Darwin's Illusion

[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?

If we knew things with certainty, we would not need science.

 

[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?

I'm curious.

Would you rather believe something wrong that you felt certain about or accept that you are wrong and learn something new?

Since you brought it up, you made a claim about beavers that was wrong. They don't eat fish and don't build dams to farm fish. Would you rather have continued believing that or were you happy to learn this new information? If that latter is so, why do you think that everything else you claim is sacrosanct and without flaw?

Do you consider that you exercise an mind open to new information? If so, explain the many times your errors have been identified and corrected, but these corrections go unrecognized and you continue posting the erroneous material unchanged?

For instance, your claim that all individuals are equally fit has been widely refuted and the correct material and definition of fitness has been provided for you. Yet, you keep repeating this error.

You insist on using an archaic term for natural selection that isn't used today for reasons that have been explained to you. Yet, you keep using it and continue to reveal you don't understand fitness. Even after having it explained to you.

You insist, despite how easily it is refuted with common sense, that all observed change in living things is sudden. Why? What is the problem with accepting that bit of reality?

You are fond of citing homo omniscience, an epithet for a non-existent taxon. Why do you insist on using this obfuscation instead of established knowledge based on the evidence of experiments? We are Homo sapiens. We have been for at least 300,000 years according to evidence and experiment. Why insist on talking about something that isn't real?

I'm curious about your adherence to unsupported claims as if they are established universal truths and why you deny things that have a logical, reasonable and well-supported basis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just a note, since reference to fossils keeps coming up. I'm not a paleontologist, so any list I create is not certain to be all inclusive.

It was said today and has been said many times in the past that all fossils show us is that something once lived and is now dead. In most cases, long dead. This is correct. Fossils do show us that. But that is not all they show us.

Fossils can be dated using multiple different established and valid techniques. So we know roughly when those live animals or plants existed. I'm unaware of any reason to think that fossils migrate, so finding them in a particular spot tells us about the geography of the fossils. We can examine other fossils found in the same strata and same age. We can use geochemistry and geology to corelate information about the strata they were found in and this can provide information about the ancient habitat in which the animals that left the fossils existed in. The morphology of the fossil can be examined and compared. Is it a leg bone, a vertebra, a foot bone, a skull? What features are present and what do they indicate. Fossils can be compared to existing animals and plants. Numerous experiments can be run using fossils and have been and will continue to be run.

So, fossils just don't tell us that something once lived and is now dead, even though they do tell us that too.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

It is that simple.

That simple, hmm? So things evolved to produce from a couple of cells plants and animals. That simple, lol, thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

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?

I guess this could be a question for @Dan From Smithville -- do cockroaches have brains? Although I notice when I try to kill one he's faster than my hand. Too bad as far as I'm concerned. But does he know or does he sense that something might smash him?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

The Almighty creator can effect reality if you call it that as He wills. I believe that genetics plays a big part in differences among mankind. To say the least. But! It's hardly natural selection and no one can tell me that someone born with half a brain is a result of natural selection. Also no one can tell me that a group of short legged people like pygmies are done by natural selection. It's called genetics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That simple, hmm? So things evolved to produce from a couple of cells plants and animals. That simple, lol, thanks.

What part do you not understand? I know, all of it. Can you ask a reasonable question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Almighty creator can effect reality if you call it that as He wills. I believe that genetics plays a big part in differences among mankind. To say the least. But! It's hardly natural selection and no one can tell me that someone born with half a brain is a result of natural selection. Also no one can tell me that a group of short legged people like pygmies are done by natural selection. It's called genetics.

That appears to be a rather irrational belief. What reasonable reliable evidence do you even have for a creator?

And what do you mean "something born with half a brain"? If you think that happened with our ancestors that was never the case. Just more and more complex brains evolved. And if you are talking about birth defects, especially genetic ones, well natural selection selects against those defects. They do not hang around very long in the genome.

 

[YoursTrue]

What part do you not understand? I know, all of it. Can you ask a reasonable question?

lol, ok, I'll try to explain it. I remember seeing a tree of sorts explaining the different branches, right? coming from one basic stem. Maybe more stems? Not sure...Anyway, I'll look it up and let you know more what I mean.

 

[YoursTrue]

That appears to be a rather irrational belief. What reasonable reliable evidence do you even have for a creator?

And what do you mean "something born with half a brain"? If you think that happened with our ancestors that was never the case. Just more and more complex brains evolved. And if you are talking about birth defects, especially genetic ones, well natural selection selects against those defects. They do not hang around very long in the genome.

I'm not really discussing a creator here, but yes, I did mention something about the fact that I believe in a creator, the Giver of Life. Consider that more like Enabler of life, because I don't believe God, the Life-enabler, created children born with no brains or limbs, that's for starters about what I believe the Bible says. As far as "hanging around," certain diseases that are inherited depending on genetic distribution, continue to affect offspring. Furthermore, I read something about some tribe somewhere that produced offspring that walks on all fours. Not sure if "natural selection" would make it abundant if they intermingled with people that walked upright entirely. But maybe you think it was natural selection that caused humans to be what they call "homo erectus" as if maybe dangling from trees wasn't good enough. What do you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone The Five Siblings of Ulas Family Who Walk on All Fours (unbelievable-facts.com)

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol, ok, I'll try to explain it. I remember seeing a tree of sorts explaining the different branches, right? coming from one basic stem. Maybe more stems? Not sure...Anyway, I'll look it up and let you know more what I mean.

There are quite a few. Here is a very simple one aimed at children:

It gives a very light overview of all life.

Here is a more complex one that focuses only on butterflies:

Here is one from Wikipedia. It tries to show all life, but it does not have anywhere near the detail of the one above:

And here is a link to it enlarged quite a bit:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

Any questions about any of them?

 

[YoursTrue]

More for @Subduction Zone or anyone that's interested -- This from the article linked above: "According to Uner Tan, an evolutionary biologist at Çukurova University Medical School in Adana, Turkey, the siblings show characteristics of our primate ancestors before they learned to walk upright." I like that -- "before they learned to walk upright." Before they learned. Gorillas learned to walk upright? Or was it hominids that learned to walk upright from -- some "Unknown Common Ancestor." The others just didn't learn. Maybe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not really discussing a creator here, but yes, I did mention something about the fact that I believe in a creator, the Giver of Life. Consider that more like Enabler of life, because I don't believe God, the Life-enabler, created children born with no brains or limbs, that's for starters about what I believe the Bible says. As far as "hanging around," certain diseases that are inherited depending on genetic distribution, continue to affect offspring. Furthermore, I read something about some tribe somewhere that produced offspring that walks on all fours. Not sure if "natural selection" would make it abundant if they intermingled with people that walked upright entirely. But maybe you think it was natural selection that caused humans to be what they call "homo erectus" as if maybe dangling from trees wasn't good enough. What do you think?

Okay, but why believe in a God in the first place? Why do you think that one is needed? There does not appear to be any evidence for a God

And you need to quit playing "Heads I win, tails you lose" when it comes to your God. If your God does exist he is responsible for birth defects.

And the rest of what you describe is you reading fiction.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are quite a few. Here is a very simple one aimed at children:

It gives a very light overview of all life.

Here is a more complex one that focuses only on butterflies:

Here is one from Wikipedia. It tries to show all life, but it does not have anywhere near the detail of the one above:

And here is a link to it enlarged quite a bit:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

Any questions about any of them?

Yup. Not really so much a question, but -- the facts, sir, only the facts. Let's go to the first one. So let's see -- the branches stemmed from a common source, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone The Five Siblings of Ulas Family Who Walk on All Fours (unbelievable-facts.com)

That is now what I would call a reliable source.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That simple, hmm? So things evolved to produce from a couple of cells plants and animals. That simple, lol, thanks.

It is that simple in overview. There's no magic. It is supported by all the evidence and experiment. No one has an alternative explanation that fits the facts better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup. Not really so much a question, but -- the facts, sir, only the facts. Let's go to the first one. So let's see -- the branches stemmed from a common source, right?

Yes, every node that you see represents a common ancestor species between the two different branches.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, but why believe in a God in the first place? Why do you think that one is needed? There does not appear to be any evidence for a God

And you need to quit playing "Heads I win, tails you lose" when it comes to your God. If your God does exist he is responsible for birth defects.

And the rest of what you describe is you reading fiction.

I believe in God for several reasons. One is the magnificence of life. Another is that I didn't believe in God particularly when I went to the various churches or religions to observe. In fact, I thought some were nuts. But I won't go into detail now. So in line with that thought, when I studied the Bible diligently rather than listen to some crazed sermon or jargon without references or some comments from a soothsayer, I learned why we suffer, why animals and humans do not always get along, why the world has all these different religions, but importantly what God is going to do about the problems we face today. (Revelation 21:1-5) I leave the rest to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is that simple in overview. There's no magic. It is supported by all the evidence and experiment. No one has an alternative explanation that fits the facts better.

Yes, the Bible has a better explanation as far as I am concerned, because the Common Element of all life on the earth is God's creative abilities.