Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

It would add credibility to your statement.

I'm guessing the length of time it has taken you to respond and answering with a question means no.

It's the difference between someone who has
to search creosites, and someone who knows
what he is talking about.

 

[Audie]

I would like to mention that I was reading about Hodgkin's Disease lately and the genetic passage affecting a population in Venezuela. Scientists are attempting to understand and combat it. While persistent, these genetic passages are hurtful to the person, not helpful, if it takes over the person's body. So what does that mean? Hodgkin's Disease evidently isn't going away unless scientists find a way to combat it, perhaps even genetically. What does that mean? Mutations aren't always beneficial or helpful to successive generations.

Did you just now figure that our?

 

[cladking]

The mechanism of Evolution as proposed and postulated by Charles Darwin and it updated versions modern synthesis (from the 1930s to 1950s) and in its current form, the mechanism is called “Natural Selection”, not “Survival of the fittest”.

I already proved you were wrong using Darwin's own words!!!

But like every argument you want to turn this into a semantical argument.

 

[Audie]

I am NOT speaking of evolution within a certain framework. But no one has really seen or observed fish turning into (ok, evolving) landroving animals. They might speculate but they don't really 'know,' although saying that it definitely happened to evolve. (But they haven't observed the changes that made landdwelling animals from fish.)

Nobody saw the forest fire!
All those dead charred trees?
YOU may feel that nobody really
knows what happened. Nobody observed
it.

Others can comprehend it.
It's called common sense.

There are far more complex events that
nobody observed.
Those can take hard work (ugh) like
putting a crashed jet back together, to
see what happened.
You've not more than the dimmest notion
of the evidence for fish- to- amphibian
evolution. Understanding it takes hard
work ( see "ugh") that you simply have
not done.

A little common sense on your part
would reveal that you don't know what
you are talking about.

 

[cladking]

I find it annoying to see that there are pages and pages of unfounded pretense of superior knowledge...

I personally am actually claiming virtually perfect ignorance. Change in species is far too complex that anyone can understand it today. Other than the upside down flies OI mentioned earlier my experience with change in species is quite limited.

Ignorance is the natural state of our species but we almost all know this isn't true; homo omnisciencis. Ironically, due principally to complex language, we know far more than other consciousnesses.

 

[cladking]

Huh?
Science studies all levels of the issue, from population dynamics to genetics.

No!!! We do not study change in species from the individual perspective.

Many times I've said this is where we went wrong. you can't understand change in life without first understanding the nature of a single life. i don't care that you believe you can because you are wrong. Reductionistic science is not yet up to even defining the terms needed to understand change in species.

Who's ignoring genetics or culture? The mechanisms of evolution and adaptation are known, and will apply to both large and small populations.

You must understand the genetics of an individual and their effects on consciousness and behavior to even study how species change.

Reality is complex and you can't see its components by merely looking at it even if you have the best degree from the very best school. We see what we expect.

Nobody's assuming these things. The survivors were lucky, and their genetics were what they were.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere. What were they?

Who worships science or prays to peers? Attacking the ideas of peers is part of the scientific process.

No. Only other Priests are allowed to become splitters and if they prove to be correct than the religion changes one funeral at a time.

This is the world according to believers in science. Real scientists tend to be less mystical.

You keep saying this, and it's just plain wrong. There are mountains of evidence for natural selection and gradualism.

"Evidence" by definition is what you believe supports your understanding. You can't even see it at all if it doesn't support your beliefs. It doesn't matter if "evidence" weighs 100,000 tons, occupies 17 acres, and took 10 years to build you simply can't see it if you don't believe in it. This is the nature of reality to homo omnisciencis.

Ever hear of the double slit experiment?

Horsefeathers! Gradualism is more common, and the fossil record becomes more complete with every passing year.

If it were "complete" which is obviously impossible what we would see is species changing suddenly at the beginning of each age and undergoing another big change for the next age. Almost all observed changes within each age would be nominal because all individuals are equally fit.

 

[cladking]

What's with this obsession with Darwin? Medicine doesn't obsess on Hippocrates. Engineering doesn't obsess on Hero. Astronomy doesn't obsess on Ptolemy.

Great question!!

But that is the subject of this thread and Darwin was wrong about virtually everything. People still believe in him so there is still evil based on this belief.

Darwin also has a lingering effect on biology but it isn't as dramatic in that part of biology that is true science.

And for the hundredth time, this is just hogwash.
Where do you come up with this nonsense?

If you can't touch something or see it or sense it in any way then it is an abstraction. It is not real but rather more akin to a mnemonic. There is a tangible difference between a rabbit and "rabbits". One you could cook up for dinner and the other doesn't even really exist and can't really exist until it is defined in its entirety. We can't even define the rabbit being cooked up for dinner because we can't define life or consciousness. It's still real because we can touch it.

We use the abstraction of "rabbit" to communicate more easily but it remains an abstraction. When it appears in a sentence it must be parsed. It symbolizes "rabbits". What Darwin has done is manipulate abstractions rather than performing a single experiment. This is how he got everything so wrong that little is left of his "theory" of "evolution".

 

[cladking]

Science is progressing, but Darwin's discovery of natural selection still stands strong.

I predicted 50 years ago that science would barely progress for a few decades and then virtually stop. This belief is becoming more widely held among peers. I know why it is doing this and I believe I might know a way around the current problems. Most of the "progress" we've seen in the last half century is related to things like materials and instrumentation rather than theory because reductionistic science has two primary problems; it is bumping up against its axioms and it took some bad turns in the 19th century.

Now days statistics is taking the place of progress but statistics has nothing to do with science and all such results must be interpreted. They have no theoretical meaning of any sort.

Darwin's "theories" never stood at all as science. There MUST BE experiment underpinning all science BY DEFINITION.

 

[cladking]

You know perfectly well that part of the scientific process is to attack new proposals, and try to disprove them. That's what science does, it's how science works.
Science is not religion. In science, faith is anathema.

It never worked this way. "All" scientists today are human and all use the same means to acquire language and to think. Peers BY DEFINITION share the same assumptions and models. When new theory arises it is typically derived from existing beliefs and expressed as a new paradigm. Since humans usually don't change their beliefs new theory arises one funeral at a time.

In three more generations no peer will admit that he believes Darwin was right about anything.

 

[rational experiences]

All humans as their dominion on earth.

No science is exact.

Survival natural life is first.

Imposed upon life any type of civilisation status.

Basic humans teaching. It's indoctrinations only. A few men in life's total history a new theist.

A few men a long time ago began their tirade against family meek kind loving caring did not kill nor were motivated to kill.

How they achieved it was by behaviour of men who agreed in star fall caused brain chemical changes. To feel act destructively.

Family would not retaliate. You might say weak. They believe it a strength of holy character.

Phenomena relates to brain change. It's sporadic not total. It happened.

Therefore today based on just a few men you'd agree to life's destruction because a huge population are no longer a meek family member!

Is our virtual teaching.

Small cells enlarged remain as a small cells body type.

A man themes when I'm not human present bodily a destroyed human body equals such and such before me.

Is the destroyer mentality we warned ourselves about. Humans survival on earth.

 

[Valjean]

I already proved you were wrong using Darwin's own words!!!

But like every argument you want to turn this into a semantical argument.

Personally, I'd like to take Darwin out of the discussion and focus on modern biology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personally, I'd like to take Darwin out of the discussion and focus on modern biology.

Fine by me. Of course natural selection would still exist and so would genetic mutations. Bringing up natural selection alone will cause some to shout "That's Darwinism".

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course not. But that is a strawman argument on your part and you should know it.

We accept evolution because it has been tested millions of times. That is why there is more scientific evidence for it than there is for gravity. It is an undeniable fact, if one can reason rationally, that life as we now know it is the product of evolution. You could even test it if you learned enough. No one is stopping you from doing so.

I know, the fact that you are an ape bothers you for some strange reason and you would rather believe a myth from the Bible that shows God to be evil and incompetent. Why would you want to believe that? Though most creationists won't let themselves reason rationally when it comes to their myths.

Your constantly calling points of logic that you don't see "strawman argument" is getting tedious.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fine by me. Of course natural selection would still exist and so would genetic mutations. Bringing up natural selection alone will cause some to shout "That's Darwinism".

Natural selection implies that the organisms select which mutations they like or can deal with effectively in order to adapt. A better term would be helpful. Offhand I can't think of one, maybe you can. Natural selection is ridiculous, and it's not a "strawman argument." Even if you say it is, it is not.

 

[YoursTrue]

And nobody accepts scientific theses on a scientist's word, do they?

You know perfectly well that part of the scientific process is to attack new proposals, and try to disprove them. That's what science does, it's how science works.
Science is not religion. In science, faith is anathema.

Have these attacks on scientific theories helped mankind?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your constantly calling points of logic that you don't see "strawman argument" is getting tedious.

There is a simple solution. Do not make strawman arguments. You should know better by now. If you do not understand you can always ask how your argument was a strawman argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Natural selection implies that the organisms select which mutations they like or can deal with effectively in order to adapt. A better term would be helpful. Offhand I can't think of one, maybe you can. Natural selection is ridiculous, and it's not a "strawman argument." Even if you say it is, it is not.

No, it doesn't. That is only your interpretation. What it tells you is that nature selects through the environment that the species are found in. Natural selection can be easily observed. Sometimes in ways that will seem cruel to us. But nature itself is not "guilty" because there is no intent.

 

[Audie]

Personally, I'd like to take Darwin out of the discussion and focus on modern biology.

And about one more person

 

[gnostic]

I already proved you were wrong using Darwin's own words!!!

But like every argument you want to turn this into a semantical argument.

It is fact, not semantics that Natural Selection is a mechanism (one of the mechanisms) for Evolution, not this “survival of the fittest” that you keep using.

It is also fact that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were the pioneers of Natural Selection. It isn’t semantics that Herbert Spencer, the person who coined “survival of the fittest”, isn’t a pioneer to Natural Selection.

You are being ignorant and deliberately dishonest when you keep blaming “survival of the fittest” upon Darwin. The question is that I have corrected you on this, but you keep ignoring who invented “survival of the fittest...so why blame Darwin for something he didn’t coin?

And it is double standard or hypocritical of you, that you blame me and everyone else but yourself, when you’ve been playing word games all alone, trying to redefine words that you only used.

You use semantics too, except that you’ve assigned false meanings to words. Only dishonest people used this tactics and misinformation.

 

[cladking]

It is fact, not semantics that Natural Selection is a mechanism (one of the mechanisms) for Evolution, not this “survival of the fittest” that you keep using.

With a false assumption like this you are in danger of coming up with gradualism.

It is also fact that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were the pioneers of Natural Selection. It isn’t semantics that Herbert Spencer, the person who coined “survival of the fittest”, isn’t a pioneer to Natural Selection.

Semantics.

Darwin believed in survival of the fittest and he was wrong no matter what terms he used. But he still used the term "survival of the fittest". And he was still wrong.

You are being ignorant and deliberately dishonest when you keep blaming “survival of the fittest” upon Darwin. The question is that I have corrected you on this, but you keep ignoring who invented “survival of the fittest...so why blame Darwin for something he didn’t coin?

And I proved that he said it in his own words.

And it is still irrelevant because no matter what semantics are chosen it is wrong.

And it is double standard or hypocritical of you, that you blame me and everyone else but yourself, when you’ve been playing word games all alone, trying to redefine words that you only used.

"Semantics" is playing word games by the failure to define or changing the meanings of words. Every word is perfectly acceptable in conversation if you define it. Remember "metaphysics; the basis of science". You play word games and then accuse others of the same tactic.

How is that working for you?

You use semantics too, except that you’ve assigned false meanings to words. Only dishonest people used this tactics and misinformation.

But somehow or other you just can't think of a single example!