Darwin's Illusion

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's only intellectual dishonesty if the person
knows better but does it anyway.
May as well give the benefit of the doubt.

We are loooooong past that point.

 

[Audie]

We are loooooong past that point.

I will take your word for it. I seldom look
at those posts

 

[cladking]

Where in the post I was replying to did you make an argument?

And this is the problem. Believers can't see anomalies, contrary argument, or any evidence that doesn't agree with their thinking. This is the human condition. You believe in Evolution spo for you it is very very real. Of course the real world doesn't operate the way any of us believe. It is infinitely complex and we can see almost none of it.

There's no point in trying to reason with someone who's already decided on the answers before even asking the questions and who's hellbend on being wrong.

I disagree with you. That doesn't make me wrong.

 

[Valjean]

And this is the problem. Believers can't see anomalies, contrary argument, or any evidence that doesn't agree with their thinking. This is the human condition. You believe in Evolution spo for you it is very very real. Of course the real world doesn't operate the way any of us believe. It is infinitely complex and we can see almost none of it.

This is an excellent point, and it's exactly this short-sightedness and bias that science endeavors to overcome.

 

[cladking]

This is an excellent point, and it's exactly this short-sightedness and bias that science endeavors to overcome.

Reason and science are the only means we have to differentiate between reality and superstition. This is why it pains me to see so many people do it wrong.

Only experiment can define theory and reality. Only logic underlies reality and reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It gets really sick and dangerous when such
people are charismatic, and launch a cult.

Fortunately, I'm not seeing that sort of charisma here. What I see is expression that is more likely the result of follower types or indicative of desperation for relevance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

The term is fine. It is defined. It is the environment that does the selection through the interaction with the phenotypes in the population.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Nothing ridiculous about it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's only intellectual dishonesty if the person
knows better but does it anyway.
May as well give the benefit of the doubt.

I think some claims and statements go beyond mere ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I will take your word for it. I seldom look
at those posts

If memory serves, they get repeated ad nauseum. The trend seems to be rinse and repeat on a grand scale. You only have to see them once to see them all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fortunately for us Darwin was not suffering from delusional disorder and was seeing no illusions when he made his far-reaching and highly significant contribution to science. While we have learned a great deal since than. Far more than even Darwin could have imagined, his work remains the cornerstone of biology. He got a lot of things right despite not having access to the scope of modern research, modern research technologies and scales and interim discoveries.

Evolution acts that the level of population. There is no evidence or experiment that indicates conscious choice of individuals or groups is involved in driving evolution. Sexual selection may seem to confound that, but there is no indication that it works at a conscious level with intent.

Common sense tells us that change in living things at all levels is variable. Some things occur at very high rates and some things occur at very slow rates and everything in between. Claims that all change in all living things is sudden and under some mechanism of consciousness are beyond ridiculous. Claims that the theory of evolution or any scientific theory is inherently evil are equally beyond ridiculous. In fact, there are many claims I have seen on here that are ridiculous or beyond. All living things being equally fit. Genetic bottlenecks being a source of variation leading to speciation. Something referred to as Homo omnisciens, or whatever, that is completely made up with no basis in fact and describing nothing. That term doesn't exist outside of one source. It differentiates nothing, describes nothing, tells us nothing. I'm not sure why it continues to be tossed about. Directed mutations referenced as fact when it is not. Claiming that scientific disagreements means that we do not have a theory of evolution. Vestigial strawmaned out of its proper definition to erroneously be seen as meaning functionless when it does not mean that. Fitness taken to mean physically weak when it does not. I could go on, but even I am bored with pointing out that this thread has become an ongoing example of every creationist trope, logical fallacy and mis...interpretation, representation, understanding, take that I have ever encountered in one place. The only thing new is the novel belief system that seems be based on the most bizarre, unsubstantiated claims I have seen to date.

And still the fruit of Darwin's original efforts continues to aid in discovery and understanding.

 

[rational experiences]

Science. Agreement between humans only as men.

How isn't science only what you infer it is?

Are we all walking around as numbers in the form symbol s number changing form as a number to a new number as symbols?

No.

You see observe the one body. Any type first. Most owning two of its one body species.

How is it science,?

It isn't. The answer.

Men...will full. I will act behave as I like. I gave myself the control to exhibit the behaviour. Any type...any history for my reasons only.

Role plays just for humans as humans.

Now you choose not had to. You dug up Skeletal human bodies.

You look at them.

You compare them to life now.

Yet they are not living.

You say I observe we've bodily changed since those human lives lived.

Are you Inside the same atmospheric conditions as each one base type?

Yes.

Again not science. As base types a heavens are the same.

You say the body has adapted.

It's a lie. It's dead bones you look at.

Sex sometimes won't produce a mutation. Depends who you had sex with bodily.

Sex. Not science once said holy men before.

Men said humans different DNA migrated.

So new humans had sex with other humans.

His mutated society can just die out.

As first idea as a human in a choice says I'll choose the best looking sex partner. If I can.

Therefore same atmospheric state.

Sex by choice.

Now did a dinosaur have sex with not a dinosaur?

No.

Is your answer.

You however won't accept the answer.

Why. You own a human motive to not accept.

Real answer I'm looking for a God type.

 

[cladking]

Common sense tells us that change in living things at all levels is variable. Some things occur at very high rates and some things occur at very slow rates and everything in between.

If this were true we'd be able to observe something that was not sudden. The only thing I've ever seen that ever even approached 'not sudden" is divorce that could be 20 years or more coming. But then a "marriage" is not truly a "living thing", it is not a living individual, so doesn't really qualify as a "change in life". Unless something is conscious, it can not be alive.

Changes in life are sudden and biology is beginning to suggest that even changes in species can be sudden. If you look at life from an individual or a global perspective it appears change in species is far more highly complex than Darwin ever imagined.

 

[cladking]

Science. Agreement between humans only as men.

How isn't science only what you infer it is?

Are we all walking around as numbers in the form symbol s number changing form as a number to a new number as symbols?

No.

You see observe the one body. Any type first. Most owning two of its one body species.

How is it science,?

It isn't. The answer.

Men...will full. I will act behave as I like. I gave myself the control to exhibit the behaviour. Any type...any history for my reasons only.

Role plays just for humans as humans.

Now you choose not had to. You dug up Skeletal human bodies.

You look at them.

You compare them to life now.

Yet they are not living.

You say I observe we've bodily changed since those human lives lived.

Are you Inside the same atmospheric conditions as each one base type?

Yes.

Again not science. As base types a heavens are the same.

You say the body has adapted.

It's a lie. It's dead bones you look at.

Sex sometimes won't produce a mutation. Depends who you had sex with bodily.

Sex. Not science once said holy men before.

Men said humans different DNA migrated.

So new humans had sex with other humans.

His mutated society can just die out.

As first idea as a human in a choice says I'll choose the best looking sex partner. If I can.

Therefore same atmospheric state.

Sex by choice.

Now did a dinosaur have sex with not a dinosaur?

No.

Is your answer.

You however won't accept the answer.

Why. You own a human motive to not accept.

Real answer I'm looking for a God type.

I'm in general agreement.

If I understand you correctly then I also agree that each of us should maintain a spiritual side at least until we really are "Homo omniscience" which is going to be forever.

Everything is forever changing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Anyone claiming that all change in living things is sudden and using cultural evidence to that effect is supporting a fiction that flies in the face of common sense and is easily refuted. And has been regularly refuted on here.

As per usual, claims are made without supporting evidence from the claimant. There is no reason to conclude that the science of biology is moving to the nonsensical idea that speciation is sudden.

It takes 12 minutes to boil a chicken egg. It takes 21 days for a chicken to hatch from an egg. Dog day harvest flies (the misnamed annual cicada) has a life cycle of two to five years. The periodic cicadas are seven species, four with 13 year life cycles and three with 17 year life cycles.

These four facts by themselves, completely refute the claim that all change in biology (living things) is sudden. This is indisputable. Any opinion to the contrary is not based on biology or science or facts or experiments or evidence. Such opinions are divorced from these things and it doesn't take 20 years to see that.

There is no such thing as homo omniscience. It is not a term of science. It is not used to describe anything in the natural world. There is no living thing recognized by that name.

 

[Valjean]

If this were true we'd be able to observe something that was not sudden. The only thing I've ever seen that ever even approached 'not sudden" is divorce that could be 20 years or more coming. But then a "marriage" is not truly a "living thing", it is not a living individual, so doesn't really qualify as a "change in life". Unless something is conscious, it can not be alive.

Changes in life are sudden and biology is beginning to suggest that even changes in species can be sudden. If you look at life from an individual or a global perspective it appears change in species is far more highly complex than Darwin ever imagined.

Please stop. Endlessly repeating a demonstrably false claim doesn't verify it.
How sudden is sudden, in your opinion? A million years?

Most change is gradual. That's what the fossil record shows. That's what historical memory seems to indicate. So slow is most change that creationists are always pointing to the fact that we haven't seen a bear turn into a whale or a chimp into a person as evidence against evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

The term is fine. It is defined. It is the environment that does the selection through the interaction with the phenotypes in the population.

I was just reading about the branches. I mean which branches started like plants and animals?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was just reading about the branches. I mean which branches started like plants and animals?

Branches of living things?

 

[cladking]

How sudden is sudden, in your opinion? A million years?

Most change is gradual. That's what the fossil record shows. That's what historical memory seems to indicate. So slow is most change that creationists are always pointing to the fact that we haven't seen a bear turn into a whale or a chimp into a person as evidence against evolution.

This isn't God Vs Science with all spoils to the victor.

This is Darwin Vs reality where we all lose. We lose because we think strength and walking on the weak is the good rather than "proper" behavior being the ultimate good. We lose because it is hard to see life is consciousness and consciousness exists to benefit the individual and its species while having a "good time" when we are more interested in being the fittest.

If there were a devil he could have done our species no more damage and brought no more misery than Charles Darwin.

Reading the fossil record is no more accurate than reading tea leaves.

How sudden is sudden, in your opinion? A million years?

I've answered this many times. "Sudden" normally means fewer than three generations. Just as "species" vary wildly so too does the definition of "sudden" from species to species. A great deal depends on the specific changes taking place and whether there were significant changes in the niche in which the parent or child species existed.

Reality is far more highly complex than any believer in Science or Peers can ever imagine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Branches of living things?

I think it was a poorly worded question about the phylogenetic tree.