Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

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.

Yet you still can't tell anyone where, when, or what or even provide a vague summary of that refutation!!!

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

I replied to what you said; "Everything that you have claimed regarding biology has been widely and rightly refuted.". Why can't this be done again or provide a sort of summary, a link, or explain why you have refuted any relevant claim at all. AND MY MISSPEAKING ABOUT WHAT BEAVERS EAT IS NOT RELEVANT!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet you still can't tell anyone where, when, or what or even provide a vague summary of that refutation!!!



I replied to what you said; "Everything that you have claimed regarding biology has been widely and rightly refuted.". Why can't this be done again or provide a sort of summary, a link, or explain why you have refuted any relevant claim at all. AND MY MISSPEAKING ABOUT WHAT BEAVERS EAT IS NOT RELEVANT!

Because we have all shown you how you are wrong again and again. You just ignore the corrections or pretend that they did not happen.

 

[cladking]

What experiments demonstrate that fungi are conscious?

Now you're on the right track! I'll have to get back to this when I have more time but the answer will boil down to every experiment shows fungi are conscious and ADDITIONALLY we must define their behavior and condition as being conscious in order for science to move forward.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I was going to study a fly population to understand their landing behavior, first I would look for any previous work on flies that relates to the questions I'm asking or preliminary observations I have made. I would see what species are present in my study area. Then I would set up experiments to answer those questions by observing how they behave in that study are. Do they land upside already? Which species is that? Is this behavior exhibited by one or many species? Is there a difference within a population or between different species? Maybe only a certain proportion of a species flies being studied tend to land upside down. What is different about the flies that make up that proportion. Is there a difference due to time of day or the availability of food or other flies. I can't just assume a bunch of facts about the flies and then declare that I did something without having studied anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now you're on the right track! I'll have to get back to this when I have more time but the answer will boil down to every experiment shows fungi are conscious and ADDITIONALLY we must define their behavior and condition as being conscious in order for science to move forward.

No I'm not on the right track. If I was on the right track, you would be showing me these experiments and you aren't and I have no reason to expect that you ever will. You haven't before and you have had more than plenty opportunity do that.

I don't have to do anything and it is you moving forward with support for you claims that MUST BE DONE and never is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now you're on the right track! I'll have to get back to this when I have more time but the answer will boil down to every experiment shows fungi are conscious and ADDITIONALLY we must define their behavior and condition as being conscious in order for science to move forward.

Show me that you have access to "every" experiment and have reviewed them. Show how experiments at CERN and Boeing and Merck and all the other science-based institutions not studying fungi consciousness support that fungi are conscious. Show how a herpetologist studying and experimenting with neoteny in salamanders or polyploidy in tree frogs says anything about fungi consciousness. Remember, you said all experiments and those would be part of that all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now you're on the right track! I'll have to get back to this when I have more time but the answer will boil down to every experiment shows fungi are conscious and ADDITIONALLY we must define their behavior and condition as being conscious in order for science to move forward.

Arbitrarily defining something to have consciousness is not demonstrating that they are conscious. That is what you do from what I have seen. You define all living things as having consciousness and then you declare it is so based on your personal definition and not from any experiments or studies of fungi or any other group of living things or individuals from those groups.

All you do is declare that every experiment supports you and then never provide one experiment that even hints you might sort of maybe have a point. If you are citing every experiment as support, there is no difficulty in providing one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nerves firing, enzyme binding, eggs hatching, young growing, trees living for thousands of years are not all happening suddenly or even on over the same length of time.

It is an irrational proposal to declare that all observed change in living things is sudden. It IS NOT supported by any experiment anywhere at any time.

Do you understand the difference between declaring something and demonstrating something?

I have declared that you are wrong and then I have demonstrated it multiple times. You declare something. Talk about funerals and flies and semantics and straw men and never demonstrate anything in that word salad.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because we have all shown you how you are wrong again and again. You just ignore the corrections or pretend that they did not happen.

If all observed change in living things was sudden, then females would suddenly explode releasing fully formed adults not from conception, but at the first moment of mating.

It is a ridiculous claim that common sense tells us is false. Simple experiments tell us is false.

I predict we will see it declared a universal truth again and again, despite this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yet you still can't tell anyone where, when, or what or even provide a vague summary of that refutation!!!

Today was the most recent refutation. You even responded to the post, but carefully avoided addressing the fact that your claim was refuted.

I replied to what you said; "Everything that you have claimed regarding biology has been widely and rightly refuted.". Why can't this be done again or provide a sort of summary, a link, or explain why you have refuted any relevant claim at all. AND MY MISSPEAKING ABOUT WHAT BEAVERS EAT IS NOT RELEVANT!

See. You admit that you are aware of where I have refuted you.

You thought beavers built dams to farm fish. That is not misspeaking about what beavers eat. It reveals a serious lack of widely recognized background information on beavers that is a requisite to even speculate on beaver behavior. It is an example that typifies the emptiness of the claims you toss around. IT IS VERY RELEVANT!

 

[gnostic]

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.

Why?

Several reasons.

The number ONE reason being intellectual dishonest person spinning misinformation should be confronted with evidence-based information, not just for your benefits, but anyone else who happened to join this thread and others like it, don't get to supply them false BS information as you have.

TWO. You and I are not biologists, and yet you pretend to know more than biologists do. You are as uneducated as any creationists I have seen here.

And it isn't just about your fantasies of evolution occurring "sudden" or that evolution is being "conscious-driven".

YOU STILL HAVEN'T GRASP THAT EVOLUTION ISN'T ABOUT CHANGES TO INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS!​

Evolution is concern with population, especially on the subject of adaption and speciation.

And it isn't just these that you have been stubbornly ignorant on.

Which leads me to THREE.

YOU HAVE BEEN TELLING US WE SHOULD IGNORE THE FOSSIL RECORDS.

Basically, you are telling ignore physical evidence, and just accept the crazy and false claims that you've been writing, to take your words for it.

The words of someone who is apparently lacking understanding of the scientific processes, which is - the TESTING of models (the explanatory models of hypotheses or theories) - the most essential stage of Scientific Method - the observations:

• evidence
  
• experiments
• data.

You are telling us to ignore evidence, and accept your personal preference & claims, which are not based on evidence, logic or natural reality.

Sure...I'll accept your crazy claims, if you can present evidence that support it.

As someone have probably already told you, a claim without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You say that all life evolve suddenly, then present the evidence.

You say that all life evolve are controlled by "consciousnesses", then present evidence that plants, fungi and bacteria are "conscious" organisms.

 

[YoursTrue]

Branches of living things?

Yes,

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

OK, true. Thank you for helping me out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes,

OK, true. Thank you for helping me out.

What do you want to know about the phylogenetic tree? Every speciation event is leads to two different branches. Most of those branches eventually die out.

 

[cladking]

If I was on the right track, you would be showing me these experiments and you aren't and I have no reason to expect that you ever will.

Read my posts!!! I said every experiment ever performed. In the zeal to remove God from our understanding believers in science want to also remove every experiment ever done except the one on which they choose to focus.

In other words if you see one experiment that you believe supports Darwin there are two others that show he is wrong.

Just as all of reality is affected by everything else in reality, every experiment must be applicable to every phenomenon. We already slice and dice reality using reductionistic science so it's not permissible to also slice and dice experiment in the creation of paradigm.

 

[cladking]

The number ONE reason being intellectual dishonest person spinning misinformation should be confronted with evidence-based information, not just for your benefits, but anyone else who happened to join this thread and others like it, don't get to supply them false BS information as you have.

Read my posts!!!

You believe it is legitimate to not even read the argument to which you are responding and then call me intellectually dishonest!

This is the world of a believer, not a scientist.

 

[cladking]

You thought beavers built dams to farm fish. That is not misspeaking about what beavers eat. It reveals a serious lack of widely recognized background information on beavers that is a requisite to even speculate on beaver behavior. It is an example that typifies the emptiness of the claims you toss around. IT IS VERY RELEVANT!

It's usually considered impolite to bring up things like this but I specifically said in advance that it is impolite and irrelevant.

It's also impolite to tell people they are impolite but I can't even get people to read my posts or try to understand. And then they brag they don't need to because they believe in "evidence" instead of experiment and its proper interpretation and obviously an heretic is not going to cite any "evidence" relevant to something in which they don't believe. We all reason in circles but there's no cause to also argue in circles.

 

[cladking]

I'm glad I waited to write that post. it would have taken a little bit of work and fallen on deaf ears.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Read my posts!!! I said every experiment ever performed.

Yes. All experiments ever. How could you know even a tiny percentage of that number. It isn't possible and thus meaningless to claim it.

In the zeal to remove God from our understanding believers in science want to also remove every experiment ever done except the one on which they choose to focus.

This is irrelevant nonsense. Science is not used to remove or add God from an understanding of the natural world.

In other words if you see one experiment that you believe supports Darwin there are two others that show he is wrong.

You don't know that. You aren't showing it. You are just making another empty claim. That is easy to do. I know, you have demonstrated that repeatedly.

Just as all of reality is affected by everything else in reality, every experiment must be applicable to every phenomenon. We already slice and dice reality using reductionistic science so it's not permissible to also slice and dice experiment in the creation of paradigm.

Nonsense. Just a bunch of nothing burger. It is your unverified belief system with no established basis in fact.

 

[cladking]

YOU STILL HAVEN'T GRASP THAT EVOLUTION ISN'T ABOUT CHANGES TO INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS!

Remarkable. The many levels on which you have twisted my argument are legion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's usually considered impolite to bring up things like this but I specifically said in advance that it is impolite and irrelevant.

Heal yourself. You're the one that brought up that specific detail of incompetence of knowledge.

It's also impolite to tell people they are impolite but I can't even get people to read my posts or try to understand. And then they brag they don't need to because they believe in "evidence" instead of experiment and its proper interpretation and obviously an heretic is not going to cite any "evidence" relevant to something in which they don't believe. We all reason in circles but there's no cause to also argue in circles.

Is it respect you are showing when you dismiss anything that refutes you as coming from "believers"? Is it a sign of respect to dismiss valid responses to your empty claims as part of some conspiracy theory involving some mythological PEERS?

What exactly do you think is the product of an experiment? I'm starting to think that you view it as some sort of magic incantation that produced conclusions as a result and not data.