Darwin's Illusion

[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!

Every experiment shows that only some living things have consciousness.

Wow! This is easy. You don't have to provide support for a claim. You can say anything. It is much easier than using science to find the best explanations for the facts. No bothersome logic and reason to cope with.

What a paradigm.

 

[YoursTrue]

Every experiment shows that only some living things have consciousness.

Wow! This is easy. You don't have to provide support for a claim. You can say anything. It is much easier than using science to find the best explanations for the facts. No bothersome logic and reason to cope with.

What a paradigm.

Look, if I have a photograph maybe plus video of someone walking outside the house then in a way that's "proof." That he walked outside the house. Maybe not enough proof in a court of law if a person is accused of something. Someone could come up with the idea that it was manufactured, tampered with. But that's not the point because we're talking about consciousness. I'm assuming we're conscious when we type a message. I don't want to get too technical here. I can't say mushrooms are conscious. I can say that they can flourish under certain conditions. I do not believe or think this means they are conscious, but like salamanders, they have cerrtain innate, GOD-GIVEN abilities to respond to stimuli. Can I prove this? No, but it makes sense to me, while the theory of evolution pertaining to these things do not as if thinking ability developed naturally by chemical forces.
Like I said, when I approach a cockroach I see it senses that something is near. Frankly, I don't think it sees me. I don't know, I'm not an expert. But it sure can run away faster than I can catch it most of the time. I believe (yes, believe) what my science teacher taught me, that there is a difference between thinking and instinctual reaction. I do not make my heart beat, for instance. I don't think about every beat there is. It's automatic. I don't think in advance about the time and date it will stop beating. I try to eat in such a way that will not harm it. Yes, thank science for this.
This in reference to what I think about vegetables thinking, or salamanders thinking. I am going to go as far as gorillas. Their brains are different from human brains. I'm pretty well sure of that.
P.S. I don't think salmon think too much, if at all. But I won't get into that now. I also don't think bears think too much about catching fish. Maybe they think more than salmon, I don't know. (Do you?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That is only because you have not looked at the evidence.. Do you even know what the earliest animals were?

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.

No. That is just evidence. There could have been an additional unknown chemical in the containers. You might have misidentified a chemical. There are all sorts of ways that you could have made a mistake. That is why you only have evidence at best. Now if others follow your directions and produce the same chemicals then there is even more evidence for your beliefs and they are looking pretty likely to be correct. But there always is a chance that you are wrong.

And you do not even know what the purpose was of the Miller Urey experiment so you simply have no clue, and are incredibly wrong, when you try to claim that it was a failure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Yes, and for good reason.
It's absurd to the highest degree and exposes a rather baffling amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter.

Again: "not even wrong".

 

[YoursTrue]

That is only because you have not looked at the evidence.. Do you even know what the earliest animals were?



No. That is just evidence. There could have been an additional unknown chemical in the containers. You might have misidentified a chemical. There are all sorts of ways that you could have made a mistake. That is why you only have evidence at best. Now if others follow your directions and produce the same chemicals then there is even more evidence for your beliefs and they are looking pretty likely to be correct. But there always is a chance that you are wrong.

And you do not even know what the purpose was of the Miller Urey experiment so you simply have no clue, and are incredibly wrong, when you try to claim that it was a failure.

You offer your opinion but no evidence or explanation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is utter nonsense even by Darwin's standards.

No.

Find me a single instance of an individual that gave birth to another individual of another species.

Just one.

It is impossible for an abstraction like "species" to change if there is no change even over the short term.

Gradual change, does exactly that.

Every individual ever born is distinct from its parents and its siblings

I didn't say newborns are clones of their parents.
I said they are of the same species.
I'm not a clone of another random human. But we are both human.

Do you even think these things through?

If "Evolution" existed

It does.

then each generation must be BY DEFINITION a somewhat different species than its parents.

Insane absurd nonsense.
All humans are "somewhat" different from one another. It's called variation.
Yet all humans are of the same species of homo sapiens.

Once again: "not even wrong".

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.

Then why don't human reproduce with tigers and only with humans?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If there's no proof then what is there?

Same as for every other scientific theory. It's called evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You offer your opinion but no evidence or explanation.

There is no point in giving you evidence until you understand the concept. When you are ready to learn please tell me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Look, if I have a photograph maybe plus video of someone walking outside the house then in a way that's "proof." That he walked outside the house. Maybe not enough proof in a court of law if a person is accused of something. Someone could come up with the idea that it was manufactured, tampered with. But that's not the point because we're talking about consciousness. I'm assuming we're conscious when we type a message. I don't want to get too technical here. I can't say mushrooms are conscious. I can say that they can flourish under certain conditions. I do not believe or think this means they are conscious, but like salamanders, they have cerrtain innate, GOD-GIVEN abilities to respond to stimuli. Can I prove this? No, but it makes sense to me, while the theory of evolution pertaining to these things do not as if thinking ability developed naturally by chemical forces.
Like I said, when I approach a cockroach I see it senses that something is near. Frankly, I don't think it sees me. I don't know, I'm not an expert. But it sure can run away faster than I can catch it most of the time. I believe (yes, believe) what my science teacher taught me, that there is a difference between thinking and instinctual reaction. I do not make my heart beat, for instance. I don't think about every beat there is. It's automatic. I don't think in advance about the time and date it will stop beating. I try to eat in such a way that will not harm it. Yes, thank science for this.
This in reference to what I think about vegetables thinking, or salamanders thinking. I am going to go as far as gorillas. Their brains are different from human brains. I'm pretty well sure of that.
P.S. I don't think salmon think too much, if at all. But I won't get into that now. I also don't think bears think too much about catching fish. Maybe they think more than salmon, I don't know. (Do you?)

What you have in a video of someone walking outside your home is evidence. It may be a great deal more evidence than you imagine. There may be evidence of the make, model and manufacture of the camera. When it was installed. If the video is time and date stamped, it would indicate when the walking took place. Depending on the quality of the camera, the video may be enough as evidence to identify the person. The clothes they were wearing. How they acted. Others that may also be walking nearby. If the garbage had been picked up or was even out. If they were carrying something or not. That video is evidence and it potentially is much more evidence than just the image of a person walking. It is not proof. The time and date may have been entered wrong at installation. The footage may be too grainy for a good ID. Maybe it was installed after what is claimed and the image wasn't recorded as claimed. There are many factors associated with this that would need to be established depending on the importance of the video as evidence. That is why it is not proof. Every possible outcome cannot eliminated 100%.

The claim that all life is conscious is meaningless and unestablished. Consciousness is not defined. Evidence has never been presented. Counter evidence is ignored and the claim is repeated as if it were 100% proven beyond any doubt or challenge. There is the matter of relevancy. It is offered here as some definitive criteria that shows something that is ambiguous, never explained and offered more as a mantra than as a fact. It isn't a fact, based on what we know.

This claim and others just get repeated with the ultimatum that all evidence from all of science supports it. While never showing one piece of evidence that says anything about.

What is going on is that a detail of what can reasonably be identified as a precept of a personal belief system is constantly being repeated as if it means something without benefit of corroboration or explanation of that meaning. There is no penalty for concluding this obvious condition and challenging it to the point where it becomes obvious that the best option is to ignore it and all the similar empty claims.

There is no evidence that mushrooms have a consciousness like ours. No evidence has been offered to counter that. Only claims that all the evidence supports it. That is a circular argument. It is a circular argument no matter what it is used to represent or in what instance it is used.

 

[gnostic]

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

He will never to admit any error.

He kept blaming Darwin for "survival of the fittest", even when I have told repeatedly that this came from Herbert Spencer. All cladking will do is just ignore the correction or being dismissive.

I have also told him the mechanism is called Natural Selection, not "survival of the fittest". Same reactions. He won't admit his error.

cladking think he is god, incapable of making errors.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He will never to admit any error.

He kept blaming Darwin for "survival of the fittest", even when I have told repeatedly that this came from Herbert Spencer. All cladking will do is just ignore the correction or being dismissive.

I have also told him the mechanism is called Natural Selection, not "survival of the fittest". Same reactions. He won't admit his error.

cladking think he is god, incapable of making errors.

I have noted that about @cladking. There is a lot of doubling down on the doubling down.

Poor old Darwin. He did good and gets beat up all the time by those that don't understand what he did. Being dead doesn't even save him.

 

[YoursTrue]

What you have in a video of someone walking outside your home is evidence. It may be a great deal more evidence than you imagine. There may be evidence of the make, model and manufacture of the camera. When it was installed. If the video is time and date stamped, it would indicate when the walking took place. Depending on the quality of the camera, the video may be enough as evidence to identify the person. The clothes they were wearing. How they acted. Others that may also be walking nearby. If the garbage had been picked up or was even out. If they were carrying something or not. That video is evidence and it potentially is much more evidence than just the image of a person walking. It is not proof. The time and date may have been entered wrong at installation. The footage may be too grainy for a good ID. Maybe it was installed after what is claimed and the image wasn't recorded as claimed. There are many factors associated with this that would need to be established depending on the importance of the video as evidence. That is why it is not proof. Every possible outcome cannot eliminated 100%.

The claim that all life is conscious is meaningless and unestablished. Consciousness is not defined. Evidence has never been presented. Counter evidence is ignored and the claim is repeated as if it were 100% proven beyond any doubt or challenge. There is the matter of relevancy. It is offered here as some definitive criteria that shows something that is ambiguous, never explained and offered more as a mantra than as a fact. It isn't a fact, based on what we know.

This claim and others just get repeated with the ultimatum that all evidence from all of science supports it. While never showing one piece of evidence that says anything about.

What is going on is that a detail of what can reasonably be identified as a precept of a personal belief system is constantly being repeated as if it means something without benefit of corroboration or explanation of that meaning. There is no penalty for concluding this obvious condition and challenging it to the point where it becomes obvious that the best option is to ignore it and all the similar empty claims.

There is no evidence that mushrooms have a consciousness like ours. No evidence has been offered to counter that. Only claims that all the evidence supports it. That is a circular argument. It is a circular argument no matter what it is used to represent or in what instance it is used.

I can't imagine that mushrooms are conscious. But please, where is the evidence that humans developed brains differently from gorillas?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have noted that about @cladking. There is a lot of doubling down on the doubling down.

Poor old Darwin. He did good and gets beat up all the time by those that don't understand what he did. Being dead doesn't even save him.

Poor Darwin. Maybe he'll change his mind if he's resurrected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't imagine that mushrooms are conscious. But please, where is the evidence that humans developed brains differently from gorillas?

In the fossil record. We can see a growth in brain size from Lucy to us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Poor Darwin. Maybe he'll change his mind if he's resurrected.

Why would he? All that evolution shows is that if a God exists it tells us how he did it,


Why do you still believe that God is a liar?

 

[rational experiences]

Humans as men.

Some can use consciousness for research.

A lot of men cannot.

Is your natural answer about consciousness.

The returned sacrificed consciousness.

So does a Higher more conscious aware man make all the science mistakes?

Yes.

In life are you agreeing with brothers who give self status above that of family in living life?

Yes.

Past written advice.

Second coming warning a Satan star earth hit. As it wont wander past star.

Conscious man will identify conscious life changed again.

Third coming...the warning. Will be when man ignores all previous life was sacrificed by scientific causes. By ignoring the notified identified historic events.

Previous times of men with machine invented technology.

Reasoned. Heavy metal radiating heavens pollution alters the brain chemistry and bio health of who is a human being naturally first.

Whilst humans live. Only because life isn't ground stationery it too wanders.

Human sex as interactive bio union reason also.

The same histiry biology animal life. Would hence change the same.

So we live with giant beasts.

Both bio bodies change.

We were never living with dinosaurs side by side.

Just one of many incidences that says human theists are relative to destroyer data collecting.

In role play consciousness depicts its human roles constantly itself. Then blames other humans role play as the stated self destructive behaviours.

Water mass always owned living microbes.

Humans cell bio microbes are exact.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would he? All that evolution shows is that if a God exists it tells us how he did it,


Why do you still believe that God is a liar?

No the theory of evolution doesn't tell us how God it. That's not true for someone to say that's how God did it. The ToE says that human life came about by natural selection by fusion and chemical reactions of sources.

 

[YoursTrue]

In the fossil record. We can see a growth in brain size from Lucy to us.

gorillas don't think like humans do.

 

[YoursTrue]

In the fossil record. We can see a growth in brain size from Lucy to us.

Mushrooms don't have brains.

 

[LIIA]

I simply don't recognize anything as being 100% certain because everything is dependent on assumptions, definitions, and axioms. Even if something were "certain" it would still be dependent.

Everything in our realm is relative; the definition of a relative entity is always dependent on a reference (The definition is only as good/valid as the reference that defines it). Axioms are references but can also be relative. Without the true absolute reference at the top of the hierarchy, nothing can be defined.