Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Hah!!

Checkmate atheists!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

"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.

Exactly, that is your sort of science. I am so glad that you understand now.

 

[cladking]

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.

I never claimed any expertise in anything and don't intend to start now.

I claim that biology is misinterpreting observation and experiment because they are using reductionistic science on the irreducible. You can not reduce Consciousness without so much as a definition and you can't understand the nature of life without first understanding the nature of consciousness.

Reality is very highly complex and many aspects resonate with many others and when you try to use induction you find these things that resonate rather than reality itself. The problem isn't science the problem is too many people believe evidence determines reality and experts can read evidence. The problem is science ONL:Y WORKS AT ALL because experiment reveals snippets of the nature of reality. Once you step beyond experiment you are in the realm of hypothesis, speculation, or science fiction.

 

[cladking]

Exactly, that is your sort of science. I am so glad that you understand now.

Maybe but I don't eat much asparagus and beef manufacturers say bacon will kill you.

The nice thing about soup of the day science is there's enough for everyone and to each his own.

Soup of the day science is merely a subset of "Look and See Science". Biology is not soup of the day but it is Look and See.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never claimed any expertise in anything and don't intend to start now.

I claim that biology is misinterpreting observation and experiment because they are using reductionistic science of on the irreducible. You can not reduce Consciousness without so much as a definition and you can't understand the nature of life without first understanding the nature of consciousness.

Reality is very highly complex and many aspects resonate with many others and when you try to use induction you find these things that resonate rather than reality itself. The problem isn't science the problem is too many people believe evidence determines reality and experts can read evidence. The problem is science ONL:Y WORKS AT ALL because experiment reveals snippets of the nature of reality. Once you step beyond experiment you are in the realm of hypothesis, speculation, or science fiction.

In effect you just contradicted yourself. You admitted not to having expertise in anything and then made a claim that requires expertise to be taken seriously at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe but I don't eat much asparagus and beef manufacturers say bacon will kill you.

The nice thing about soup of the day science is there's enough for everyone and to each his own.

Soup of the day science is merely a subset of "Look and See Science". Biology is not soup of the day but it is Look and See.

Yes, that is probably why you like it so much. By the way, science deniers frequently misinterpret scientific discoveries to support their beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never claimed any expertise in anything and don't intend to start now.

I claim that biology is misinterpreting observation and experiment because they are using reductionistic science on the irreducible. You can not reduce Consciousness without so much as a definition and you can't understand the nature of life without first understanding the nature of consciousness.

Reality is very highly complex and many aspects resonate with many others and when you try to use induction you find these things that resonate rather than reality itself. The problem isn't science the problem is too many people believe evidence determines reality and experts can read evidence. The problem is science ONL:Y WORKS AT ALL because experiment reveals snippets of the nature of reality. Once you step beyond experiment you are in the realm of hypothesis, speculation, or science fiction.

I did not say you made the claim, though you fully imply it all the time and say things with a finality that is not established by the content of what you say.

You have given me no reason to consider your opinions on science to be valid and you do not provide any basis for your claims even when asked by many to do so. You appear completely closed to anything that does not support what you believe.

There isn't anything for us to discuss further.

Have a good day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hah!!

Checkmate atheists!!

Now that is soup that I could sink a spoon in and expect to get some substance for my efforts.

 

[cladking]

In effect you just contradicted yourself. You admitted not to having expertise in anything and then made a claim that requires expertise to be taken seriously at all.

As I explained in the very post you quoted; "I claim that biology is misinterpreting observation and experiment because they are using reductionistic science on the irreducible.". Just exactly what kind of expertise do you believe is needed to make such a claim? When the child says the king has no clothes this is not a cue for him to stand and bow. Rational behavior is to first look to be sure you are covered.

In my opinion and understanding of biology, science and reasoned discussion is that you make claims that you do not support with argument or evidence.

You refuse to even accept my definitions of the words in my arguments. It's hardly surprising you see no argument.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I explained in the very post you quoted; "I claim that biology is misinterpreting observation and experiment because they are using reductionistic science on the irreducible.". Just exactly what kind of expertise do you believe is needed to make such a claim? When the child says the king has no clothes this is not a cue for him to stand and bow. Rational behavior is to first loom to be sure you are covered.



You refuse to even accept my definitions of the words in my arguments. It's hardly surprising you see no argument.

Have a great day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I explained in the very post you quoted; "I claim that biology is misinterpreting observation and experiment because they are using reductionistic science on the irreducible.". Just exactly what kind of expertise do you believe is needed to make such a claim? When the child says the king has no clothes this is not a cue for him to stand and bow. Rational behavior is to first look to be sure you are covered.



You refuse to even accept my definitions of the words in my arguments. It's hardly surprising you see no argument.

A lot more expertise than you have would be needed for your claim to have any merit. If you want to admit to just blowing smoke your whole time here that would not be a problem for us. You have no scientific qualifications at all as a result you cannot justify your claim a simple handwave refutes what you said

 

[cladking]

You have no scientific qualifications at all as a result you cannot justify your claim a simple handwave refutes what you said

So the naked king takes another bow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the naked king takes another bow.

You did? Frankly I was not paying that much attention.

And if you really want to the mods will change your name for you.

 

[LIIA]

What nonsense. Face it. You screwed up. Do you want t a serious discussion? The fact is that there is no scientific evidence for ID. All it is is pseudoscience. Nice "Gee Whiz!" Arguments. Here is a suggestion, learn what scientific evidence is. See if there are any openly ID peer reviewed articles in a well respected professional journal on the topic. Try to answer without breaking up a post excessively or you could try to ask questions about the science that you do not understand.

Hiding behind fallacious "Ad hominem" and generalization as a typical escape tactic to avoid addressing the specifics of an argument clearly shows your failure and inability of making a logical argument. Sorry, no one will buy it. If you want to prove me wrong, go back to #349 point by point and explain the reasons for your disagreement. If you don’t, then just stop the nonsense.

Again, a single unfalsifiable option is not science. A competing option is required to make the other falsifiable. If “ Intelligently Guided Change” is not an option on the table, how would you expect to see peer reviewed articles in a mainstream Journal?

But no, there are many articles that clearly address the manifestations of intelligence in nature even if it doesn’t directly acknowledge it as such. You can see articles about the extremely fine tuned universe beyond any possible random chance, the living cell being the first digital information processor in nature that got to write its own sophisticated software of incomparable complexity beyond any engineering ever achieved by man, even manifestations of intelligence in nonliving matter at the atomic and molecular level.

You or others being in denial, doesn’t change the fact that manifestations of intelligence can be observed everywhere and in everything.

 

[LIIA]

We have all sorts of transitional forms on our side of the process,

False, name one.

And we know why there aren't any on the chimpanzee bonobo side. Do you know why there aren't any one the chimpanzee bonobo side? If you admit to the latter I have no problem supplying you with quite a few transitional species.

“Moving the goalposts" is a typical fallacious escape tactic that shows your failure to address the specifics of an argument. Sorry, not interested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hiding behind fallacious "Ad hominem" and generalization as a typical escape tactic to avoid addressing the specifics of an argument clearly shows your failure and inability of making a logical argument. Sorry, no one will buy it. If you want to prove me wrong, go back to #349 point by point and explain the reasons for your disagreement. If you don’t, then just stop the nonsense.

Again, a single unfalsifiable option is not science. A competing option is required to make the other falsifiable. If “ Intelligently Guided Change” is not an option on the table, how would you expect to see peer reviewed articles in a mainstream Journal?

But no, there are many articles that clearly address the manifestations of intelligence in nature even if it doesn’t directly acknowledge it as such. You can see articles about the extremely fine tuned universe beyond any possible random chance, the living cell being the first digital information processor in nature that got to write its own sophisticated software of incomparable complexity beyond any engineering ever achieved by man, even manifestations of intelligence in nonliving matter at the atomic and molecular level.

You or others being in denial, doesn’t change the fact that manifestations of intelligence can be observed everywhere and in everything.

When did I use an ad hominem fallacy? Just because I said something negative about someone does not make it a fallacy. You may not know how to use that argument. And you are quite wrong. One uses the scientific method to answer science problems. One uses philosophy to solve philosophical problems. etc..

The fact is that there is no scientific evidence for your belief. All you have are poorly formed arguments.

 

[LIIA]

You disqualify yourself immediately when you say "there is no evidence" on the evolution side. It only tells us that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Would you care to learn?

Stop the fallacious nonsense and try to address the specifics of my argument.

I specifically said that the prediction of the ToE of millions of transitional forms was proven false by real world evidence in the fossil record. And I stated the scientific references multiple times. Here it is once again below. (Copied from # 352)

If you don’t agree, State your reasons, be logical and try not to move the goalposts. Is the claim below true or false? If you know its true, then stop the nonsense.

Sudden appearance. In any local area, A SPECIES DOES NOT ARISE GRADUALLY BY THE STEADY TRANSFORMATION OF ITS ANCESTORS; IT APPEARS ALL AT ONCE AND 'FULLY FORMED.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"The fossil record with its ABRUPT TRANSITIONS OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR GRADUAL CHANGE. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.)

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen J Gould

"It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian EXPLANATIONS FOR THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION HAVE FAILED MISERABLY. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse." (Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist, 2013)

Ernst Mayr,(Darwin of the 20th century) Said:
“The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a LARGE, UNBRIDGED GAP. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

“evolutionary biology has developed its own methodology, that of historical narratives, to obtain its answers, particularly in cases where experiments are inappropriate.”

“evolutionary biology” is not an exact science, it should be included with “the Geisteswissenschaften”

 

[Subduction Zone]

False, name one.

Oh my, such arrogance. I tell you what, give me the proper definition of what a transitional fossil is and I will give examples until you say "quit".

“Moving the goalposts" is a typical fallacious escape tactic that shows your failure to address the specifics of an argument. Sorry, not interested.

Where did I move the goalposts? Once again, , you appear to be using logical fallacies improperly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop the fallacious nonsense and try to address the specifics of my argument.

I specifically said that the prediction of the ToE of millions of transitional forms was proven false by real world evidence in the fossil record. And I stated the scientific references multiple times. Here it is once again below. (Copied from # 352)

If you don’t agree, State your reasons, be logical and try not to move the goalposts. Is the claim below true or false? If you know its true, then stop the nonsense.

Sudden appearance. In any local area, A SPECIES DOES NOT ARISE GRADUALLY BY THE STEADY TRANSFORMATION OF ITS ANCESTORS; IT APPEARS ALL AT ONCE AND 'FULLY FORMED.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"The fossil record with its ABRUPT TRANSITIONS OFFERS NO SUPPORT FOR GRADUAL CHANGE. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.)

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen J Gould

"It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian EXPLANATIONS FOR THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION HAVE FAILED MISERABLY. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse." (Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist, 2013)

Ernst Mayr,(Darwin of the 20th century) Said:
“The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a LARGE, UNBRIDGED GAP. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

“evolutionary biology has developed its own methodology, that of historical narratives, to obtain its answers, particularly in cases where experiments are inappropriate.”

“evolutionary biology” is not an exact science, it should be included with “the Geisteswissenschaften”

You made a bogus claim and never supported it. Why do you think that I need to do any more work to refute it? Hitchens' Razor applies.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Give me proper peer reviewed articles that refute those fossils as transitional forms. Once again, you do not even seem to understand the concept.


Or here is an alternative. Drop your bogus claims for now. And ask questions politely and properly in regards to the science that you do not understand. I will answer them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also, your articles are all about 40 years out of date. What you are doing is cherry picking examples that were not well understood then. Do you think that maybe in 40 years that we may have found a few hundred more fossils? Quoting outdated articles out of context is quote mining. It is an attempt to spread a falsehood by misrepresenting what is known about a topic.