Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I don't think it's a conspiracy*. I think it's an effort for some to show/prove (yes I know not prove but it sure seems that way, because if it's not a sure thing, then, um ...it sure is a popular concept as if it's RIGHT) that life came about first by accident, then by "natural selection." On branches stemming from a common source. OK, that's it, have a good night.

All this biological phenomena exists. Since science is intended to use to find explanations, the theory of evolution was formulated as such. It is the best explanation of the physical evidence that we have to date. It is not revealed truth, prophecy or anything like religious dogma. Science is continually looking for better explanations. That is what science is for.

You picked a religion. That religion tells you that this science is all lies. Anyone that accepts this science is as bad a sinner as a murderer. You must reject it to maintain your position in your religion. Is that a fair assessment?

While it may be enough for you to reject the theory without even understanding it, for the rest of us, that is not enough. It means that those of us that do understand science and believe in God would have to do things that Christianity tells us not to in order to rationalize this evidence into nothing. Are you suggesting this would be a better alternative?

Why do you think there is all this evidence that is mentioned no where in the Bible? Evidence that fits in an explanation that refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis. One alternative explanation is that God planted evidence to fool us, but this defies our understanding of God. I reject that explanation as much as I reject the attempts to supplant it arbitrarily with a particular ideological dogma.

All of the conflict goes away if Genesis is considered as allegory. It maintains belief and recognizes science. It doesn't lead to a rejection of God, since many believe and read Genesis that way now. It does not alter positions in science since no evidence is available to favor or reject the existence of God.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I don't think it's a conspiracy*. I think it's an effort for some to show/prove (yes I know not prove but it sure seems that way, because if it's not a sure thing, then, um ...it sure is a popular concept as if it's RIGHT) that life came about first by accident, then by "natural selection." On branches stemming from a common source. OK, that's it, have a good night.

The tree shows relationships. No claim arises from it to indicate how life arose. No claim arises that life arose by accident. That is what you want it to show. That is not what it shows.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Subduction Zone - so where's the 'evidence" of the phylogenetic tree?

Everywhere.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Talk about strawmen.

It is an analogy. It indicates that a person rejects the same logic based on the application and not for valid reasons. It's a bit blunt and a little harsh, but it is apt. I think the choice might originate from the frustration of trying to carry on a discussion with a person that clearly doesn't understand many of the subjects they are rejecting or misusing.

Please spend some time studying what you reject to be able to clearly tell us what it is you reject and with something more than repeated claims that are not true. The science is not conjecture. The evidence will not go away even if the theory disappeared. A personal religious view would not installed in place of the theory by default. I have labeled this the Default Paradigm. It comes up rather often. Science would have to find a better explanation based on the evidence and I guarantee you won't like that one either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, and another question -- (@Subduction Zone) -- Please explain how you view the following: "Genetic defects in the flippases are likely to be the cause of a lot more illnesses than we realise today. Basic scientific understanding is the first step on the way to being better equipped for diagnosing and treating these illnesses,” says Vestergaard." (cause of a lot more illnesses than we realize"? -- evoluition? did that? caused more illnesses than is realized? Or are not mutations part of - inherent in the concept of evolution?)
Mystery solved: why a Turkish family walks on all fours (sciencenordic.com)

What is your point here? Genetic diseases that are heritable have been known for some time.

Mutations are the major source of genetic variation, but not the only source. That mutations can be passed to subsequent generations is a recognized fact. Not all mutations are beneficial and those that reduce fitness may crop up from time to time but they do not get selected to fix in a population unless they somehow increase fitness which is not likely. Sickle cell is an example of where selection pressure increased the frequency of a gene that would otherwise be generally detrimental.

I think that your question arises from the idea that evolution leads to a progression of increasingly superior individuals. Like some great chain of being. That it has a purpose to achieve perfection. There is no evidence of such a purpose or that it has any purpose except as a response to selection using what is available.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Talk about strawmen.

How was that a strawman argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe -- but here's another question -- is there a purpose to evolution?

No. Is that a purpose to gravity?

Amazing things can form without any purpose. All of the stars that you see, our planet and the Sun, all formed due to gravity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, and another question -- (@Subduction Zone) -- Please explain how you view the following: "Genetic defects in the flippases are likely to be the cause of a lot more illnesses than we realise today. Basic scientific understanding is the first step on the way to being better equipped for diagnosing and treating these illnesses,” says Vestergaard." (cause of a lot more illnesses than we realize"? -- evoluition? did that? caused more illnesses than is realized? Or are not mutations part of - inherent in the concept of evolution?)
Mystery solved: why a Turkish family walks on all fours (sciencenordic.com)

No,that is not caused by "evolution". Mutations happen. Sometimes they are a net positive. Sometimes they are a net negative. The mutation that afflicts members of that family is not likely to be passed on. Tell me, would you marry such a man? Would your sons marry such a woman? Probably not. And do you know what happens to mutations that are not preserved through breeding? It is almost as if they never happened at all. Traits that were only very limited in a species for a short period of time are not examples of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is an analogy. It indicates that a person rejects the same logic based on the application and not for valid reasons. It's a bit blunt and a little harsh, but it is apt. I think the choice might originate from the frustration of trying to carry on a discussion with a person that clearly doesn't understand many of the subjects they are rejecting or misusing.

Please spend some time studying what you reject to be able to clearly tell us what it is you reject and with something more than repeated claims that are not true. The science is not conjecture. The evidence will not go away even if the theory disappeared. A personal religious view would not installed in place of the theory by default. I have labeled this the Default Paradigm. It comes up rather often. Science would have to find a better explanation based on the evidence and I guarantee you won't like that one either.

Sometimes you have to smack them with a two by four to show what they are doing.

I am betting that she still won't get it.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are the one that mentioned interbreeding between plants and animals. Now you say you are surprised I mention it. That doesn't make any sense.

It is possible that life started more than one time. Plants and animals are not known to have different life origins. All indications are that animals and plants share a common ancestry. While I recognize that it is difficult for you to understand and that you don't want that to be the case, that you harbor those feelings is not evidence it didn't happen that way. The shared biological chemistry, basic cellular architecture, physiology and genetics support the relationship.

I have no idea where you intend to go with this. That plants and animals are very different branches of the tree, doesn't mean they do not share the same roots.

Ok I can see you don't want to understand what I'm saying. Thanks for conversation, I appreciate it. Maybe later, Dan.

 

[YoursTrue]

No,that is not caused by "evolution". Mutations happen. Sometimes they are a net positive. Sometimes they are a net negative. The mutation that afflicts members of that family is not likely to be passed on. Tell me, would you marry such a man? Would your sons marry such a woman? Probably not. And do you know what happens to mutations that are not preserved through breeding? It is almost as if they never happened at all. Traits that were only very limited in a species for a short period of time are not examples of evolution.

Oh it's not caused by evolution but changes are, is that right?

 

[gnostic]

Oh, and another question -- (@Subduction Zone) -- Please explain how you view the following: "Genetic defects in the flippases are likely to be the cause of a lot more illnesses than we realise today. Basic scientific understanding is the first step on the way to being better equipped for diagnosing and treating these illnesses,” says Vestergaard." (cause of a lot more illnesses than we realize"? -- evoluition? did that? caused more illnesses than is realized? Or are not mutations part of - inherent in the concept of evolution?)
Mystery solved: why a Turkish family walks on all fours (sciencenordic.com)

I think you are forgetting several things about Evolution:

1. Evolution is about changes to the physical traits that help with the populations reproductive success, eg sustaining the population. Those changes or no changes that don't beneficial, could limit reproductive successes, which thereby reduce the population; this is where, if the population dropped too far, it risk extinction of that particular species.
2. If good genetic traits or even the genetic defects, don't spread beyond the family, to the wider population, then the "mutations" isn't Evolution.

To give you example, if the mutations cause genetic defect, but let say it only affected 1 out of 5 offspring in the family, for 1 or 2 generations, but the defects don't occur outside this family, then the mutations and the defects have nothing to do with Evolution.

You need to remember that Evolution, particularly speciation, Evolution occurred at population-level, and not about changes to individuals or individual families.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

This is insane.

3 generations is not even remotely enough for any change, no matter how big or small, to spread throughout a population.

This is in the category of "not even wrong".
It's batsh!t crazy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

False.

All individuals ever born, were of the same species as its direct parents.
Every new born comes with a set of mutations and evolution isn't at all driven by individuals that have "more" mutations then peers.

You demonstrate your ignorance in every post.

You have no clue.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think you are forgetting several things about Evolution:

1. Evolution is about changes to the physical traits that help with the populations reproductive success, eg sustaining the population. Those changes or no changes that don't beneficial, could limit reproductive successes, which thereby reduce the population; this is where, if the population dropped too far, it risk extinction of that particular species.
2. If good genetic traits or even the genetic defects, don't spread beyond the family, to the wider population, then the "mutations" isn't Evolution.

To give you example, if the mutations cause genetic defect, but let say it only affected 1 out of 5 offspring in the family, for 1 or 2 generations, but the defects don't occur outside this family, then the mutations and the defects have nothing to do with Evolution.

You need to remember that Evolution, particularly speciation, Evolution occurred at population-level, and not about changes to individuals or individual families.

I'm saying that if the population of those who have that genetic defect who walk on arms and legs would enlarge and continue, the offspring would be a greater population and the genetic defects would promote the characteristics within that group.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sometimes you have to smack them with a two by four to show what they are doing.

I am betting that she still won't get it.

"Get it," like believe everything that evolutionists claim? You're right, I'll never get that. And boy, am I thankful. I know you and Dan etc. believe the theory. And think you and others have a basis for that belief. I don't deny that you think you're 'right.'
Just as a caveat, do I think that populations don't change, or interbreed when possible? What do you think I think, so I can see if you understand what I'm saying, because you're saying that at a certain point plants came from one set of circumstances and animals emerged in a different way circumstantially. Now see if you can digest that last point before we go into the phylogenetic tree again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok I can see you don't want to understand what I'm saying. Thanks for conversation, I appreciate it. Maybe later, Dan.

Then you are mistaken. I have not said that I don't want to understand you and haven't spent my time writing numerous posts to you recommending ways to make yourself better understood, if I intentionally didn't want to understand you. I resent the accusation. But I won't dwell on it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Get it," like believe everything that evolutionists claim? You're right, I'll never get that. And boy, am I thankful. I know you and Dan etc. believe the theory. And think you and others have a basis for that belief. I don't deny that you think you're 'right.'
Just as a caveat, do I think that populations don't change, or interbreed when possible? What do you think I think, so I can see if you understand what I'm saying, because you're saying that at a certain point plants came from one set of circumstances and animals emerged in a different way circumstantially. Now see if you can digest that last point before we go into the phylogenetic tree again.

I have told you this many times. I don't believe the theory. Belief holds the expectation of an absolute. Belief is based on faith without evidence. Theories are accepted on the evidence. I accept it as the best explanation of the evidence. It is not an absolute and subject to revision or rejection based on evidence and not any random set of belief-based ideology or faith.

I accept that you reject it, but that rejection is irrational and not based on any evidence. You may not like the sound of it, but I have seen discussions between you and @nPeace where he bragged about how the telling of his "truth" hurts. That cuts both ways.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm saying that if the population of those who have that genetic defect who walk on arms and legs would enlarge and continue, the offspring would be a greater population and the genetic defects would promote the characteristics within that group.

Do you see some selective advantage in their mode of transit that would lead you to conclude this trait would be preserved? I think, if you ponder on this, you will see that in the wider world, this probably is a major setback for someone so afflicted. It would limit rather than enhance the probability of fixation of the phenotype in a population. I'm not saying that there is zero chance of reproduction and movement of the trait into another generation, but proliferate, not likely.

 

[cladking]

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

So you just implied you believe theory is reality.

This is insane.

3 generations is not even remotely enough for any change, no matter how big or small, to spread throughout a population.

This is in the category of "not even wrong".
It's batsh!t crazy.

Thank you.

Finally someone has actually read one of my posts and seems to understand it.

I said "three generations" but much of the real change occurs even more suddenly than that and it can be truly said the parent and child species share the planet briefly.

Indeed, in many ways the change is even more sudden because the event that triggers it can be virtually instantaneous. It can be something so simple as a massive solar flare that kills every single bird that isn't at least 1' underground. Since very few birds are ever 1' underground during their entire lifetimes the event leaves very few individuals with different behavior caused by different genes than other individuals.

I'm sure everyone's stopped reading by now but...

These "unusual" genes of the few survivors come together to create a new species. I would imagine in the vast majority of cases the child species "appears" to be very similar to the parents and there would always be familial similarities in any case. The new species will quickly adapt to the new environment and the new genes. I would call this the "shake out" period and would happen over a few generations.

It is this that every experiment and observation shows. We are misinterpreting all the evidence because Darwin saw gradual change and survival of the fittest in the fossil record. In our species every single individual can reason only in circles. We can only see exactly what we already believe. Every step we take is dictated by the assumptions with which we began. This is the very nature of consciousness and human thought. We aren't like other consciousnesses. They can't experience thought and if we experience consciousness we wouldn't really notice.

Now that you haven't read this post look for few key words, take them out of context and call me "stupid" and of questionable parentage. Think up some word games, build some strawmen and really let them have it.

Believers are so predictable. Once you have faith in human progress and Science you are lost and don't know it. Once you accept Peers as your Savior it is never necessary to think ever again. Doctrine will open doors and win friends so thought is no longer necessary anyway.