tree of life.

False exceptions never prove a rule.

I am probably going to have to repeat this endlessly. The lack of gradualism for terrestrial fossils is expected.

Why do you think that it should exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what?

Any trained regularly used muscle gets stronger with better ability. If you don’t use it, the muscle loses its strength/ability. Moving the ears helps focusing on sounds, studies showed that learning to move the ears is possible with practice and training.

Can you learn to wiggle your ears? | Live Science



See #2876

Darwin's Illusion | Page 144 | Religious Forums



“Despite its small size, the coccyx has several important functions. Along with being the insertion site for multiple muscles, ligaments, and tendons, it also serves as one leg of the tripod—along with the ischial tuberosities—that provides weight-bearing support to a person in the seated position.”

Coccydynia: An Overview of the Anatomy, Etiology, and Treatment of Coccyx Pain - PMC (nih.gov)

LOL! Vestigial does not mean functionless. Does the tail bone still move your tail? Does extremely limited movement of your ears do anything at all.

Like it or not they are vestigial structures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m not concerned about land or see fossils. It’s irrelevant. The point is the absence of gradualism/tree of life in the entire geological history. alleged exceptions are irrelevant, it doesn’t prove an allegedly dominate rule.

Again, in the Cambrian period, suddenly (in a geological instant) all major animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record. See # 3244

You are about 50 years out of date.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s meaningless in your dictionary.

No, it is not. In fact by most standards atheists are more moral than theists. How do you explain that? Far fewer in prison, a lower rate of divorce, low outside of wedlock births, the list goes on. Think about it, you have to have a nonexistent being tell you to be nice. We can figure that out for ourselves.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You focus on semantics and ignore the facts.

Not ignoring certain words that are inconvenient for your case and thereby building a strawman, is not "focussing on semantics".

Instead, it's exposing your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, the functions of claimed vestigial (useless) organs have been empirically documented.

"vestigial" does not mean it has no function.

If diseases affect organs during the aging process, it doesn’t mean that these organs are vestigial.

Do you even know what "vestigial" means? Because the way you used this word in that sentence, suggests that you don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You’re confirming everything I said yet blaming me for your own lack of understanding!!

You just stated the obvious. You seem to be also making the argument that evolution theory is somehow "bad" or even "incorrect" because it doesn't include moral values.

That's a downright bizar thing to say. It's like saying gravity or germ theory is somehow "bad" or "incorrect" because it doesn't include moral values.

It's in the category of "not even wrong".

It would be a real ignorance of a proponent of the ToE to deny the great influence of the theory on social sciences and political sciences, a strong influence that gave rise to new adopted ideologies by societies and governments.

I'm not even going to go there. Because it is irrelevant.
Whatever ideologies were born, if any actually did - doesn't matter, inspired by a theory in biology, has no bearing on the validity of that theory.

So at best, this is just a red herring.

Yes, the ToE doesn’t include moral values; it took it off its roots and eliminated its references.

Again: not even wrong.

It's a theory that explains how species originate. That's it. It has nothing to do with morals, values, whatever. The more you double down on this nonsense, the more in the category of "not even wrong" you are burying yourself.

Can you understand the difference between a theory and its impact/influence? See # 3235

Can you understand that you are just arguing a red herring? I guess not.
It doesn't matter to the validity of the theory.

If people shape their political views based on this theory, I can only call them foolish - whatever those views are (for better or worse). Again, it's a theory that addresses the subject of species origination. Trying to morph it into a political ideology is not more or less then a misapplication.

The only reason you bring it up, is because you are religiously desperate to argue against the theory and can't manage to do it with a proper argument that actually addresses the theory and the evidence for it.

So instead, you need to resort to strawmen, quote mining and red herrings.

These stupid things (which are necessarily immoral) are directly related/influenced by the core evolutionary concept.

No.

It was not merely some irrelevant ideas that he wanted to entertain in his books for no reason.
See the link below for the “The Descent of Man”.
darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1889_Descent_F969.pdf

More red herrings. Actually, this kind of smells like an ad hominem...
"Darwin was an a-hole, therefor evolution is wrong".
Something like that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The alleged LUCA is dated about 4 billion years ago. About 530 million years ago, and in a geological instant, the Cambrian explosion of life revealed preserved fossils of virtually every major animal phyla not gradually/slowly as Darwin speculated but with astonishing suddenness. About 3.5 billion years from the alleged LUCA, there was nothing but single-celled microbial life, then the sudden explosion of life appeared with most of the major animal forms with a massive leap from single-celled organisms to extraordinary complex creatures.

You speak as if there was only single celled life before the cambrian explosion.
In reality, multi-cellular life pre-dates the cambrian explosion by 50 to 100 million years.

And that "geological instant" took 20 to 60million years (depending where you wish to draw the line).

The record of this explosion of life looks nothing like Darwin’s speculated slowly branching tree of life where you have one organism diverging into many other organisms.

Yes, we've been over this and it was explained to you at length, ad nauseum.
Darwin was wrong. Evolution is not a constant slow trend of change, but rather change comes in waves with peaks of "rapid gradual change" when local optimums shift, and downs of very slow to even no gradual change in times of stasis / local optimum.

It's called punctuated equilibrium.

The alleged tree does not exist in the fossil record

That's false.
It exists in the fossil record, it exists in comparative anatomy, it exists in DNA... it even exists in geographic distribution of species.

You can generate this tree from several independent lines of evidence and you always end up with the same tree.

The Cambrian explosion is a refutation of the alleged tree of life.

It is not.

Again, Darwin was aware of it but instead of admitting that his theory extremely contradicts observations, he conveniently speculated that the geological record is extremely imperfect. Yet after two centuries of research, the only fact confirmed in the fossil record is the absence of Darwin’s alleged tree of life.

False exceptions never prove a rule.

So we are just going to ignore all progress that was made the last 200 years in the field and instead we are just going to pretend that point out errors that Darwin made 200 years ago, means that the modern theory is incorrect? And simply ignore that those errors are no longer part of the model today?


That's like saying that the modern model of gravity (relativity) is wrong because Newton didn't know about the relativity of time and how it relates to gravity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s meaningless in your dictionary.

Why would you say such a stupid thing?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, in the Cambrian period, suddenly (in a geological instant) all major animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record. See # 3244

Have you ever wondered why biologists don't consider this to be an argument against evolution at all?

 

[Audie]

You conflated the whole issue and turned it into some meaningless emotional accusations. I’m talking about the adaptation of a specific concept and the implications of such adaptation, not merely some empty accusations or even the accuracy of the theory. I never claimed that the "moral implications” of the ToE is a scientific refutation of the theory, do you understand?

In your post # 3187 you agreed with others and accused creationists to be dishonest. My point here is “Honesty” as a concept/moral value, what defines it and how if fits in one concept or another.

As I said in #3194, the concept of the ToE eliminates all references of morality/values and doesn’t make distinction between being human or animal. The conduct of Homo sapiens as any other animal is merely derived from random natural processes instilled in its genes as a natural response to the need of survival, the only principal that remains in effect is the struggle for survival and survival of the fittest. Honesty/Morality is meaningless in that concept.

Creationism defines a reference for morality. In absence of that reference, what would define something to be moral or immoral and why? All what is left are interactions of matter governed by natural laws that yield a dictated outcome. Can you call the outcome of a chemical reaction to be moral or immoral?

Morality is always associated with a choice, if interactions of matter and your specific genes dictate your conduct and action, is there still a choice? Can the natural outcome of natural processes be moral or immoral?

If struggle for survival and survival of the fittest is the only law of nature to move forward, then why is the Nazi selective breeding of the “Nordic” race with better biological “Aryan” traits would be wrong? Why racial biology/ eugenics programs would be wrong if it allows better inheritance of traits? Why forced sterilization of people with physical or intellectual disability that can affect inheritance of traits by offspring would be wrong? (Between 60,000 and 90,000 Americans were subjected to involuntary sterilization).

If we are merely animals that are responding to natural instincts/needs, then why incestuous relationship between mother and son or father and daughter would be wrong? Why rape, or sexual abuse of children would be wrong? Why stealing and killing would be wrong? It becomes merely natural fulfillment of needs and natural struggle for survival. The laws of the jungle become the only laws of nature that govern, not only for wild animal but also humans who are no longer different than any animal.

What is the reference of morality for those who adapt the evolutionary concept? If your conduct brings you a benefit or fulfills your need in one way or another and you can get away with it, why would it be wrong? If the genes and mere interaction of matter dictate your behavior and actions, why would be any action immoral/wrong?

The evolutionary concept eliminates any meaning or reference for Honesty/Morality. It becomes a matter of relative preference or need as it fits in the struggle for survival. Those proponents of the ToE who claims to embrace honesty/morality and extend a helping hand to the weak and disabled are necessarily hypocrites who are betraying the only principle of nature to eliminate the unfit along the natural course towards prosperity.

Claiming to know my emotional state
is dishonest.
Misquoting me is dishonest.
Arguments from ignorance and
incredulity are fallacies.
Tossing in references to Hitler are
considered an automatic loss.
I just skimmed your post, this isn't a
a comprehensive listing of where
all you are off the rails.

Making a false statement about ToE
as you in your last paragraph as basis
for a false and invidious accusation
of hypocrisy is contemptible.

What I actually say is that it is impossible
to be an informed creationist who is
intellectually honest.

 

[Audie]

You focus on semantics and ignore the facts. As I said in my post # 3191, your claim that some rate of gradual change (necessarily numerous functional intermediates) precedes local optimum/stasis and continues after stasis with gradual transformation towards next local optimum is totally false. it’s an empty claim against the facts of the fossil record. The alleged gradualism (rate of change) between periods of stasis is nonexistent.

As confirmed by paleontologists, all what we see in the fossil record is fully formed organisms within the periods of stasis followed by sudden jumps characterized by massive change of the genetic info (saltation). See the quotes in #3191.

Two things about your final paragraph.

First, it is false. Sudden " jumps"
are not all that is seen.
Whatever a "jump" might be. Or "sudden".
Whatever you are " quoting" is not from
scietific lit., or is grossly misquoted.

Second. I doubt you can find any reference
in the literature that speaks of " fully formed".

Unless maybe it's referring to an embryo
as not a fully formed adult.

And I even more doubt you can say what
" fully formed" wouldeven means like, in contrast to what...not
fully formed? What would that even be?

 

[cladking]

I didn’t see you on the thread for some time. Great to have you back!

Thank you. I was having a little hissy fit about being misunderstood during a storm of insults hurled at me. I had intended to not come back at all but seeing the same old tactics and obfuscation by believers in all things "science" drew me back in anyway.

You've been doing great without me.

The challenges to Darwinian theory have led more than 600 scientists from major universities such as Stanford, Berkeley, Cambridge, Chicago and many other major universities throughout the world to sign a document titled: “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism”

These are scientists who've looked into the facts/evidence and became skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Microsoft Word - 2021 Dissent List_May_Final_Update1.docx (discovery.org)

Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

I checked these out and am very impressed. I never knew that anyone agreed with me about anything so it's heart warming to see this. I arrived at the same conclusions by a different route. I think the primary difference between them and me is that I consider "survival of the fittest" as a far distant tertiary cause of "change in species". I believe "natural selection" is so weak in causing change that it shouldn't even be studied at our low level of knowledge at this time. All individuals are equally fit. No individual is more likely to be naturally selected for extermination except in specific and isolated instances. It certainly plays a tiny role in change in species.

I agree, other that some empty claims, they don’t have a clue what life really is.

The video below discusses the origins/diversity of life, the ToE, Abiogenists, fine tuning of the universe, the multiverse theory, etc. it’s a long but interesting video that sheds light on the subject and tries to connect the dots.

Is There Scientific Evidence That God Exists? | The Case For A Creator | Parable - YouTube

When we finally know the truth it might not fit well into an equation or six but it will be simple enough anyone can understand.

People will believe anything at all if they want to and history has shown there are always snake oil salesmen to sell them on it. People wanted to believe Darwin because it removed God from life and from all things mundane. It took a most highly complex reality and put it into "survival of the fittest". No matter it's wrong because it's easy to remember and allows us to walk all over the little guy and all the rest of the weak amongst us. We get what we want unless it's our families being shoved into the ovens.