Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you think that a scientific experiment is? Try to describe what one does and how one does it.

Isn't the experiment, "Repeat what Denis Noble says"?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I cannot remember any examples, but so what? Just because some changes are sudden does not mean that all of them are. That is the logic of hasty generalization. In geology there are examples of both. Plate movement is the cause of large scale earth quakes, but not all plate movement results in large scale earthquakes. In fact the norm appears to be small tremors that often go unnoticed. To see earthquakes like the recent on in Turkey and Syria and think that all such motions have to be deadly need to go to Iceland. Iceland has about 500 earthquakes a week. But most go unnoticed. A lot of small changes add up to large ones. The fault in Turkey is a plate border similar to that of the San Andreas fault. There are long times between movements so the movements tend to be large scale and violent. We can see small scale changes occurring in biology constantly, but deniers of science think for some odd reason that those do not count.

Rates of development change over time, but the point is that one example is not the representative of all examples. But it only takes one example where change is not sudden to show that the claim is false.

I gave four in the last week. Many more have been presented prior to that.

What we have been dealing with is someone taking an anecdotal observation about one instance and applying that to everything and concluding that they are correct without review, experiment or evidence.

That is the shell that surrounds such thinking.

 

[Audie]

I think you are right. My latest engagement seems to see that out. No matter how much reason and evidence is supplied, the doubling down on Dunning-Kruger seems to be the only response.

The chief goal seems to be to keep the debate alive and the attention alive. After a certain point there is no return for any effort.

Some are just out for attention.
Perhaps their personal lives are
as pathetic as it suggests, and as such
maybe they deserve compassion that I
personally dont have to give.

 

[YoursTrue]

I cannot answer the latter, but why, upon being so successful in establishing the basis of a branch of science, would he change his mind and why would it matter, given the science is not based on him, but on the evidence?

(1) I don't see the evidence
(2) I see there are cells called prokaryotes and eukaryotes
(3) I see fossils
(4) i see certain populations have been extinguished

 

[YoursTrue]

I cannot answer the latter, but why, upon being so successful in establishing the basis of a branch of science, would he change his mind and why would it matter, given the science is not based on him, but on the evidence?

Maybe he'll realize that everything did not "evolve" by chemical reactions and natural selection. Maybe he'll see that some things require more than nature.

 

[YoursTrue]

How is evolution different? You can see it on the micro level just as what we see is the "micro level" for gravity.

Can you see a planet orbiting a star? The evidence is there, but you will have to rely on others for it. There really is no difference except for the fact that we have more evidence for evolution at all levels than we do have for gravity.

The only one stopping you from learning is you.

There's actual evidence for planets orbiting a star. Such as telescopes. That would not be supposition. There is no actual evidence for humans evolving from rats.

 

[YoursTrue]

How is evolution different? You can see it on the micro level just as what we see is the "micro level" for gravity.

Can you see a planet orbiting a star? The evidence is there, but you will have to rely on others for it. There really is no difference except for the fact that we have more evidence for evolution at all levels than we do have for gravity.

The only one stopping you from learning is you.

I can see an apple falling from a tree. it doesn't go upwards. I cannot see humans evolving into anything other than humans of the homo sapiens kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can see an apple falling from a tree. it doesn't go upwards. I cannot see humans evolving into anything other than humans of the homo sapiens kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Just one question to @Dan From Smithville and @Subduction Zone or anyone else who cares to answer -- I've been looking for a chart or simple explanation of the evolution of life starting from the first cells. if you can link me to one, please...

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's actual evidence for planets orbiting a star. Such as telescopes. That would not be supposition. There is no actual evidence for humans evolving from rats.

Humans didn't evolve from rats, That would be an example of a strawman argument. There is endless evidence of humans evolving from earlier mammals, and perhaps one was rather rat like.

And there is "actual evidence" of human evolution. The problem is that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Or else you are openly lying. Now I do not think that you are a liar. You are merely very very ignorant.

The good news is that ignorance can be cured by education. Would you care to learn what "actual evidence" is and why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see an apple falling from a tree. it doesn't go upwards. I cannot see humans evolving into anything other than humans of the homo sapiens kind.

And now you just told us that you still do not know what evolution is.

But then you are terribly afraid. All human offspring will still be human beings, just as all ape offspring are still apes. You can't seem to understand this undeniable fact. Humans never stopped being apes. If you claim that you are not an ape then you are also claiming that you are not a human.

So are you human or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

(1) I don't see the evidence
(2) I see there are cells called prokaryotes and eukaryotes
(3) I see fossils
(4) i see certain populations have been extinguished

We can see that you do not understand the fossil evidence. Which means that you really should not be asking for any. This is why over and over and over again I have offered to teach you the concept of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just one question to @Dan From Smithville and @Subduction Zone or anyone else who cares to answer -- I've been looking for a chart or simple explanation of the evolution of life starting from the first cells. if you can link me to one, please...

You cannot show that on any chart nor is the explanation simple. Especially when you have no understanding of even the basics of science.

Your demand is like the demands of someone that can barely add that wants others to prove that linear algebra is true. Or calculus involving trigonometry is true.

You have a lot to learn before you make such demands and yet you refuse to learn the basics.

 

[YoursTrue]

I cannot answer the latter, but why, upon being so successful in establishing the basis of a branch of science, would he change his mind and why would it matter, given the science is not based on him, but on the evidence?

Thinking about this, perhaps because in the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous, he did not evolve to come to be himself alive at that point, but was brought back to life minus evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

You cannot show that on any chart nor is the explanation simple. Especially when you have no understanding of even the basics of science.

Your demand is like the demands of someone that can barely add that wants others to prove that linear algebra is true. Or calculus involving trigonometry is true.

You have a lot to learn before you make such demands and yet you refuse to learn the basics.

I've been looking, but cannot find "evidence" that animal and plant life separated at a certain point. What do you think other than I'm ueducated?

 

[YoursTrue]

Isn't the experiment, "Repeat what Denis Noble says"?

Yes but where is the "evidence" that plant life and animal life came from the same stem or different stems? Pardon me if I do not speak in your educated terminology, but hopefully you understand the question. Please show evidence. Thank you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some are just out for attention.
Perhaps their personal lives are
as pathetic as it suggests, and as such
maybe they deserve compassion that I
personally dont have to give.

I gave my compassion in trying to help educate them to no avail. There is a poster that hadn't heard of punctuated equilibrium until this thread and now they post as if they are the leading world expert on the subject. That sort of thing and some of the other nonsense tends to limit my compassion out quite a bit.

 

[YoursTrue]

Right now you are just talking about yourself.

Again, nothng but insults on your part. The fact that you refuse to answer questions but keep talking as to how some won't understand doesn't help your case. And in fact makes me further believe you don't know what you're talking about. While I surely don't claim to know everything, I have learned that you keep talking about evidence as if that's the answer that is how life came about from a few cells, a soupy mass, or maybe some structures that fell upon the earth, chemical reactions made it grow to plants and animals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

(1) I don't see the evidence

That's not really a problem of science.

(2) I see there are cells called prokaryotes and eukaryotes

Sure.

(3) I see fossils

OK.

(4) i see certain populations have been extinguished

There have been.

What is the relevance of all of this, besides not understanding the science?

I understand that you have affiliated yourself with a group that feels threatened by this science, and is highly enthusiastic about denying science, but it doesn't have to be. The science says nothing about the existence of non-existence of God. It conflicts with a literal interpretation of Genesis and that seems to send some reeling into fits of denial. You can believe in God and accept the science. I do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe he'll realize that everything did not "evolve" by chemical reactions and natural selection. Maybe he'll see that some things require more than nature.

I doubt it, since the evidence says he is correct.

There isn't any evidence that would tell him that. It is a belief on faith. Not a conclusion of some evidence.