Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

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

READ MY POST. Read the very part you quoted!!! I said "people" want to remove God from our understanding. I am referring principally to believers in science and if you actually read my posts then you'd know that I meant this .

Instead you change my words.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

It is the expected result based on your past performance.

Still not even one experiment that shows fungi have consciousness. Not one of ALL that do.

How unexpected.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

READ MY POST. Read the very part you quoted!!! I said "people" want to remove God from our understanding. I am referring principally to believers in science and if you actually read my posts then you'd know that I meant this .

Instead you change my words.

We are talking about science and not all people want to do that. The implication you are trying to make is clear.

No one here in defense of science is using belief to support their case. It is YOU that are the believer and cite no experiments, evidence or reason to support your claims. You just make them and leave them hanging in abandonment as if you are espousing revealed truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

It is not twisted. You have many times claimed that evolution takes place at the level of the individual. And per your usual, without explanation or support of any kind.

You allude that speciation is the result of purposeful intent of the individual by changing behavior. You never post any experiments that produce evidence to demonstrate this conclusion either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

And yet, you will show no examples on any level.

You are not arguing evidence, experiments, science or reason. You have developed a belief system that is made of a hodgepodge of sources. It contains an oracle called "All Experiments". It involves a mythical demonic group referred to as PEERS. It has its own language using redefined (semantic manipulation) technical terms. It has a body of mythical worshipers known as homo omniscience.

None of this has evidence. Just you repeating it constantly in opposition to anything based in science.

 

[cladking]

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

This might be the biggest difference between us. Reductionistic science takes everything apart to study it and most practitioners never put it back together again.

Take a single object and just start adding everything you know to it. Draw in the force vectors, calculate its relativistic mass, consider the effect of tides from distant suns and don't stop. Everything we know is derived from experiment so there's a lot of work to do here. Of course you can't apply things we don't know but this should keep you busy a while. Now consider these same things apply to every object and point in an unknown cosmos and that everything in this cosmos affects everything else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

READ MY POST. Read the very part you quoted!!! I said "people" want to remove God from our understanding. I am referring principally to believers in science and if you actually read my posts then you'd know that I meant this .

Instead you change my words.

It is you that calls yourself an "observational scientist (Look and see)". My interpretation of that based on your many repeated posts is that you notice something, concoct some idea about it. Soon that concocted and untested idea is turned to a fact in your mind. Then you start preaching it.

Your "creating a new species of fly" story is a good example of that. There is no reason to conclude you created a new species of fly. You can't even demonstrate that you did anything beyond killing a few flies and that I only accept because it is nothing special that anyone could do. But you believe, without any evidence or sound reasoning that you created a new species with some trait that you don't even know is novel or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This might be the biggest difference between us. Reductionistic science takes everything apart to study it and most practitioners never put it back together again.

No. The difference between us is that I use sound knowledge, explanation, experiment and evidence to draw my conclusions about the natural world. I make mistakes and I learn from them.

You use a mosaic of some facts, pseudoscience, incoherent philosophy, semantics, misunderstanding and belief to repeat mantras of declaration without any basis.

Take a single object and just start adding everything you know to it. Draw in the force vectors, calculate its relativistic mass, consider the effect of tides from distant suns and don't stop. Everything we know is derived from experiment so there's a lot of work to do here. Of course you can't apply things we don't know but this should keep you busy a while. Now consider these same things apply to every object and point in an unknown cosmos and that everything in this cosmos affects everything else.

More word salad that addresses nothing.

Where is that experiment that shows fungi are conscious entities. Still waiting.

 

[cladking]

It is not twisted. You have many times claimed that evolution takes place at the level of the individual. And per your usual, without explanation or support of any kind.

You allude that speciation is the result of purposeful intent of the individual by changing behavior. You never post any experiments that produce evidence to demonstrate this conclusion either.

NO!!!

I said the CAUSE OF "change in species" is at the individual level. Each generation is almost exactly like the last until an individual mutant OR a new species arises because its parents were different than others.

I've said this thousands of times in hundreds of ways but for some reason people don't read my posts. No individual ever changed species but individuals sometimes are not the same species as their parents. They still share many familial similarities but under the most extreme conditions "species" do not breed true. This is what you call "speciation". But I don't believe that "species" actually exist because in order to understand change in species we must change our thinking and focus on individuals. The word "species" is an abstraction and it is impossible to experiment on an abstraction. You can't even "really" observe an abstraction.

Fossils are like photographs of dead individuals and not "species". A picture of a dead individual provides very few clues about why it died and how it differed from its parents and siblings. It provides no information about how individuals from other "species" died. We want to read tea leaves because we want answers but in skipping to the answer we have missed all of life that the fossils represents. And it does represent all of life, everything there is to know about life. It was an individual. All life is INDIVIDUAL so trying to substitute "Science" for living individuals is not only wrong but also incorrect.

 

[cladking]

...and that I only except because it is nothing special that anyone could do.

Yes. Anyone can do it.

It might take a little more actual work than most individuals are accustomed to.

 

[cladking]

More word salad that addresses nothing.

What did you miss?

You are aware that so far as can be shown scientifically the tides imparted on earth by Pluto do exist? The earth's orbit around the sun is affected by Pluto and Alpha Centauri etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...

Everything in the cosmos affects everything else. All experiment applies to all things.

Think of this as antireductionism.

This is the opposite to how other consciousness exists so we can't understand it.

 

[gnostic]

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.

He does that all the time.

He also confuses “making claims” as “evidence”.

The problem is he make one claim, and when ask to support it either with evidence or with valid scientific source, he dodge it by making another claim on top of the old claim.

This is a typical tactic he have used often.

That when I know he has nothing but hot air.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

There we go with the "strawman argument" thing. Why not answer within the context?

 

[YoursTrue]

What did you miss?

You are aware that so far as can be shown scientifically the tides imparted on earth by Pluto do exist? The earth's orbit around the sun is affected by Pluto and Alpha Centauri etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...

Everything in the cosmos affects everything else. All experiment applies to all things.

Think of this as antireductionism.

This is the opposite to how other consciousness exists so we can't understand it.

By the way, even IF the theory was true (heh?), God Almighty, the One that created all things in heaven and on earth and permits organisms to change via His allowance, can overrule and overturn anything. Thanks for your astute observations.

 

[YoursTrue]

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


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.

Yeah, ok, maybe you can do it since I'm wondering about the different branches, etc., called phylogenetics? Not sure. But maybe you can give me the big word as to how (?) things evolved in the different branches of the tree stemming from -- a couple of microorganisms from maybe a soupy mass, maybe a few 'live'? pebbles fell from outer space? OK, I'm not talking about abiogenesis, just mentioning the concept of HOW these wonderful little things evolved, changed, into the various branches like plants, and fish. Etc. Thanks.

 

[cladking]

By the way, even IF the theory was true (heh?), God Almighty, the One that created all things in heaven and on earth and permits organisms to change via His allowance, can overrule and overturn anything. Thanks for your astute observations.

I would not and could not dispute this.

There is vastly more we don't know than what we do.

What we have really is "Science of the Gaps" and a growing number of believers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There we go with the "strawman argument" thing. Why not answer within the context?

Because he would then claim that his question was not answered. He should know better. He appears to have been dishonest. Once again when someone makes a strawman argument and is caught if it was an honest mistake the person will ask how it was a strawman.

 

[cladking]

By the way, even IF the theory was true (heh?), God Almighty, the One that created all things in heaven and on earth and permits organisms to change via His allowance, can overrule and overturn anything. Thanks for your astute observations.

I hardly pretend to know the nature or will of God but I can see His creation is binary and logical so assume He is as well. One probably can still be omnipotent and omniscient but still constrained by the nature of reality. Whether the nature of reality can be changed by will or not is another question also far beyond my consideration. I'm sure you're right that any Creator can also affect that creation as pleased.

 

[cladking]

He also confuses “making claims” as “evidence”.

Nobody has ever had any problem correcting my errors. If I state some truism or tautology with which you disagree it is YOUR job to point it out. I can't do my work and your work for you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

NO!!!

I said the CAUSE OF "change in species" is at the individual level. Each generation is almost exactly like the last until an individual mutant OR a new species arises because its parents were different than others.

You've only the faintest notion of the mechanisms of evolution and you've managed to screw that up too.

I've said this thousands of times in hundreds of ways but for some reason people don't read my posts. No individual ever changed species but individuals sometimes are not the same species as their parents.

NO!!!!!! There is no evidence or experiment that demonstrates this to be a fact

They still share many familial similarities but under the most extreme conditions "species" do not breed true.[/QUOTE]Parents do not reproduce offspring of a different species. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN OR REPORTED.

This is what you call "speciation".

It is not what I call speciation. It is not the speciation seen using science.

But I don't believe that "species" actually exist because in order to understand change in species we must change our thinking and focus on individuals.

I know you have your belief system. It is different to be sure. But we are not discussing your strange belief system here.

The word "species" is an abstraction and it is impossible to experiment on an abstraction. You can't even "really" observe an abstraction.

This is just nonsense that is used as a diversion. Inserted to cover your inability to present any experiments, observations, evidence, data to support your claims.

Fossils are like photographs of dead individuals and not "species".

Fossils can be described and named based on the characters of the fossils examined.

A picture of a dead individual provides very few clues about why it died and how it differed from its parents and siblings. It provides no information about how individuals from other "species" died.

I doubt you have any idea considering there is no evidence that you have any training, background or understanding of the science. Worshiping irrelevant information does not make mention of it here of any significant. Knowing or not knowing the manner of death or immediate relatives isn't necessary to determining species. It isn't necessary to describe existing species. It's just more of your meaningless nonsense claims.

We want to read tea leaves because we want answers but in skipping to the answer we have missed all of life that the fossils represents.

You seem like you read tea leaves. You must. You mention it often enough in liue of experiments to support your claims.

And it does represent all of life, everything there is to know about life. It was an individual. All life is INDIVIDUAL so trying to substitute "Science" for living individuals is not only wrong but also incorrect.

More irrelevant nonsense that tells nothing, explains nothing, is no experiment. Just an random empty claim without meaning.

It is no insult, but an observation to note that nothing you post gives me any confidence that you understand this science. It is just a lot of semantic juggling, logical fallacies, random noise and baseless, often fantastic claims without support. NEVER do you post any experiments, evidence from experiments, explanations or reasoning applied to your claims.