Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

I don't see the answer in that. That seems consistent with natural selection applied to genetic variation, the mechanism Darwin proposed to account for evolution.

This highlights much of what I'm trying to tell you; that perception is language and beliefs. Human consciousness is wholly different than all other consciousness which is the very means that individuals use to survive. It is NOT fitness that allows success or survival, it IS consciousness. These aren't mere words as they are perceived but rather the very nature of life. Survival doesn't derive from fitness because all healthy individuals are equally fit rather survival depends from behavior which is an expression of an individual's genes and his experience which in turn derives largely from his genes.

This has no similarity at all to Darwin's illusion. Significant change in species ONLY occurs when most typical behavior of a species is eradicated. The typical genes driving the typical behavior is lost leaving only individuals with atypical behavior and atypical genes and atypical experience. These already different individuals breed a new "species". This new species is based not on the niche which exists at their birth but on the genes of their parents. But like all life this new species will quickly adapt to fit the new niche.

These are very simple concepts supported by observation and experiment. Darwin's illusion has no support except people want to believe it. People want to imagine they are the fit ones just as Egyptologists want to believe they would be the guy with the whip instead of the guy dragging stones up ramps. People believe what we want because we use analog language and abstraction to exist in a digital very concrete reality.

 

[cladking]

Experiments are evidence, but not all evidence are experiments.

We've been through this repeatedly and you'll IGNORE it again this time. Believers ignore EVERYTHING that doesn't dovetail with their beliefs.

"Evidence" and "experiment" are just words. Nothing in reality ever makes a clean fit with the word we use to name or describe it. There are an infinite number of shades, hues, tinctures, gloss, tints, and types of "orange" composed of many infinite origins and lighting.

OBVIOUSLY "evidence" sometimes has little in common with experiment but is still has some properties of being "experiment".

I NEVER said or implied anything known should be ignored. Quite the CONTRARY, I said you are ignoring most of the experiments that apply to all of reality because you want to take them one at a time in a semantical context. These are not difficult concepts to understand. Perhaps you'd have an easier toime of them if YOU tried to tell me how to say them in an easier to understand way. All I have here is words and if you bend twist, and try to misunderstand my words all you have is lectures that have NOTHING to do with my argument or Darwin's Illusion.

 

[cladking]

Those are synonyms for me.

Of course they are. We all see what we believe.

But actual change in species is not driven gradually by survival of the fittest. It never was.

It is most highly complex and is driven through consciousness because consciousness and life are the only synonyms.

 

[ChristineM]

Of course they are. We all see what we believe.

But actual change in species is not driven gradually by survival of the fittest. It never was.

It is most highly complex and is driven through consciousness because consciousness and life are the only synonyms.

Really?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

perception is language and beliefs.

I'm aware that one's worldview and use of language affect thought. Why are you emphasizing that now? How does that relate to your thesis that Darwin was wrong?

Human consciousness is wholly different than all other consciousness which is the very means that individuals use to survive.

I disagree twice here. Human consciousness is unique, but not wholly different. It is still an immediate experience of self in context. In man, this includes language and conscience in a greater degree than the beasts, but other than that, there is no reason to think that the two are different. Both contain awareness, a sense of self and other (in here/out there), the evidence of the senses, and assorted memories, emotions, preferences, instincts, and desires.

Also, unconscious organisms use other means to survive such as camouflage or thorns.

It is NOT fitness that allows success or survival, it IS consciousness.

Consciousness increases fitness (promotes survival).

Survival doesn't derive from fitness because all healthy individuals are equally fit

In Darwinian terms, the fittest organism is the one that leaves the most fertile progeny. Not all healthy individuals are equally able to do that. The ones with competitive advantages conferred by helpful mutations do it better than equally healthy individuals that don't have that advantage.

survival depends from behavior which is an expression of an individual's genes and his experience which in turn derives largely from his genes.

That's consistent with evolutionary theory.

This has no similarity at all to Darwin's illusion.

Can you be specific about what you think this illusion is and why you call it that? Or did you mean delusion? If so, same question. What is the delusion and why is it incorrect? By Darwin's delusion, I mean confusion on Darwin's part, and by Darwin's illusion, I mean confusion on our part.

Significant change in species ONLY occurs when most typical behavior of a species is eradicated.

That's the theory of evolution, too. Populations evolve as gene pools do, which means an increase in the relative frequency of the alleles that confer that competitive advantage and a decrease in the frequency of alleles that they outcompete.

The typical genes driving the typical behavior is lost leaving only individuals with atypical behavior and atypical genes and atypical experience.

That's the theory as well, although what was originally atypical behavior when it was novel becomes the new typical. That's what natural selection applied to genetic variation does. I still don't know why you consider Darwin wrong when you don't actually contradict him.

actual change in species is not driven gradually by survival of the fittest. It never was.

You've made that claim before, but not the case for it. You've offered no counterargument (refutation), just alternate opinions that aren't really all that alternate.

consciousness and life are the only synonyms.

Not for me. Are you being poetic here? The words refer to different things, although some people use the word conscious atypically, as when the call trees conscious because they communicate through rhizomes and react to external stimuli. I don't use the word that way.

"Evidence" and "experiment" are just words. Nothing in reality ever makes a clean fit with the word we use to name or describe it. There are an infinite number of shades, hues, tinctures, gloss, tints, and types of "orange" composed of many infinite origins and lighting.

Yes, they're just words like all words. And yes, language doesn't map onto experience perfectly. But that doesn't mean that it can't map experience well enough to communicate useful ideas.

Are you an epistemic nihilist - the kind of person who despairs that nothing can be known if everything is not known or if there is a subjective aspect to knowing? Do you spend time wondering about what reality would be like if we could get outside our theater of consciousness and somehow experience metaphysical reality directly and immediately, and considering that knowledge more valuable than what consciousness reveals? Do you think in terms of objective or absolute truth?

I'm none of things, and hopefully you are as well, but many people are both, and it seems to impair their ability to process information productively. We've had an extreme case of this on RF in the past few years, likely due to neurodivergence in that case, but also seen to a lesser extent in many others.

My orientation is the opposite. What happens in here in the theater of consciousness is what is paramount, and whatever is out there doesn't matter. All we really need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. As long as this leads to desired outcomes and experiences, life is good. Exactly what underlies all of this is secondary. Whatever we think is true about what underlies the world we perceive, it is only a model for understanding what goes on in here. That is, the subjective is the realm we are inextricably immersed in and the one that matters most. The world we conceive of existing outside our minds and being the object of our subjective apprehensions - objective reality as we conceive of it - is of secondary importance.

Let me elaborate: There's a pervasive view that that world out there is more real than this one in here, and in here is only a faint projection of that, and thus secondary to it, derivative and subordinate. But this attitude misses the fact that it doesn't really matter how accurate our understanding of what is out there is if the model we are using allows us to effectively navigate the experience of consciousness over time in a way that facilitates desirable outcomes and avoids undesirable ones. That is, if you one day discovered that your model of reality was an illusion - perhaps we are brains in vats, or Descartes' demon is manipulating our experience to appear that there is something else besides that demon outside of mind, nothing changes.

As an illustration, consider that it is literally true that you are in some matrix in some controlled mental state that you had always thought was your direct perception of a reality out there through the windows of the eyes and other senses, but you somehow suddenly learn that all of that is illusion. Now what? What do you do differently? Which of your rules for navigating your conscious experience need changing? Are you going to start doing what you previously thought was sticking an objectively real finger into an objectively real flame knowing that it hurt before and will again? Probably not more than once. And you'll likely continue thinking in terms of objectively reality underlying the show playing in the theater of the mind. It's a heuristic now, but just as useful as before.

This is why I say that what goes on in here is primary and the metaphysical model we use to organize, understand, and control conscious experience only needs to work, working being leading to desired outcomes - not actually exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm aware that one's worldview and use of language affect thought. Why are you emphasizing that now? How does that relate to your thesis that Darwin was wrong?

I disagree twice here. Human consciousness is unique, but not wholly different. It is still an immediate experience of self in context. In man, this includes language and conscience in a greater degree than the beasts, but other than that, there is no reason to think that the two are different. Both contain awareness, a sense of self and other (in here/out there), the evidence of the senses, and assorted memories, emotions, preferences, instincts, and desires.

Also, unconscious organisms use other means to survive such as camouflage or thorns.

Consciousness increases fitness (promotes survival).

In Darwinian terms, the fittest organism is the one that leaves the most fertile progeny. Not all healthy individuals are equally able to do that. The ones with competitive advantages conferred by helpful mutations do it better than equally healthy individuals that don't have that advantage.

That's consistent with evolutionary theory.

Can you be specific about what you think this illusion is and why you call it that? Or did you mean delusion? If so, same question. What is the delusion and why is it incorrect? By Darwin's delusion, I mean confusion on Darwin's part, and by Darwin's illusion, I mean confusion on our part.

That's the theory of evolution, too. Populations evolve as gene pools do, which means an increase in the relative frequency of the alleles that confer that competitive advantage and a decrease in the frequency of alleles that they outcompete.

That's the theory as well, although what was originally atypical behavior when it was novel becomes the new typical. That's what natural selection applied to genetic variation does. I still don't know why you consider Darwin wrong when you don't actually contradict him.

You've made that claim before, but not the case for it. You've offered no counterargument (refutation), just alternate opinions that aren't really all that alternate.

Not for me. Are you being poetic here? The words refer to different things, although some people use the word conscious atypically, as when the call trees conscious because they communicate through rhizomes and react to external stimuli. I don't use the word that way.

Yes, they're just words like all words. And yes, language doesn't map onto experience perfectly. But that doesn't mean that it can't map experience well enough to communicate useful ideas.

Are you an epistemic nihilist - the kind of person who despairs that nothing can be known if everything is not known or if there is a subjective aspect to knowing? Do you spend time wondering about what reality would be like if we could get outside our theater of consciousness and somehow experience metaphysical reality directly and immediately, and considering that knowledge more valuable than what consciousness reveals? Do you think in terms of objective or absolute truth?

I'm none of things, and hopefully you are as well, but many people are both, and it seems to impair their ability to process information productively. We've had an extreme case of this on RF in the past few years, likely due to neurodivergence in that case, but also seen to a lesser extent in many others.

My orientation is the opposite. What happens in here in the theater of consciousness is what is paramount, and whatever is out there doesn't matter. All we really need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. As long as this leads to desired outcomes and experiences, life is good. Exactly what underlies all of this is secondary. Whatever we think is true about what underlies the world we perceive, it is only a model for understanding what goes on in here. That is, the subjective is the realm we are inextricably immersed in and the one that matters most. The world we conceive of existing outside our minds and being the object of our subjective apprehensions - objective reality as we conceive of it - is of secondary importance.

Let me elaborate: There's a pervasive view that that world out there is more real than this one in here, and in here is only a faint projection of that, and thus secondary to it, derivative and subordinate. But this attitude misses the fact that it doesn't really matter how accurate our understanding of what is out there is if the model we are using allows us to effectively navigate the experience of consciousness over time in a way that facilitates desirable outcomes and avoids undesirable ones. That is, if you one day discovered that your model of reality was an illusion - perhaps we are brains in vats, or Descartes' demon is manipulating our experience to appear that there is something else besides that demon outside of mind, nothing changes.

As an illustration, consider that it is literally true that you are in some matrix in some controlled mental state that you had always thought was your direct perception of a reality out there through the windows of the eyes and other senses, but you somehow suddenly learn that all of that is illusion. Now what? What do you do differently? Which of your rules for navigating your conscious experience need changing? Are you going to start doing what you previously thought was sticking an objectively real finger into an objectively real flame knowing that it hurt before and will again? Probably not more than once. And you'll likely continue thinking in terms of objectively reality underlying the show playing in the theater of the mind. It's a heuristic now, but just as useful as before.

This is why I say that what goes on in here is primary and the metaphysical model we use to organize, understand, and control conscious experience only needs to work, working being leading to desired outcomes - not actually exist.

W.F.

 

[cladking]

I'm aware that one's worldview and use of language affect thought. Why are you emphasizing that now? How does that relate to your thesis that Darwin was wrong?

Only those who use abstract analog language see only their beliefs or experience thought. All other consciousness Darwin reported what he believed based on language and its mnemonics rather than what was real based on experiment or evidence. He reasoned in circles starting with a belief in linear progress and the legitimacy of reducing a mnemonic, the word "species", to a perspective from which to see life and how it changes. It is not legitimate to ignore the nature of life itself while imposing a concept that simply isn't true at all "survival of the fittest". He would have been wrong anyway but his methodology was so bad that he was doomed to misunderstand.

Consciousness increases fitness (promotes survival).

This would be true if every individual weren't equally fit and equally conscious. Certainly some individuals are less vigilant and this might cost them their life but then this lack of vigilance might help them find food that saves their life. Individuals vary widely because of experience and genetics but none are more or less fit.

 

[cladking]

I still don't know why you consider Darwin wrong when you don't actually contradict him.

He was wrong about everything as shown by modern science. I have yet to be shown to be wrong.

You've made that claim before, but not the case for it. You've offered no counterargument (refutation), just alternate opinions that aren't really all that alternate.

Sigh.

Change occurs suddenly at bottlenecks when typical behavior is eradicated in a species.

The words refer to different things, although some people use the word conscious atypically, as when the call trees conscious because they communicate through rhizomes and react to external stimuli. I don't use the word that way.

All life is individual and all life is conscious. All reality is logical and all life other than homo circulus ratiocinatio is leaving breathing logic. Consciousness is the only gift to living individuals which keeps them alive and fit. Individuals even when part of a murmurating flock have only consciousness and experience to succeed. There is no fitness except in the mind of Darwin.

But that doesn't mean that it can't map experience well enough to communicate useful ideas.

Then why are so many here refusing to communicate? I repeat myself endlessly and am misquoted, misapprehended, and misunderstood endlessly. People seem to think if they pretend not to understand it excuses their inability to respond to the evidence and logic.

Are you an epistemic nihilist - the kind of person who despairs that nothing can be known if everything is not known or if there is a subjective aspect to knowing?

No, I am not. We simply don't know "anything" yet but this should be a temporary condition.

The subjective aspect of knowledge can be virtually eliminated and perhaps the concept of "species" needs to be the first to go.

Do you spend time wondering about what reality would be like if we could get outside our theater of consciousness and somehow experience metaphysical reality directly and immediately,...

This is may address since I was very small. Of course I have to do it through modelling because I use language like everyone else.

Do you think in terms of objective or absolute truth?

Yes!

We've had an extreme case of this on RF in the past few years, likely due to neurodivergence

I don't believe in this because everyone thinks differently, some moreso than others.

My orientation is the opposite. What happens in here in the theater of consciousness is what is paramount, and whatever is out there doesn't matter. All we really need to know is that we have desires and preferences, we make decisions, and we experience sensory perceptions of outcomes. As long as this leads to desired outcomes and experiences, life is good. Exactly what underlies all of this is secondary. Whatever we think is true about what underlies the world we perceive, it is only a model for understanding what goes on in here. That is, the subjective is the realm we are inextricably immersed in and the one that matters most. The world we conceive of existing outside our minds and being the object of our subjective apprehensions - objective reality as we conceive of it - is of secondary importance.

Sounds like most people...

I'm sure it's a great mindset for engaging in specialties or getting along.

Let me elaborate: There's a pervasive view that that world out there is more real than this one in here, and in here is only a faint projection of that, and thus secondary to it, derivative and subordinate.

I hate to break it to you but it's not even derivative. It is a construct formed of beliefs, illusions, and wishes.

But this attitude misses the fact that it doesn't really matter how accurate our understanding of what is out there is if the model we are using allows us to effectively navigate the experience of consciousness over time in a way that facilitates desirable outcomes and avoids undesirable ones.

You said a mouthful here.

Reality will be found and it will upset a lot of people.

The ONLY thing that makes out understanding "effective" is our world is based not on reality but rather on our machines and the desire of the rich to take all the money and control everything. So we indoctrinate children into scientism, consumerism, and trusting leaders.

As an illustration, consider that it is literally true that you are in some matrix in some controlled mental state that you had always thought was your direct perception of a reality out there through the windows of the eyes and other senses, but you somehow suddenly learn that all of that is illusion. Now what? What do you do differently? Which of your rules for navigating your conscious experience need changing?

This is where I began. My first axiom is everything is as it appears to all people. This is similar to the ancient axiom that reality exists though I hardly knew it as a small child. It is why they and I ended up in the same place; they dealt with consciousness expressed as reality and I as reality modeled on axioms like theirs.

The problem with Darwin is simply that he was wrong and he was wrong because his methodology was flawed. His logic was unsound so he ended up where he started; at his false assumptions.

No matter how many times and how many ways I support all of this it is invisible to believers. They might as well be living in a matrix. There is no survival of the fittest, the human race is on a 4000 year detour, and consciousness is life itself. Descartes' silly "I think therefore I am" is the basis of a silly science that is wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Only those who use abstract analog language see only their beliefs or experience thought. All other consciousness Darwin reported what he believed based on language and its mnemonics rather than what was real based on experiment or evidence.

I think that what you're saying is that only creatures without symbolic language (I presume that what remains is what you mean by abstract analog language - sensory information, instincts, urges, etc..) see only their beliefs or experience thought. They are at a disadvantage compared to human beings. They will never develop any of the things man did using the faculty of symbolic reason that make his life longer, more functional, safer, more interesting, easier and more comfortable.

[Darwin] reasoned in circles starting with a belief in linear progress and the legitimacy of reducing a mnemonic, the word "species", to a perspective from which to see life and how it changes.

So you say, but have yet to demonstrate. Darwin's theory is correct. The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. No alternative narrative (creationism or naturalistic) can do that.

It is not legitimate to ignore the nature of life itself while imposing a concept that simply isn't true at all "survival of the fittest".

Darwin didn't ignore life. He was a biologist. And it's not Darwin imposing the rules on nature. He's merely identifying and describing them.

He would have been wrong anyway but his methodology was so bad that he was doomed to misunderstand.

Again, more vague claims. Why is there never any specific criticism or example of what you consider a wrong idea with a clear statement of what makes it wrong in terms of what is right instead and why. If you're building a house and I tell you that you're doing it wrong, wouldn't you want to know just what I am looking at, what the harm it will do is, how to do it better, and what that produces instead. As long as you remain at this level of abstraction and generalization, you are saying nothing that can be used.

This would be true if every individual weren't equally fit and equally conscious.

Why would you make this comment? We can see that not everybody is equally fit in evolutionary terms. Do you think that infertile individuals or those that die of childhood illnesses are equally fit to normal, healthy people? They're not.

Certainly some individuals are less vigilant and this might cost them their life but then this lack of vigilance might help them find food that saves their life.

Neither of those describe individuals that are equally fit to all others. If the first predominates, they are less fit. If the latter is greater influence, they will seed the population gene pool through their progeny and their progeny's progeny.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

[Darwin] was wrong about everything as shown by modern science.

Darwin's theory is correct. No finding from modernity or history contradicts.

I have yet to be shown to be wrong.

Your statement above is incorrect.

I repeat myself endlessly and am misquoted, misapprehended, and misunderstood endlessly.

That should be meaningful to you. Being incomprehensible is understandable when explaining esoteric concepts that require considerable education to understand, but not with these kinds of ideas. If people are frequently misunderstanding you in these discussion, that's on you. Who else is frequently being misunderstood in this thread? Nobody else has complained about it.

People seem to think if they pretend not to understand it excuses their inability to respond to the evidence and logic.

Why do you think they're pretending to not understand you? Do you think that I am?

I don't believe in [neurodivergence] because everyone thinks differently, some moreso than others.

You've just defined the word.

The ONLY thing that makes out understanding "effective" is our world is based not on reality but rather on our machines and the desire of the rich to take all the money and control everything.

My understanding of how the world is and works has been effective for me. I'm right where I want to be now and expect to remain barring unforeseeable circumstances.

Machines are part of reality. And greed was never a factor in acquiring that understanding.

The problem with Darwin is simply that he was wrong and he was wrong because his methodology was flawed. His logic was unsound so he ended up where he started; at his false assumptions.

Here is another of those sweeping claims lacking specificity. Wrong where? What method was flawed, what should it have been according to you, and what improvement would that confer? If you can't answer these questions, this comment can't be used for anything.

No matter how many times and how many ways I support all of this it is invisible to believers.

That's what the theists say about their gods.

 

[cladking]

Why is there never any specific criticism or example of what you consider a wrong idea with a clear statement of what makes it wrong in terms of what is right instead and why.

I go over these time and again and it is IGNORED. I don't think believers can even see it. It took 200 pages just to get believers to quit talking about "natural selection" every time I used Darwin's "survival of the fittest". it's insane. I point out that all observed change in life is sudden and I get greeted with "no it isn't" and never an example.

Darwin's number one failure was his assumption that populations are relatively stable. HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RIGHT AFTER STARTING WITH THIS ASSUMPTION if I am correct that species change at bottlenecks. Nobody is going to comment or argue this paragraph but it is factual, tautologically true, and in total agreement with experiment and observation.

Everyone has always ended up at his assumptions unless experiment breaks the circle. This is the nature of reality and homo circulus ratiocinatio. All science not based in experiment is not really science. There are not an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. Reality is that there many be no pyramids built with ramps. "Science" could not possibly be more wrong than rounding off "0" to infinity.

I have more evidence and logic that I've never posted but it can't be seen so why bother?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Learning is a cooperative effort. It cannot be done with a closed mind. The student must be willing and able to evaluate an idea dispassionately for correctness, and to recognize and be convinced by a compelling argument. It is impossible to convince a man who has a stake in not being convinced.

Oh, play it again, Sam!

The amount of time some of us spend trying to present real, verifiable science to those who are not going to make the tiniest effort to understand it is kind of sad, really.

 

[cladking]

They are at a disadvantage compared to human beings. They will never develop any of the things man did using the faculty of symbolic reason that make his life longer, more functional, safer, more interesting, easier and more comfortable.

Animals see what they know we see what we believe.

Most human progress results not from symbolic reasoning but by serendipity, deduction, and recognition of anomalies. These ALL work better without "symbolic reasoning" in most individuals. Reality is logic manifest, math is logic quantified and deductive reasoning is similar to math.

Inductive reasoning is manipulation of abstraction and is as likely to lead astray or in giant circles than to comfort. Most abstraction is akin to mnemonics and are misleading as a basic for any sort of reasoning.

 

[cladking]

Why would you make this comment? We can see that not everybody is equally fit in evolutionary terms. Do you think that infertile individuals or those that die of childhood illnesses are equally fit to normal, healthy people? They're not.

Every individual is equally fit but that doesn't mean that a rabbit with a broken leg will survive an encounter with a fox. It doesn't mean the infertile will have millions of grandkids. You are trying not to take my meaning.

 

[cladking]

Here is another of those sweeping claims lacking specificity. Wrong where?

Just to repeat it for about the 40th time bewcause nobody can see it. He was wrong that populations are relatively stable. He had numerous false assumptions that I've laid out numerous times but they are invisible to believers in Evolution.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Animals see what they know we see what we believe.

Most human progress results not from symbolic reasoning but by serendipity, deduction, and recognition of anomalies. These ALL work better without "symbolic reasoning" in most individuals. Reality is logic manifest, math is logic quantified and deductive reasoning is similar to math.

Inductive reasoning is manipulation of abstraction and is as likely to lead astray or in giant circles than to comfort. Most abstraction is akin to mnemonics and are misleading as a basic for any sort of reasoning.

Can support you any of these claims?

Every individual is equally fit but that doesn't mean that a rabbit with a broken leg will survive an encounter with a fox. It doesn't mean the infertile will have millions of grandkids. You are trying not to take my meaning.

We don't seem to be using the same definition of fitness. I've given you mine, which is given in terms of fecundity.

Just to repeat it for about the 40th time because nobody can see it. He was wrong that populations are relatively stable.

Can you be more specific? What does that mean? Even where accelerated evolution is occurring such as following an extinction event, it is still relatively slow compared to other physical processes such as changes in weather or even the growth of a tree. And why do you think that matters? That's a minor point. His central point was that the tree of life is the result of a naturalistic process that transforms biological populations over generations through natural selection applied to genetic variation. That was correct then and is correct now.

He had numerous false assumptions that I've laid out numerous times but they are invisible to believers in Evolution.

They're invisible to me now except the one. I won't ask you for them again.

I've made some arguments many times. I keep a Word doc of passages I think I'll need to repeat. For example, the words on evolution unifying mountains of data given above on this page can be found all over RF:

Evidence

All I am saying is that we dont have conclusive evidnece that organisms evolve by the so called Darwinian mechanisms (random variation + NS) …….. other alternatives are being discussed in the literature, and nobody claims to have an answer. I had the impression that you agreed with this...

www.religiousforums.com

Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer

Sorry for the late reply, I’ve had responsibilities to care for. You present some interesting arguments representing supposedly ’bad’ design, but I’ll have to answer most of them later, as I’ve got time. - Our s-shaped spine isn't very fit for bipedalism, causing lower back pains in 70% of...

www.religiousforums.com

List of Nobel Prizes for Theory of Evolution

You really got me on that one, Dan. Maybe some day a scientist can prove beyond doubt that the theory of evolution is true. Oh forget prove, it's not provable, right? Do also complain about theories never being considered proven when it comes to theories like relativity, plate tectonics, germs...

www.religiousforums.com

cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

Why didn’t God do it? It took humans and actual intelligence to do it. Hell even the alloys had to be understood and created by humans. The highly strong steel alloys don’t exist in nature. So God didn’t make them. All I am saying is that clock gears (or things like look like them) could...

www.religiousforums.com

Perhaps you could benefit from something similar. Make your argument, save it, and repost it ad lib.

 

[cladking]

Can you be more specific? What does that mean? Even where accelerated evolution is occurring such as following an extinction event, it is still relatively slow compared to other physical processes such as changes in weather or even the growth of a tree. And why do you think that matters? That's a minor point. His central point was that the tree of life is the result of a naturalistic process that transforms biological populations over generations through natural selection applied to genetic variation. That was correct then and is correct now.

Again you missed it entirely. He assumed populations were stable and reasoned using this assumption. If species change at bottlenecks he could never have seen the cause or nature of speciation or change in species.

He would be wrong about everything.

And this is just one of his failed assumptions. It's the reason he didn't see "punctuated equilibrium". All of his bad assumptions caused errors.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that what you're saying is that only creatures without symbolic language (I presume that what remains is what you mean by abstract analog language - sensory information, instincts, urges, etc..) see only their beliefs or experience thought. They are at a disadvantage compared to human beings. They will never develop any of the things man did using the faculty of symbolic reason that make his life longer, more functional, safer, more interesting, easier and more comfortable.

So you say, but have yet to demonstrate. Darwin's theory is correct. The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. No alternative narrative (creationism or naturalistic) can do that.

Darwin didn't ignore life. He was a biologist. And it's not Darwin imposing the rules on nature. He's merely identifying and describing them.

Again, more vague claims. Why is there never any specific criticism or example of what you consider a wrong idea with a clear statement of what makes it wrong in terms of what is right instead and why. If you're building a house and I tell you that you're doing it wrong, wouldn't you want to know just what I am looking at, what the harm it will do is, how to do it better, and what that produces instead. As long as you remain at this level of abstraction and generalization, you are saying nothing that can be used.

Why would you make this comment? We can see that not everybody is equally fit in evolutionary terms. Do you think that infertile individuals or those that die of childhood illnesses are equally fit to normal, healthy people? They're not.

Neither of those describe individuals that are equally fit to all others. If the first predominates, they are less fit. If the latter is greater influence, they will seed the population gene pool through their progeny and their progeny's progeny.

Another winner!

 

[icehorse]

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

I studied molecular biology at university. All due respect to Margulis, but when I was studying, Darwin's theory was just that, a theory. And as I've followed biology since then it seems like Darwin's ideas get attacked like all science does. I haven't seen Darwin ever viewed as dogma.

Not sure what Margulis is seeing here?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, play it again, Sam!

The amount of time some of us spend trying to present real, verifiable science to those who are not going to make the tiniest effort to understand it is kind of sad, really.

Over 200 pages of examples that support the theory of evolution. Explanations about Darwin's contribution. Numerous examples of how all change is not sudden. More examples explaining natural selection and how "survival of the fittest" was neither of Darwin's coinage nor is it a very good description of natural selection. Evidence and explanation of how genetic variation is constantly generated in populations and how it is the environment that selects the variation. Explanation of genetic bottlenecks and how they reduce populations to critical numbers with a consistent and critical reduction in genetic variation, but are not speciation events. Explanations and evidence demonstrating that directed mutations are a false claim of mistaking natural selection in action on populations of bacteria.

It has gone and on and all that is presented in opposition are vague statements, empty claims, repetition and massive projection. Stories about funerals, talking animals and beavers that farm fish for food.