Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

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.



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.

I see. So now it is back to strawman arguments.

 

[cladking]

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

For the life of me I can't imagine why this isn't obvious. If reality were as simple as people believe we could predict every major event before it happened yet we can predict none instead. If reality were simple there would be no chaos. The Chinese wouldn't be sending balloons over so they knew when to get their butterflies to flap their wings to destroy another US city.

It is astounding that people want to try to understand a single experiment or a single Bible passage at a time. Reality is the interplay of everything occurring simultaneously with no rules, laws and possibly no oversight at all. We think we know a few of the laws but we can't really predict much of anything except the behavior of our own machines. Machines are a virtual manifestation of predictability. The future is rigged with rails and limits; pistons and springs.

Science is not a form of magic that operates on genius to discover what laws operate the universe. Science doesn't even exist per se and is mere a set of experiment which each show a tiny part of the nature of reality. All reality obeys all experiment but no laws. We must do far more interpolation and far less extrapolation of experiment. We are doing it wrong. The odds of any event are one in infinity where "infinity" might be defined as number so large as to have no meaning to us like the 4.2 x 10 ^ 807,000 monkeys required to write War and Peace in one try.

Why can't everyone see that reductionistic science works extremely well for studying things like the coefficient of kinetic friction but it is useless to understand consciousness or the nature of life?

Science is not formatted so it can be applied to every question. Real science is based on experiment because our brains don't do logic.

 

[cladking]

That's what historical memory seems to indicate.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Whatever you mean it must be experimental to have any bearing on "change in species". Even the finest peer from the finest school still can't just look and see reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

No. This is your claims versus reality. The theory of evolution doesn't address rich and poor, weak or strong, smart or dumb in the human cultural sense that you claim for it. Natural selection is the interaction of the environment with phenotypes that favors traits that offer increased survivability and increased reproductive success. It has nothing to do with physical, financial, racial, religious, or cultural superiority. What people have done using a theory as an excuse or willfully misinterpreting it not the theory or the fault of the theory or of scientists or due to some inherent evil of the a scientific theory. People misuse the most mundane objects to commit evil and that is not the fault of the objects anymore than the misuse of this science is a fault of the science or of Darwin.

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

This is just nonsense. We are here on the backs of giants like Darwin. But Darwin is in the past. Easy to beat up on, but meaningless to do so.

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

Your claims are no more accurate that reading tea leaves. Everything that you have claimed regarding biology has been widely and rightly refuted.

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.

Change in living things is variable. There is change at all levels of life that occurs at different rates from respiration to digestion, to lifespan, to generations to lineages. Your claim that all change in living things is sudden doesn't hold up, because digestion, birth, death and so many things don't take two or three generations. Speciation is not known to occur in two or three generations. How can things that occur at such different rates and speeds occur at the same speed according to you? It doesn't make sense. It isn't so.

From what I have observed from your posts is not just a lack of knowledge of science and biology, but a substitution of your unusual beliefs about science as facts in the form of baseless claims that remain unsupported by evidence, experiment or reason.

Based on your view, sudden has no meaningful definition. So you make claims using words with no meaningful definition as if they are rock solid, immutable facts when that is just not so.

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

I've seen that you like to close with reference to baseless conspiracy theories and arguments of incredulity that shows a deep lack of understanding and respect for the ability of anyone that actually studies and reports in science. Clearly, all of this is too complex for you to grasp even the basics based on erroneous claims routinely and regularly found in your posts. Just because it is too complex for you to grasp, doesn't mean it is incomprehensible or that others don't grasp what you cannot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Thanks. That makes sense. The issue with vocabulary is another issue that acts as a source of confusion and misunderstanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For the life of me I can't imagine why this isn't obvious. If reality were as simple as people believe we could predict every major event before it happened yet we can predict none instead. If reality were simple there would be no chaos. The Chinese wouldn't be sending balloons over so they knew when to get their butterflies to flap their wings to destroy another US city.

It is astounding that people want to try to understand a single experiment or a single Bible passage at a time. Reality is the interplay of everything occurring simultaneously with no rules, laws and possibly no oversight at all. We think we know a few of the laws but we can't really predict much of anything except the behavior of our own machines. Machines are a virtual manifestation of predictability. The future is rigged with rails and limits; pistons and springs.

Science is not a form of magic that operates on genius to discover what laws operate the universe. Science doesn't even exist per se and is mere a set of experiment which each show a tiny part of the nature of reality. All reality obeys all experiment but no laws. We must do far more interpolation and far less extrapolation of experiment. We are doing it wrong. The odds of any event are one in infinity where "infinity" might be defined as number so large as to have no meaning to us like the 4.2 x 10 ^ 807,000 monkeys required to write War and Peace in one try.

Why can't everyone see that reductionistic science works extremely well for studying things like the coefficient of kinetic friction but it is useless to understand consciousness or the nature of life?

Science is not formatted so it can be applied to every question. Real science is based on experiment because our brains don't do logic.

This is all random noise and word salad.

You advocate a reductionist view of speciation based on the study of the individual. Individuals don't change species.

You don't offer the evidence of experiments for anything.

 

[gnostic]

And this is the problem. Believers can't see anomalies, contrary argument, or any evidence that doesn't agree with their thinking.

You’re projecting. That’s actually “you”.

The thing is, your “contrary argument”, is not based on evidence, on logic or on reality.

Your “contrary argument” is merely deluded fantasies, believing that each individual organisms can consciously choose to “suddenly” evolve in any ways they preferred.

What of plants, fungi, archaea or bacteria? Are any of their species “conscious”?

With Evolution, biologists do accept and understand some populations of species can evolve, that the rates of adaption or rates of speciation can varied, some faster and some slower, but that’s all.

In the world of Bacteria (domain), they have shorter lifespan than most other life forms, eg eukaryotes like animals, plants & fungi, so bacteria reproduce in short time after they exist, asexually through cell division known as binary fission.

Depending on the species, the rate of when they start reproducing, can vary from within 10 minutes old (in the lab, it was observed that bacteria was 9.8 minutes old when it started cell division) to when they are day old or two. The parent bacteria would be gone, after successful production of two daughter bacteria.

If we go by the record of 9.8 minutes, then in a single day, a single individual parent bacteria, could have as many 147 generations, which would give a population of 1.78x10^44.

So let's say (hypothetically) you give antibiotic to kill the bacteria of 4th generation, population of 16 individual bacteria, of which only 1 individual is tolerant to the antibiotic, while the rest died. The surviving individual bacteria become a new parent.

And let's say in 90 days (3 months), that would be about 550 generations, and within those 3 months, month 1 for example, quarter die without reproducing, and month 2 about one-fifth died without reproducing, but on the 90th day, the new subspecies have become immune to that particular antibiotic.

90 days may not be long in human term, but I wouldn't call 551 generations to be "sudden". My calculator cannot even give me an estimate of the population in 551st generation.

For eukaryotic organisms, like humans, generations come in years and decades, so speciation take even longer between the Homo erectus and Homo sapiens. The Homo erectus (or the Homo heidelbergensis) didn't become suddenly Homo sapiens.

And the Homo sapiens cannot just wake up one morning and decide "I don't want to be Homo heidelbergensis any more". Conscious don't direct evolution.

Your notion that consciousness can control what we evolve into, would only exist in pseudoscience sci-fi novels or films, or in comic books.


Edit: My Windows calculator was about to calculate the 551st generation to be population of 7.3 x 10^165!!!! My guess is that my normal calculator cannot handle number of very long integer.

 

[rational experiences]

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.

Conscious awareness in humans changed.

Identified by behaviours seen observed only.

All base one self bodies are the same.

Change is either improvement or destruction.

Science in practice is minus by I want. I get by a huge colder energy removal of mass to a gained I calculated for it resource. Then I consume the resource.....destroyer only.

I always gained god the only one base of all things energy. As any one substance is seen as it is. I always have the greatest one state removed.

So minus one in energy mass could be a huge destruction.

Science mind says humans you are my problem. Too many of you using my technology. It's your fault we get attacked. As he never owned a formula for human consuming of said resource energy.

It's why we teach rich man greedy man of science exhibits evil thinking themes against family rights to live on earth with them.

Science in thesis did a human only pretend add. From old destroyed not living conditions themed to self now.

Yet you aren't any of those dead destroyed things first.

The summation who is life's destroyer is the scientist rich men humans.

 

[Audie]

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.

It will be repeated as long as it gets attention.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It will be repeated as long as it gets attention.

I know. I broke down. I found it aggravating to see the science that I love and study being butchered by the rusty, dull blade of ignorance and science fiction.

 

[cladking]

Everything that you have claimed regarding biology has been widely and rightly refuted.

I've been told this literally thousands of times and despite this no one can tell me when, where, or what about this refutation. Like an experiment that can't be replicated it has no meaning.

What actually happens is I say something like "all observed change in life is sudden" and then I get lectured about why that person believes the fossil record can be interpreted otherwise, there exist "ring species", the e coli experiment, or a vast host of irrelevancies. Of course there is an inundation of semantics and straw armies to go along with it.

 

[cladking]

Your claim that all change in living things is sudden doesn't hold up, because digestion, birth, death and so many things don't take two or three generations.

I just defined "sudden" as LESS THAN THREE GENERATIONS. All change is less than three generations. All change is sudden.

 

[cladking]

I've seen that you like to close with reference to baseless conspiracy theories and arguments of incredulity that shows a deep lack of understanding and respect for the ability of anyone that actually studies and reports in science. Clearly, all of this is too complex for you to grasp even the basics based on erroneous claims routinely and regularly found in your posts. Just because it is too complex for you to grasp, doesn't mean it is incomprehensible or that others don't grasp what you cannot.

Wow! Semantics, strawmen, irrelevancies, and irony all in the same paragraph!

Why do you believe nobody can predict the future?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've been told this literally thousands of times and despite this no one can tell me when, where, or what about this refutation. Like an experiment that can't be replicated it has no meaning.

What do you expect when everything you say about biology isn't a fact. You provide no evidence, no experiments, no reason to support the wild claims you post.

I refuted the claim that all observed change in life is sudden. I've seen others do that too. It seems that your skin in the game it ignore this and report erroneous information and pithy nonsense.

What actually happens is I say something like "all observed change in life is sudden" and then I get lectured about why that person believes the fossil record can be interpreted otherwise, there exist "ring species", the e coli experiment, or a vast host of irrelevancies. Of course there is an inundation of semantics and straw armies to go along with it.

I didn't say anything about the fossil record and you carefully avoided what I said with some nonsense about divorce.

You've never presented any meaningful evidence to support your claims. Killing a handful of flies and claiming you created a new species doesn't sound at all outrageous to you, when you have no experiments to show that flies didn't land under tables already or any experiments showing that there were no flies that landed upside down under tables. Because, flies land upside down. It is well known fact that some entomologist actually study. I have no reason to think you know anything about this. You appear to have just imagined you did something and then declare it is real.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow! Semantics, strawmen, irrelevancies, and irony all in the same paragraph!

Why do you believe nobody can predict the future?

Pretty much what I expect. A big nothing burger of semantics, straw men, irrelevances, and irony all in one sentence. No experiments. No evidence from experiments. No reasonable refutation of anything.

How many funerals before we get something valid?

 

[cladking]

What of plants, fungi, archaea or bacteria? Are any of their species “conscious”?

You don't read my posts so why type it out yet again?

So let's say (hypothetically) you give antibiotic to kill the bacteria of 4th generation, population of 16 individual bacteria, of which only 1 individual is tolerant to the antibiotic, while the rest died. The surviving individual bacteria become a new parent.

And AGAIN when you understand why that individual survived and can predict it based on genetics and behavior beforehand then you'll have taken the first step to understanding how species change. Spoiler alert: It's not survival of the fittest.

Your notion that consciousness can control what we evolve into, would only exist in pseudoscience sci-fi novels or films, or in comic books.

So behavior of every individual is irrelevant to the future!!! Please don't inform the butterflies in China since they probably think their job is of critical importance to humanity and the red dwarf sun coming for us.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Wow! Semantics, strawmen, irrelevancies, and irony all in the same paragraph!

Why do you believe nobody can predict the future?

What did Darwin get wrong? Provide a rational explanation refuting the theory of evolution citing recognized experiments from the literature. You claim all the time that every experiment supports you. Having reviewed every experiment ever conducted, you should be able to cite a couple. Don't you think?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't read my posts so why type it out yet again?



And AGAIN when you understand why that individual survived and can predict it based on genetics and behavior beforehand then you'll have taken the first step to understanding how species change. Spoiler alert: It's not survival of the fittest.

What is the basis for your knowledge of this? Cite the experiments.

So behavior of every individual is irrelevant to the future!!! Please don't inform the butterflies in China since they probably think their job is of critical importance to humanity and the red dwarf sun coming for us.

Let's leave the butterflies and red dwarf suns for a while and explain how an individual changes its species and the many, many, many, many, many times you have observed this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't read my posts so why type it out yet again?



And AGAIN when you understand why that individual survived and can predict it based on genetics and behavior beforehand then you'll have taken the first step to understanding how species change. Spoiler alert: It's not survival of the fittest.



So behavior of every individual is irrelevant to the future!!! Please don't inform the butterflies in China since they probably think their job is of critical importance to humanity and the red dwarf sun coming for us.

What experiments demonstrate that fungi are conscious?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't read my posts so why type it out yet again?

I'm a little aghast. Massive repetition doesn't seem to have been an issue for you before.