Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

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

There is evidence.

You seem to conflate evidence with proof. Properly, "proof" is a mathematical term. It is never used in the sciences. You almost surely use the word improperly all of the time. And no, I did not surmise either.

If you want to make those claims about others the burden of proof is upon you. And I know it is confusing. The burden of proof does not mean that you have to "prove" something. It means that one's claims have to be supported by evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I don't think that's valid in their eyes. They must think plants and lions and salmon came up by mutations from a common few cells or so. That's what the "tree" seems to show.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is evidence.

You seem to conflate evidence with proof. Properly, "proof" is a mathematical term. It is never used in the sciences. You almost surely use the word improperly all of the time. And no, I did not surmise either.

If you want to make those claims about others the burden of proof is upon you. And I know it is confusing. The burden of proof does not mean that you have to "prove" something. It means that one's claims have to be supported by evidence.

I seem to conflate evidence with proof? Hmm I don't think so... but anyway...as the saying goes, whatever or perhaps, as the branch grows...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I seem to conflate evidence with proof? Hmm I don't think so... but anyway...as the saying goes, whatever or perhaps, as the branch grows...

Yes, you do make that error. It is incredibly foolish to demand absolute proof. There is no such thing. But there is evidence. Endless evidence. There is only absolute proof in mathematics.

Do you need references? I can provide them. That others have told you the same thing should let you know that they are out there.

 

[gnostic]

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

You are still talking about “proof”.

Proof is a logical statement or logical model.

In the world of mathematics and science, proofs are often expressed in terms of equations or formulas, with numbers, variables & constants.

Do you understand?

Proof are abstract model, based on logical representation that use numbers & variables, eg equations.

Newton’s law on force, F = ma, that equation is proof, not evidence. The evidence would be the physical object you would measured, such as the mass, m. Other evidence would be time taken (t) for that object from one point to the next point, hence the distance (d). The two measurements d & t can be used to calculate the acceleration, a.

The points with the example that I have given, the measurements taken that you would observe and record - mass, distance & time - these are your evidence.

There are some things in the world that you cannot directly see, but you can still observe indirectly observe that would give you the necessary information or data about the evidence, data of observations often come in the forms of quantities or measurements.

Unseen phenomena, like electricity or radio signals, can still be measured if you have the right devices, eg respectively, multimeter to measure voltage, current or power, or radio receiver to measure the frequency or wavelength of the radio signals.

There many devices that can make observations of evidence that we cannot do with our own senses.

Evidence are physical, proofs are abstract.

Proofs aren’t synonymous for evidence.

Evidence are the observations of physical or natural phenomena.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

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.

You're right, I do not understand "natural selection" in reference to the theory of evolution as if plants and lions had a common source.

There is evidence.

You seem to conflate evidence with proof. Properly, "proof" is a mathematical term. It is never used in the sciences. You almost surely use the word improperly all of the time. And no, I did not surmise either.

If you want to make those claims about others the burden of proof is upon you. And I know it is confusing. The burden of proof does not mean that you have to "prove" something. It means that one's claims have to be supported by evidence.

Look, if I go into the lab and combine two elements and they make a substance combined from the two elements, that's "proof." That those two elements combined form a different substance. Like H2O, of course. The experiments of Urey Miller did not in any way show/prove/demonstrate/evidence the theory of evolution. The reason being that there was an electrical force introduced in a clinical setting. By man. And whatever evolved from those cells after they grew after the electrical combination that continued growing? Why not keep it going after the items were combined? No sir, it didn't demonstrate/prove/evidence or show evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are still talking about “proof”.

Proof is a logical statement or logical model.

In the world of mathematics and science, proofs are often expressed in terms of equations or formulas, with numbers, variables & constants.

Do you understand?

Proof are abstract model, based on logical representation that use numbers & variables, eg equations.

Newton’s law on force, F = ma, that equation is proof, not evidence. The evidence would be the physical object you would measured, such as the mass, m. Other evidence would be time taken (t) for that object from one point to the next point, hence the distance (d). The two measurements d & t can be used to calculate the acceleration, a.

The points with the example that I have given, the measurements taken that you would observe and record - mass, distance & time - these are your evidence.

There are some things in the world that you cannot directly see, but you can still observe indirectly observe that would give you the necessary information or data about the evidence, data of observations often come in the forms of quantities or measurements.

Unseen phenomena, like electricity or radio signals, can still be measured if you have the right devices, eg respectively, multimeter to measure voltage, current or power, or radio receiver to measure the frequency or wavelength of the radio signals.

There many devices that can make observations of evidence that we cannot do with our own senses.

Evidence are physical, proofs are abstract.

Proofs aren’t synonymous for evidence.

Evidence are the observations of physical or natural phenomena.

That proves it then. There ARE no observations of physical or natural phenomena relating to evolution. Just to be clear, there are skeletons. There are fossils. None of these are evidences of physical or natural phenomena pertaining to the theory. It can prove (except for fake fossils) or evidence there were animals with bones or plants with leaves. That's what these things evidence.

 

[cladking]

There is always a much better alternative to letting someone create a psuedoscience based on what they imagine.

So you believe scientists shouldn't have and use an imagination.

This explains a lot.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

― Albert Einstein

Imagination is even more important for metaphysicians, artists, diagnosticians, and sundry other fields.

Imagination is often the key ingredient of hypothesis and lies at the heart of paradigms. It's easy to see what is widely believed it's hard to see reality.

 

[cladking]

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.

You just keep repeating your beliefs sans experiment. You say "sudden" doesn't apply to Evolution but all you have to support it is doctrine and interpretation of fossils. This is an extremely weak argument.

Meanwhile all experiment and observation says all life is individual and all individuals are conscious. All individuals consume natural energy from food, heat, sunlight, etc, etc and process information. Even single celled slime molds won't repeat past errors in behavior showing they not only process information but also have memory!!!

The paradigm is at fault. We use the wrong definitions and assumptions so we misinterpret experiment. It's so easy to misinterpret experiment imagine how easy it is to misinterpret "evidence".

 

[cladking]

I don't think that's valid in their eyes. They must think plants and lions and salmon came up by mutations from a common few cells or so. That's what the "tree" seems to show.

I know.

It's only Evolution when there's a new fossil to show they changed gradually by means of survival of the fittest. Everything else is just religious nonsense to true Science believers.

 

[cladking]

The irony is that if Egyptology had been on the ball it's possible that Darwin would never have become famous. If Ancient Language had been properly translated before Darwin dreamed up Evolution it might not have happened because this was the era that science went off the rails. Thomas Young was on the right track but Champollion raced ahead to the wrong answers.

Sure it's a long shot but 19th century science has left us a hangover. There were many great scientists but all too many of them and their assumptions were wrong. We mistook progress in technology for progress in science. We accepted poor explanations because there was a steady stream of new products and inventions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you believe scientists shouldn't have and use an imagination.

This explains a lot.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

― Albert Einstein

Imagination is even more important for metaphysicians, artists, diagnosticians, and sundry other fields.

Imagination is often the key ingredient of hypothesis and lies at the heart of paradigms. It's easy to see what is widely believed it's hard to see reality.

This is pretty much what I expected from you. I never said that scientists shouldn't use imagination. Putting words into my mouth that were never there. This sort of response or random noise and word salad are your defense.

What I have said is that a pseudoscience created from imagined facts is useless and unsupportable. As we have seen.

You never show any experiments or evidence to support your claims. You just keep repeating them as if they were true even though everyone corrects you on them.

It is pretty easy to see, when you have to turn to this instead of providing the experiments that support your. Repeating that all experiments support your claims is just your way of avoiding that fact that nothing does.

Still not seeing those experiments for mildew consciousness.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you believe scientists shouldn't have and use an imagination.

This explains a lot.

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

― Albert Einstein

Imagination is even more important for metaphysicians, artists, diagnosticians, and sundry other fields.

Imagination is often the key ingredient of hypothesis and lies at the heart of paradigms. It's easy to see what is widely believed it's hard to see reality.

Pretend is not more important that sound knowledge from experiments and observations. I don't have to bold that in large font and it is still a fact.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You just keep repeating your beliefs sans experiment.

That is what you have been doing. Is this projection. I think it is.

You say "sudden" doesn't apply to Evolution but all you have to support it is doctrine and interpretation of fossils. This is an extremely weak argument.

There is lots of evidence. You have seen some of it that refutes your claim. Once refuted, your claim is no longer applicable anywhere. It is a done deal. Move on.

Meanwhile all experiment and observation says all life is individual and all individuals are conscious.

Not any experiment that you have provided. This is just nonsense. Pure nonsense. You couldn't know all experiments. You couldn't have reviewed all experiments. You couldn't have synthesized all of that down into anything meaningful. You haven't shown you possess even the rudimentary skills to understand the science of evolution. You have to start talking about mythichal peers and conspiracies and "believers" and fish-eating beavers, because you have no support for your claims. Or you post irrelevancies. That is another favorite everyone has seen.

All individuals consume natural energy from food, heat, sunlight, etc, etc and process information. Even single celled slime molds won't repeat past errors in behavior showing they not only process information but also have memory!!!

So what? Non of this shows that they are conscious. Just because some random person that has been shown to be unskilled and with very limited knowledge makes an empty claim doesn't make it a fact. It isn't.

The paradigm is at fault. We use the wrong definitions and assumptions so we misinterpret experiment. It's so easy to misinterpret experiment imagine how easy it is to misinterpret "evidence".

Yeah. Yeah. Nothing burger.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know.

It's only Evolution when there's a new fossil to show they changed gradually by means of survival of the fittest. Everything else is just religious nonsense to true Science believers.

Wow!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The irony is that if Egyptology had been on the ball it's possible that Darwin would never have become famous. If Ancient Language had been properly translated before Darwin dreamed up Evolution it might not have happened because this was the era that science went off the rails. Thomas Young was on the right track but Champollion raced ahead to the wrong answers.

Sure it's a long shot but 19th century science has left us a hangover. There were many great scientists but all too many of them and their assumptions were wrong. We mistook progress in technology for progress in science. We accepted poor explanations because there was a steady stream of new products and inventions.

I think this says it all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think that's valid in their eyes. They must think plants and lions and salmon came up by mutations from a common few cells or so. That's what the "tree" seems to show.

None of the claims that @cladking has made have been supported with any experiment or evidence. Even after requests that it be provided. They are not facts. This has been more than sufficiently demonstrated.

You can read that stuff and think it has some meaning. I can't stop a person from doing that, but I have shown it all to be nonsense and not worth any further comment.

 

[cladking]

Not any experiment that you have provided. This is just nonsense. Pure nonsense. You couldn't know all experiments. You couldn't have reviewed all experiments. You couldn't have synthesized all of that down into anything meaningful.

Then show an experiment, fact, or observation that counters my contention that all life is individual and conscious and consumes energy to process information.

This is the paradigm!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@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.

The idea that all observed change in living things is sudden doesn't make any sense. There is nothing to use to draw such an outlandish claim. I can't figure how anyone would ever decide it was a fact.

When people do this sort of thing and then just keeps repeating it, I think it is worth demonstrating how wrong these statements are and then just ignore it thereafter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then show an experiment, fact, or observation that counters my contention that all life is individual and conscious and consumes energy to process information.

This is the paradigm!

You mean show an experiment like you show experiments? I can do that. Anyone can. Look I just did. Every experiment supports my position. See how anyone can do that.

Your statement is irrelevant. It is as much as saying all left feet are on the left. True, but SO WHAT. Though, now that I think about it, are we individuals or colonies of many cells acting in concert. That sort of throws a wrinkle in your claim. You didn't think it through that far did you? No. Of course not.

Anyway, you are back on my ignore list as done and dusted. You are just going to start repeating your empty claims and logical fallacies again anyway. So far, the past has been a strong indicator for that future. That's another paradigm. I'm getting good at this.

My paradigm is that all right feet are on the right. Show an experiment, fact, or observation that counters that contention. All experiments support that.

I never did see those experiments that support consciousness in mushrooms. Never will.