Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. Anyone can do it.

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

Killing flies is something anyone can do. Claiming that killing flies created a new species is also something anyone can say. Actually creating a new species of flies on a lunch break is not something that has ever been demonstrated.

That you think you did illustrates how lost in this conversation and any conversation discussing science that you are.

Flies landed upside down on the undersides of surfaces long before you ever noticed. At best, doing it the way you described would be selecting a species of flies for a specific trait. It is not speciation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

More irrelevant noise and no experiments to show that fungi have consciousness. I wonder why you don't present any of that? What is preventing you from posting all the experiments that support all your claims? There must be some reason for this? What could it be?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

What observation would that be?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

What we see is someone that has created a pseudoscience conspiracy theory that he cannot support and all we get are meaningless, simplified posts like that instead of the experiments, evidence, observations, data, explanations and reasoning in support of the many, many, many, many, many claims that have been made.

Science has always been about gaps. Science was developed to find out and fill those gaps. Science of the gaps is just science and you robbing from existing coinage to say something you think is profound, but isn't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I missed nothing. That is your problem. Most people do not miss filler, word salad and random noise used as a diversion.

It isn't respectful to sell us nonsense as fact and then treat us like idiots.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

It is a straw man argument, a logical fallacy, and pointing that out is in the context.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Things evolved due to the presence of heritable variation in their genomes acted on by selection and sometimes genetic drift.

It is that simple.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Still waiting for all those experiments that support your many claims.

Waiting.


Waiting.


Waiting.


Still nothing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

We've all noticed that as a common trait among creationists. Claiming by them is the same to them as presenting support for the claims. For a creationist, it appears that claiming is evidence of what is claimed. Classic circular argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

The problem is not correcting your errors. You ignore the corrections and just repeat the errors.

Pretty much all of your errors have been pointed out by numerous people. It is your responsibility to support your claims. It is not the responsibility of anyone else but you. I can't recall even an attempt at support that was relevant to claims presented by you.

That is the issue here. You are not doing your work.

I'm still waiting for one experiment that supports your claims. You have yet to provide that.

 

[cladking]

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

We must be speaking different languages. Am I really supposed to dig up an experiment to show people aren't reading my posts right after a few admit to such?

I don't know how to have a debate with these conditions.

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

But the only thing for certain is that it represents a dead individual. Even if you have only a limb the individual is dead by now.

I doubt you have any idea considering there is no evidence that you have any training, background or understanding of the science.

I am a metaphysician. Training is irrelevant in this field.

Training is also irrelevant in science. The ONLY thing that counts is experiment and its interpretation. You believe in "Peers". I do NOT.

More irrelevant nonsense that tells nothing, explains nothing, is no experiment.

So you dismiss it. And you don't read the part where I say you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The individual is alive the species doesn't exist. This is not a perspective conducive to understanding how species change BECAUSE it is consciousness that leads to species change. You see a stone representation of a dead individual and assume it is wholly representative of a species that is gradually changing due to survival of the fittest or "natural selection" which Charles Darwin SAID is a less precise term for "survival of the fittest". And you make me type that all out because you refuse to admit this ids about Darwin and obfuscate the simple fact that both terms MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Why can't believers address my argument after first reading. Oh wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That question answers itself doesn't it.

 

[cladking]

The problem is not correcting your errors. You ignore the corrections and just repeat the errors.

But there is no chance whatsoever you'd cite an example!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You'll just say you already have many times just as you've p[roved all the creationists in this thread wrong many times.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We must be speaking different languages. Am I really supposed to dig up an experiment to show people aren't reading my posts right after a few admit to such?

I'm speaking from a position of facts. You aren't. That is the difference. You clearly have no experiments, evidence, data, logic or reason to support your claims. It is pretty simple and obvious to see that. You just say things. They apparently don't even have to mean anything relevant. I assume this is all to get attention. I'm not sure what else it would be for.

I don't know how to have a debate with these conditions.

That is good, since you haven't been debating. That would be something if you had been. You just claim and run away.

But the only thing for certain is that it represents a dead individual. Even if you have only a limb the individual is dead by now.

You want certainties. Sorry, can't help you absolutes, proofs and certainties are not the basis of science.

I am a metaphysician. Training is irrelevant in this field.

I can see that. That is the problem. I'm not sure that is what I would consider you.

Training is also irrelevant in science. The ONLY thing that counts is experiment and its interpretation. You believe in "Peers". I do NOT.

I do not believe in the Peers you keep talking about in your conspiracy theories. There are no mythical Peers that control science in some global conspiracy. That is your belief. It is not an established fact.

No. Training is not irrelevant to science. Without training and education, you get people that make up their own pseudoscience composed of misunderstanding, semantic manipulation, logical fallacies, willful ignorance and science fiction themes that abandon claims without reason like shotgun splatter in science discussions.

The more you say it, the more convinced I am that you think of experiments as some sort of magic that shoots a hypothetical magic particle of knowledge into the brains of the experimenters so that they get some revealed truth.

That isn't so.

You don't actually have any experiments that support your claims. I and others defending science and challenging your nonsense claims do have experiments that support us.

So you dismiss it. And you don't read the part where I say you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The individual is alive the species doesn't exist. This is not a perspective conducive to understanding how species change BECAUSE it is consciousness that leads to species change. You see a stone representation of a dead individual and assume it is wholly representative of a species that is gradually changing due to survival of the fittest or "natural selection" which Charles Darwin SAID is a less precise term for "survival of the fittest". And you make me type that all out because you refuse to admit this ids about Darwin and obfuscate the simple fact that both terms MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Mostly more random noise. But there is one tiny bite in this word salad. "Survival of the fitest" is a poor metaphor for natural selection and fitness. It isn't used today. It seems the only reason you use it is to obfuscate the meaning with semantic manipulation and to attack a dead man. You use it in an attempt to falsely associate malicious intent with the theory of evolution when that does not exist. The theory, no theory is inherently evil.

It's a dead man's theory. Who could ask for more? Come and science with us. Leave the dead guy at the door.

What you claim without support can be dismissed that easily and rightly so.

Why can't believers address my argument after first reading. Oh wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That question answers itself doesn't it.

I don't know who you mean when you say believers. That comes off as an insult and I know you don't those. At least when you perceive that you received them, but never when you send them out. Why the passive aggresive responses. Can't you say that you don't agree with someone and provide the experiments that support your claims?

Yeah, that's right. No experiments support your claims.

In all these threads, the one using belief as the basis of claims is YOU. I could be blind and see that.
I know the

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But there is no chance whatsoever you'd cite an example!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You'll just say you already have many times just as you've p[roved all the creationists in this thread wrong many times.

Ah yes, the never cite experiments and turn it around to demand that others cite experiments chess move. You've played this hand too often. Knocking over the pieces and throwing nonsense on the board wins nothing.

I have cited experiments that support what I claim. But we are not here about that. We are here to point out yet again, YOU ARE NOT CITING ANY EXPERIMENTS.

Where are the experiments that support consciousness in fungi? It should be a piece of cake from what I have read. Yet nothing. Nada. Zero. Zip.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But there is no chance whatsoever you'd cite an example!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You'll just say you already have many times just as you've p[roved all the creationists in this thread wrong many times.

The most recent example are the four facts I posted that refute "all observed change in living things is sudden". Posts you are aware of, having posted responses to them.

You already know the examples. You are just doing a slight of ham-handed diversion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But there is no chance whatsoever you'd cite an example!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You'll just say you already have many times just as you've p[roved all the creationists in this thread wrong many times.

Any news on those fungi experiments yet?

Hello? Hello! Is there anybody there?

 

[cladking]

You want certainties.

So far as I know certainties are the nature of reality itself. If you read my posts you'd already know this is why I call reality "binary" because things either exist or do not. This is why all of God's creatures are wired with binary brains. Binary brains mesh with binary reality pretty well allowing even the dumbest creatures to survive whether they are fit or not. A lame rabbit doesn't need to run from a fox it doesn't encounter.

Our binary brains are programmed with analog language so it's no wonder we are confused and reason in circles.

Yes, I want certainties and, yes, I am aware science and reason can't really provide them. So I'm willing to settle for probabilities like there's a 90% chance Darwin was wrong about every single thing.

So what makes you so sure of everything?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So far as I know certainties are the nature of reality itself.

You don't know that. No one does. Science recognizes that fact and uses it as a strength. The best we can do is degree of certainty. There is a high degree of certainty that you will not post any experiments that support your claims.

If you read my posts you'd already know this is why I call reality "binary" because things either exist or do not.

I've read your posts. If one misses them, one needs only wait, as they are repeated in heavy rotation.

This is why all of God's creatures are wired with binary brains. Binary brains mesh with binary reality pretty well allowing even the dumbest creatures to survive whether they are fit or not. A lame rabbit doesn't need to run from a fox it doesn't encounter.

Our binary brains are programmed with analog language so it's no wonder we are confused and reason in circles.

The science fiction nonsense aside, I'm not reasoning in a circle. That is what you do. This backhanded attempt to free yourself from that isn't working. You declare something and then circle back to that as if it is evidence for what you declared. You redefine terms willy nilly and then circle back to those poorly or incorrectly defined terms as if they are established as factually defined.

Yes, I want certainties and, yes, I am aware science and reason can't really provide them. So I'm willing to settle for probabilities like there's a 90% chance Darwin was wrong about every single thing.

At least you admit to being aware of that. I wasn't certain that you understood that.

So what makes you so sure of everything?

Experiments, evidence, logic and reason. You should try them sometime. It beats getting caught using misinformation and empty claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So far as I know certainties are the nature of reality itself. If you read my posts you'd already know this is why I call reality "binary" because things either exist or do not. This is why all of God's creatures are wired with binary brains. Binary brains mesh with binary reality pretty well allowing even the dumbest creatures to survive whether they are fit or not. A lame rabbit doesn't need to run from a fox it doesn't encounter.

Our binary brains are programmed with analog language so it's no wonder we are confused and reason in circles.

Yes, I want certainties and, yes, I am aware science and reason can't really provide them. So I'm willing to settle for probabilities like there's a 90% chance Darwin was wrong about every single thing.

So what makes you so sure of everything?

The probability that the theories of evolution and natural selection are no where near having a probability of 90% in error. The probability grows smaller every day. One experiment at a time.

Still looking for those experiments that support conscious mushrooms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So far as I know certainties are the nature of reality itself. If you read my posts you'd already know this is why I call reality "binary" because things either exist or do not. This is why all of God's creatures are wired with binary brains. Binary brains mesh with binary reality pretty well allowing even the dumbest creatures to survive whether they are fit or not. A lame rabbit doesn't need to run from a fox it doesn't encounter.

Our binary brains are programmed with analog language so it's no wonder we are confused and reason in circles.

Yes, I want certainties and, yes, I am aware science and reason can't really provide them. So I'm willing to settle for probabilities like there's a 90% chance Darwin was wrong about every single thing.

So what makes you so sure of everything?

It just occurred to me to mention that you can't cite Piers Anthony as evidence that mushrooms are conscious.