Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

All individuals ever born, were of the same species as its direct parents.

This is utter nonsense even by Darwin's standards.

It is impossible for an abstraction like "species" to change if there is no change even over the short term. It is a non sequitur of the purist form. It is logical nonsense.

Every individual ever born is distinct from its parents and its siblings. You are looking through the wrong end of a telescope.

If "Evolution" existed, and it certainly does not, then each generation must be BY DEFINITION a somewhat different species than its parents. This is simple logic that is being confounded by the simple fact that "species" is an abstraction with no referent. There are only individuals. All life is individual.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

How did I miss this gem?

You DEFINED it. Not experiment. Not evidence. YOU! This then, is not science you are talking about, as I have previously surmised, over the many months of your laying out your belief system.

The experiments and the evidence do not support all change being sudden. Recently, I supplied just four pieces of that evidence that refutes this cliam.

Still waiting for that evidence of conscious fungi. Is that going to be forthcoming. Any experiment? Perhaps something of the experiments done in the Antarctic regarding glaciation have the critical evidence, since, per your claim, all experiments support the claim.

 

[cladking]

You DEFINED it. Not experiment. Not evidence. YOU!

YES!!

THIS IS HOW OUR LANGUAGE WORKS. WE MUST PARSE EACH OTHERS WORDS OR THEY HAVE NO MEANING AT ALL. AND WE MUST PARSE THEM AS THEY ARE INTENDED IN ORDER TO COMMUNICATE AT ALL.

Everything else than parsing words as they are intended is word play. There's no point in trying to communicate with anyone who refuses to use the same definitions as you use.

This is a common tactic among Evolutionists to simply twist other peoples' words. This is called "semantical argument".

 

[cladking]

"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.

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."






Don't forget that during this shake out period there will usually still be very few individuals so the chances of any of their fossils surviving are extremely low. This is why there are only missing links in the "fossil record". In some cases there were no intermediary stages and in others there were so few individuals they are not represented in the evidence.

This stuff isn't rocket science and can be easily understood by anyone who tries.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you just implied you believe theory is reality.

No. Not at all. We're talking about the experiments that support your claims. You know. The ones you never provide. Anything in metallurgy that tells us about mushroom consciousness?

Accepting a theory is the best explanation of the evidence is not alluding to or implying that I consider the theory to be reality. That wouldn't be science. That would be what you are doing. Forming a belief. You don't need a theory to do that.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Just doing my bit to help educate people that clearly don't have the knowledge to meaningfully discuss these topics.

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

I read and understand your posts. That is not really a good thing for you. You make claims. You expect them to be accepted without question for no valid reason. You don't provide evidence, experiment, logic, reason or explanation. Just leave the poor things hanging there all empty. Then you repeat yourself. And again. And again. And again.

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.

There's no experiments that support this wild flight of fantasy. You never post any. To be fair, you don't have any to post, but I can't seem to get you to understand that.

One species does not give birth to another species. This is unreal. No experiment shows this. Crocoducks are humorous mythical beasts born out of irony.

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.

More unsupported nonsense.

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

I'm still reading. I haven't reached my nonsense quota for the day.

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.

See. I've said it several times. Pseudoscience. You are inventing a pseudoscience. There is no basis for your claims here. The key here is your phrase "I would imagine". That indicates that you are just thinking this stuff up and there is no experiment that demonstrates any of this.

It is this that every experiment and observation shows.

Every experiment and observation that you never present or explain how such widely based experiments in kidney function, stellar mechanics, geochemistry and the ecology of urban populations of bees demonstrate this fanciful claim.

We are misinterpreting all the evidence because Darwin saw gradual change and survival of the fittest in the fossil record. In 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.

You are misinterpreting. You are just manufacturing a pseudoscience based on the human imagination. Darwin, gradualism and natural selection are merely tangential to the manufacturing process.

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. Things up some word games, build some strawmen and really let them have it.

No one here has called you "stupid". You are as mistaken about that as your are about biology and the rest of science. Your ignorance of the subject matter is obvious. Your reasons for fixating on the development of a pseudoscience around that ignorance is less obvious, but I have my suspicions.

Any movement on that "fungi are conscious" experimental evidence?

Believers are so predictable.

Another empty claim used to dismiss others rather than address what they are saying. You say it as if you have vast knowledge of things you cannot possibly know and have never demonstrated.

Once you have faith in human progress and Science you are lost and don't know it.

Once you start believing a pseudoscience as if it were reality, you are lost and don't know it.

Once you accept Peers as your Savior it is never necessary to think ever again.

Ah, the mythical Peers again. And mixed with a religious reference unrelated to the discussion. Another attempt at insult? Just a random nothing intended to sustain a dead position due to a failure of support.

Doctrine will open doors and win friends so thought is no longer necessary anyway.

It seems more like a doctrine of psuedoscience is closing doors for you and not winning you anything.

Mostly, this last paragraph is just random noise representing sour grapes that your pseudoscience isn't embraced as revealed truth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

YES!!

THIS IS HOW OUR LANGUAGE WORKS. WE MUST PARSE EACH OTHERS WORDS OR THEY HAVE NO MEANING AT ALL. AND WE MUST PARSE THEM AS THEY ARE INTENDED IN ORDER TO COMMUNICATE AT ALL.

Everything else than parsing words as they are intended is word play. There's no point in trying to communicate with anyone who refuses to use the same definitions as you use.

This is a common tactic among Evolutionists to simply twist other peoples' words. This is called "semantical argument".

We are not talking about your semantics. You are claiming that things are a certain way and FAILING to demonstrate that is true.

It's not my fault that you rely on a baseless pseudoscience of your own manufacture. That seems like a sunken ship and not the smooth sailing you imagine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is utter nonsense even by Darwin's standards.

It is impossible for an abstraction like "species" to change if there is no change even over the short term. It is a non sequitur of the purist form. It is logical nonsense.

Every individual ever born is distinct from its parents and its siblings. You are looking through the wrong end of a telescope.

If "Evolution" existed, and it certainly does not, then each generation must be BY DEFINITION a somewhat different species than its parents. This is simple logic that is being confounded by the simple fact that "species" is an abstraction with no referent. There are only individuals. All life is individual.

It is not nonsense. It is what experiment shows us. The offspring of one species has never been shown to be another species.

Stop diverting to this nonsense about abstraction. It is easily seen to be a nonsense diversion and serves no other apparent purpose.

There is no dispute over the obvious fact that offspring share genes with their parents, but are genetically distinct from their parents. That doesn't constitute speciation. They are the same species.

Evolution has been demonstrated by experiment. Your claims have not.

Any more on those magical conscious mushroom experiments?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"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.

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."






Don't forget that during this shake out period there will usually still be very few individuals so the chances of any of their fossils surviving are extremely low. This is why there are only missing links in the "fossil record". In some cases there were no intermediary stages and in others there were so few individuals they are not represented in the evidence.

This stuff isn't rocket science and can be easily understood by anyone who tries.

This stuff you propose is not science at all.

You say these things as if you are getting this information from a body of established study and experimentation. But there are no experiments that show this. You certainly have never presented any. You haven't provided one experiment that reports on what you claim. Since all of this is erroneous information and you are the only one reporting it, the logical conclusion of the source is you. Since you have no bona fides in science and have never provided evidence, experimental results or any sort of logical explanation that fits the facts, I can only conclude that this is the basis of a personal belief system. I don't choose to believe it. There is no reason to and plenty reason not to.

 

[cladking]

We are not talking about your semantics.

There is only one single alternative to ;letting me define "sudden" as "less than three generation". ONE.

Tell me what word you want me to use to mean "less than three generations" and I will use THAT word.

All life is individual and all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden.

 

[cladking]

You say these things as if you are getting this information from a body of established study and experimentation. But there are no experiments that show this.

It is my own work and I started from different assumption and axioms than euclidean or cartesian science. It is my contention that the existing paradigms are a poor means of viewing ALL observation and experiment.

I am proposing a new paradigm.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is only one single alternative to ;letting me define "sudden" as "less than three generation". ONE.

Tell me what word you want me to use to mean "less than three generations" and I will use THAT word.

All life is individual and all observed change in all life at all levels is sudden.

There is always a much better alternative to letting someone create a psuedoscience based on what they imagine. It is called using evidence and logic. Science.

A claim is just a conclusion from the evidence. If you have no evidence, it is an empty claim. It results from unverified belief. Often unverifiable belief. It can't be tested.

You keep speaking as if you are drawing information from some outside source, but you never reveal this source, while implying it is widely read and recognized. How can a source be widely read and recognized and invisible to all but you? Why can't you show it to others?

None of what you do makes any sense except in the light of a product of human imagining without further basis.

I do not know of any reason to accept this psuedoscience fantasy that you have posted about on this thread as model of reality.

I think I will be returning you to ignore land now that all that is straightened out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is my own work and I started from different assumption and axioms than euclidean or cartesian science. It is my contention that the existing paradigms are a poor means of viewing ALL observation and experiment.

I am proposing a new paradigm.

It isn't any work. It is all conjecture based on erroneous information, flawed understanding and evidence that doesn't appear to exist. You've never presented it.

You can have any belief system you choose. I don't care.

All that I see here is what you imagine and cannot demonstrate or use effectively to challenge what has been discovered using science. Science is not the end all and be all of everything, but it is better than a wild pseudoscience that has no basis in logic or facts.

Here's a fact that supports me. You haven't presented any experiment that supports your claims. You couldn't even present one experiment that supports one claim. Based on past performance and what I do know about what we have learned using a systematic approach to study, I predict that you never will provide this evidence.

We cannot go from a valid means of discovery with science and embrace a paradigm based on a warped misinterpretation of reality in the form of a faith-based pseudoscience having nothing rational to support it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is my own work and I started from different assumption and axioms than euclidean or cartesian science. It is my contention that the existing paradigms are a poor means of viewing ALL observation and experiment.

I am proposing a new paradigm.

How about those experiments showing fungi have consciousness?

Or was that you just "misspoken" like you were with the fish-eating beaver farmers?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

No, you don't even know what evolution is.

Evolution is the changes of the allele frequency in a species over time. That means that genetic changes have to be species wide. A change that effects only one small family is not evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"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.

No. Wow, you really try to misunderstand things on purpose.

No, when you falsely accuse others of "conjecture" when you do not understand something that is no different from other accusing you of child abuse because they do not understand how you raise your kids. Accusing others of conjecture is a claim that you need to be able to prove just as if someone accused you of child abuse needs to be able to prove that.

That you do not understand evolution you prove on every page here.

 

[gnostic]

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.

No, genetic defects would occur among family, where some members of that families would not have the defects, while it may skip other members. Defects don’t usually go beyond the family, as in outside of that group. That’s sill not evolution.

Defects that cause diseases or abnormalities, can be inheritable, but that doesn’t mean the whole population would share these defects.

You are still confusing mutations that occurred among individuals (within family), where no speciation occurred, with evolutionary-typed mutations that affect populations as in species.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, genetic defects would occur among family, where some members of that families would not have the defects, while it may skip other members. Defects don’t usually go beyond the family, as in outside of that group. That’s sill not evolution.

Defects that cause diseases or abnormalities, can be inheritable, but that doesn’t mean the whole population would share these defects.

You are still confusing mutations that occurred among individuals (within family), where no speciation occurred, with evolutionary-typed mutations that affect populations as in species.

No I'm not confusing mutations with natural selection. The mutations that last don't mean the organisms need them to survive. Bye.

 

[YoursTrue]

No. Wow, you really try to misunderstand things on purpose.

No, when you falsely accuse others of "conjecture" when you do not understand something that is no different from other accusing you of child abuse because they do not understand how you raise your kids. Accusing others of conjecture is a claim that you need to be able to prove just as if someone accused you of child abuse needs to be able to prove that.

That you do not understand evolution you prove on every page here.

If there's no proof then what is there? Anyway, you've proved your point about your belief. You didn't surmise it, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I'm not confusing mutations with natural selection. The mutations that last don't mean the organisms need them to survive. Bye.

You still do not understand natural selection. Natural selection preserves beneficial mutations and erases deleterious mutations. It may take a few generations, but it does happen.

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

What you are talking about “sudden” have nothing to do with Evolution.

You need to learn and understand the scopes of Evolution, which isn’t about changes of individuals or changes in individual family (parent-offspring) of few generations.

Even among bacteria, speciation don’t occur in a few generations.

A single day for bacteria could result anywhere from 50 generations to 147 generations.

Species of bacteria that develop immunity or strong resistance to antibiotics, may take as long as 4 to 10 months.

Even if we were talking about the shortest amount of time, like 4 months (about 120 days) for instance, that over 17,000 generations...that’s not “sudden”. And if were talking about a year or 365 days, that would be over 53,000 generations.

These are estimates of time and the numbers of generations, are based on the record of observing (in the lab) a single bacteria reproducing at 9.8 minutes old. Of course, not all bacteria would reproduce after being alive for 9.8 minutes, the time would of course vary widely, depending on the species and the environment the bacteria are found.

The point, even with bacteria, speciation isn’t sudden like your absurd 3 generation nonsense.

Your example implied human. Speciation most certainly don’t occur in 3 generations among humans. What you are talking about have nothing to do with Evolution.

You keep making outrageous claims that have no evidence basis, because you clearly don’t even understand basic biology, let alone evolution.

All you are doing is making pseudoscience claims.