Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

See # 350

This is exactly the point “ they don’t know”, but the general understanding that many uninformed evolutionists get from the scientific references is that transitional forms have been identified in a linear progression along the evolutionary development line towards H. Sapiens. It’s not true.

See the example of Dave in #342, he makes the false assertion that the ToE made accurate predictions of transitional forms leading to H. Sapiens consistent with actual findings in the fossil record, unaware of the fact that not even a SINGLE specimen was scientifically established as a transitional form leading to H. Sapiens. That is why latest evolutionary tree now shows relatives (to imply some sort of unkown relationship) not ancestors.



Most readers would scan quickly through a long post and may miss the important details. Bolded caps are intended to get the reader’s attention to important details, which would help them to get the point. It didn’t work in your case but hopefully others will get it.

Transitional forms exist in the fossil record. What you are demanding is that it be "proven" that a fossil is directly in the ancestral line with present species and "proof" is simply never going to emerge in science. Demanding it is a ridiculous. Especially when alternative explanations don't even have evidence supporting them.

That is why I don't read your long posts. I assume they are intended to swamp your reader. So, I generally ignore them or most of what is there.

All the bolding makes the post look like an expression of anger. Practice getting to the point more quickly. Or make your point and then follow it up with evidence that you indicate as that. Just some advice. You can take it or leave it, but you already know that I am not going to be reading those long posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My point is that real world evidence in the fossil record don’t support the predictions of the ToE. The specimens found are neither transitional forms leading to H. sapiens nor have any evolutionary development relationship.

Real world data do not support the hypothesized macroevolution through gradual, continuous transitional sequences. The hypothesis is false.

What is your definition of transitional form?

A transitional form bears traits that are both ancestral and derived traits that exist in the present species associated to that fossil transitional form.

Basically, all I see is that you deny the evidence and reject the hypotheses because they don't fit with what you want.

 

[F1fan]

What is your definition of transitional form?

A transitional form bears traits that are both ancestral and derived traits that exist in the present species associated to that fossil transitional form.

Basically, all I see is that you deny the evidence and reject the hypotheses because they don't fit with what you want.

If people can't get science right, then it is not the fault of science. Theists seem to believe that science must conform to their beliefs just as they massage holy text to fit their beliefs. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If people can't get science right, then it is not the fault of science. Theists seem to believe that science must conform to their beliefs just as they massage holy text to fit their beliefs. It doesn't work that way.

Not all theists. Many accept the conclusions of science. From what I have seen, it is often those that demand that their religious texts be the final authority on describing reality or those that do not understand science. Often it is a combination of both.

I frequently wonder why someone operating under such a paradigm believes they were blessed with intelligence and senses if they are supposed to ignore what those senses detect and what that mind can determine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not all theists. Many accept the conclusions of science. From what I have seen, it is often those that demand that their religious texts be the final authority on describing reality or those that do not understand science. Often it is a combination of both.

I frequently wonder why someone operating under such a paradigm believes they were blessed with intelligence and senses if they are supposed to ignore what those senses detect and what that mind can determine.

Well, I have over the years been around some non-theists, who don't understand science or conflate science as one form of philosophy with other forms of philosophy. Or even don't understand that the is no single universal form of science.

 

[ppp]

Between the alleged " Last Common Ancestor, HC-LCA” and H. sapiens (as shown on the alleged human evolutionary family tree). there are no evidence for HC-LCA or for any transitional forms leading to H. sapiens.

Yeah, that what I thought. You've got nothing. If you had any clue at all about what you were talking you would know the species you were talking about. You are not even vaguely informed on the topic. You are just parroting creationist scripts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I have over the years been around some non-theists, who don't understand science or conflate science as one form of philosophy with other forms of philosophy. Or even don't understand that the is no single universal form of science.

I agree. Ignorance is not confined to theism.

 

[cladking]

Mutation is the variation that selection acts on. Selection drives the change. It preserves, discards or ignores the changes.

It might be more accurate to think of mutation as the sudden new species. If the new species is better suited to the niche it will prevail.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It might be more accurate to think of mutation as the sudden new species. If the new species is better suited to the niche it will prevail.

It would not be accurate or correct at all to think of an individual with a mutation as a sudden new species. It reflects on a complete misunderstanding of mutation and speciation was well revealing a very useless species concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would not be accurate or correct at all to think of an individual with a mutation as a sudden new species. It reflects on a complete misunderstanding of mutation and speciation was well revealing a very useless species concept.

You have on the order of one hundred mutations. I guess that makes you 100 new species. Boy! You rabbits are busy!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have on the order of one hundred mutations. I guess that makes you 100 new species. Boy! You rabbits are busy!

It is very likely that the mutations of my father were entirely different than the mutations of my mother. If they were really different species just for having one of those mutations, I would not be here.

It strongly suggests that the species concept used to pose such a question is very poor at best.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is very likely that the mutations of my father were entirely different than the mutations of my mother. If they were really different species just for having one of those mutations, I would not be here.

It strongly suggests that the species concept used to pose such a question is very poor at best.

Seriously I do not think that anyone uses that definition. "Species" is of course a very hard concept to define because of evolution. If creationism was true we would hit a spot where it would be easy to say, This one is in this group and that one is in that group. But instead when we go back in time we can see how different populations are in the same group. Aron Ra's Phylogeny Challenge has never been met by creationists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Seriously I do not think that anyone uses that definition. "Species" is of course a very hard concept to define because of evolution. If creationism was true we would hit a spot where it would be easy to say, This one is in this group and that one is in that group. But instead when we go back in time we can see how different populations are in the same group. Aron Ra's Phylogeny Challenge has never been met by creationists.

I have never heard of anyone trying to argue that as a legitimate species concept either. I can't even see the value of using it. Dogs with different copy number mutations for amylase would be considered different species and that doesn't even take into account other mutations. Given that there are so many different species concepts, no one really has it nailed down, but defining it as single mutations makes it meaningless both conceptually and from the perspective of utility.

 

[cladking]

It would not be accurate or correct at all to think of an individual with a mutation as a sudden new species. It reflects on a complete misunderstanding of mutation and speciation was well revealing a very useless species concept.

Of course you've already forgotten there's no such thing as species.

Already you've forgotten or maybe never even noticed I said all life, just like every idea, is individual and is consciousness.

Some mutations can not procreate within their "species".

Change is sudden but if you believe in survival of the fittest, species, the fossil record, and Evolution you will not see any of this. You will instead imagine species gradually changing into other species, missing links, and you will discount observation and experiment.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course you've already forgotten there's no such thing as species.

Good grief. What now? Species exist. That they do has utility. Just because there is no immutable concept does not mean we do not have a good working idea of species or that they do not exist.

Already you've forgotten or maybe never even noticed I said all life, just like every idea, is individual and is consciousness.

You said species in your post. Are you denying that now? We can all see the post.

Some mutations can not procreate within their "species".

That doesn't make any sense. Do you mean that some organisms have mutations that curtail their ability to reproduce? Then that mutation would end with the member of that population that has it and it would be equivalent to a lethal mutation in regards to fitness. It does not mean they suddenly changed species. By your definition, infertile people would no longer be human. That doesn't make any sense either.

Change is sudden but if you believe in survival of the fittest, species, the fossil record, and Evolution you will not see any of this. You will instead imagine species gradually changing into other species, missing links, and you will discount observation and experiment.

You really have a problem admitting that you do not understand biology much at all.

Change can be sudden. But all change in biology is not always sudden. The evidence and experiments all support the theory of evolution. That you do not understand that is obvious.

I accept biological fitness and know what it means. I am aware of the fossil record and accept our current understanding of it.

No one can see what is not there to be seen. I do not follow a look and see and make it up as I go along view of biology that has been promoted on this thread in favor of actual scientific investigation. Look and see as near as I can determine is the forcing of evidence to fit a viewpoint rather than a review of the evidence leading to valid conclusions about that evidence. I do see that happening on this forum, but it is not by anyone that understands biology or the theory of evolution.

You were wrong. A mutation in an individual in a population does not mean that it suddenly changed to a new species.

 

[danieldemol]

The absence of ancestors or transitional forms in the fossil record leading to H. sapiens, means that the alleged evolutionary development is false, even the alleged relationship to H. sapiens becomes baseless.

Even if what you say here were hypothetically true, it would likely only point to the incompleteness of the fossil record.
Transitional fossils found outside the Lucy to H.sapiens branch such as Tiktalik show that other life forms evolved.

If other life forms than H.Sapiens evolved what is it (other than your religious agenda) which demands that H.Sapiens appeared fully formed when other species evolved?

Simply, the absence of any transitional forms to H. Sapiens, necessarily means that the predictions of the ToE don’t match the real world observations in the fossil record. The ToE is proven false.

Disagree, it could just point to the incompleteness of the fossil record.

In my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even if what you say here were hypothetically true, it would likely only point to the incompleteness of the fossil record.
Transitional fossils found outside the Lucy to H.sapiens branch such as Tiktalik show that other life forms evolved.

If other life forms than H.Sapiens evolved what is it (other than your religious agenda) which demands that H.Sapiens appeared fully formed when other species evolved?


Disagree, it could just point to the incompleteness of the fossil record.

In my opinion.

The fossil record is far more complete than our recent member seems to think. Creationists so often make the mistake of thinking that there has been only one example found of a species and often do not know of the many recent finds. For example, part of opening up China opened it up to geologists and there have been some amazing finds there. China is a pretty big country with a complex geologic history so there was a lot to be found there. China was where it became abundantly clear that birds are dinosaurs. And she is probably only aware of the tenth of the work done in human evolution.

And of course creationists always demonstrate their utter ignorance of the science when they ignore the DNA evidence. Though the fossil evidence is more than strong enough to demonstrate that modern life is the product of evolution the DNA evidence is even stronger. It is just that fossil evidence is merely the most obvious to an amateur.

 

[cladking]

Good grief. What now? Species exist. That they do has utility.

Indeed!! Taxonomies and inductive reasoning have created "Darwin's Illusion" which will stand as a cautionary tale for 1000 years.

That doesn't make any sense. Do you mean that some organisms have mutations that curtail their ability to reproduce?

Of course.

"Every" individual needs a sufficiently similar individual of the opposite sex to reproduce.

You really have a problem admitting that you do not understand biology much at all.

I do not believe in taxonomies.

More importantly is I don't believe in inductive reasoning for the basis of theory. You'll end up in make believe. You might someday find most science has become soup of the day science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Indeed!! Taxonomies and inductive reasoning have created "Darwin's Illusion" which will stand as a cautionary tale for 1000 years.



Of course.

"Every" individual needs a sufficiently similar individual of the opposite sex to reproduce.



I do not believe in taxonomies.

More importantly is I don't believe in inductive reasoning for the basis of theory. You'll end up in make believe. You might someday find most science has become soup of the day science.

I don't think there is anything for us to discuss going forward. For instance, soup of the day science is a meaningless phrase. You say things as if you possess some knowledge and expertise, but what you post says exactly the opposite and you clearly have no interest in learning.

Best of luck to you.

 

[cladking]

I don't think there is anything for us to discuss going forward. For instance, soup of the day science is a meaningless phrase. You say things as if you possess some knowledge and expertise, but what you post says exactly the opposite and you clearly have no interest in learning.

"Soup of the day science" is the science purchased by tea and coffee manufacturers that one day says coffee is the elixir of life and the next says that it is a deadly poison even in tiny quantities. It's the one that one day says butter is healthy food and the next says will kill you in you 40's.

Whatever soup you like is not liked by the maker of another kind of lunch or a different kind of soup.