Darwin's Illusion

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

So....

Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?

"The Bible tells me so..." and everything else can be ignored by those you suppose you can reach. You can't reach them. They lack the openness (I wanted to say capacity) to learn.

Here it is, @Dan From Smithville .... "I already know the truth, no facts are going to convince me otherwise."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One of my favorite pigeo...erm sorry, creationist claims is that controversy in science means that theories collapse and any random belief is the answer that fills the gaps.

The idea that observed phenomena suddenly disappear in the absence of explanation and that any perceived belief becomes the default explanation is ludicrous.

Apples fell out of trees long before Newton and Einstein came along with explanations for how.

If the theory of evolution is seen to fail at explaining new data, then we come up with a new theory. Change in living things over time that have and continue to be observed, don't just stop or disappear.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So....

Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?

"The Bible tells me so..." and everything else can be ignored by those you suppose you can reach. You can't reach them. They lack the openness (I wanted to say capacity) to learn.

Here it is, @Dan From Smithville .... "I already know the truth, no facts are going to convince me otherwise."

I've become fatigued at the repetition of those that don't really have anything to say. But it isn't in me to let fallacy, fantasy, flawed reasoning and empty claims arising from nonsense to lie around for any person ignorant of the facts to trip over either.

Fortunately, knowledgeable people also post in these debates and I read and learn. Some have very elegant expressions of what I already know to teach me better ways to express myself.

Plus, you never know. There may be some mislead person that will respond to reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

It has been a while since I looked, but most of that was taken out of context and another example of the default paradigm. Where controversy in science is portrayed as a failure of science and any random belief is assumed as the default answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So....

Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?

"The Bible tells me so..." and everything else can be ignored by those you suppose you can reach. You can't reach them. They lack the openness (I wanted to say capacity) to learn.

Here it is, @Dan From Smithville .... "I already know the truth, no facts are going to convince me otherwise."

The irony is that none of what we have learned or whether you interpret parts of the Bible as allegory prevents a person from believing in God.

 

[cladking]

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:

I've considered this many times. I suppose not doing it is habit chiefly because I learned long ago that you can change only one mind at a time. Of course it's almost impossible to change the mind of those who believe in doctrine and a magical process run on intelligence that hands it down from whoever happens to have the most doctorates to his credit. If you don't understand what a paradigm is or why doctrine changes one funeral at a time you don't really understand the nature of science at all and if you don't know that theory is founded in experiment you don't understand why science works.

All I can do here is point out the many ways that Darwin was wrong when he said "survival of the fittest is the best term" and his many logical fallacies and false assumptions. "Evolution" is a religion and is still being used to walk on the poor and disinherited. At least religions send mercenaries to impoverished places while the true faithful send exploiters. Nobody is so badly off they can't be used.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've considered this many times. I suppose not doing it is habit chiefly because I learned long ago that you can change only one mind at a time. Of course it's almost impossible to change the mind of those who believe in doctrine and a magical process run on intelligence that hands it down from whoever happens to have the most doctorates to his credit. If you don't understand what a paradigm is or why doctrine changes one funeral at a time you don't really understand the nature of science at all and if you don't know that theory is founded in experiment you don't understand why science works.

All I can do here is point out the many ways that Darwin was wrong when he said "survival of the fittest is the best term" and his many logical fallacies and false assumptions. "Evolution" is a religion and is still being used to walk on the poor and disinherited. At least religions send mercenaries to impoverished places while the true faithful send exploiters. Nobody is so badly off they can't be used.

If this thread is evidence of anything, it is that you do not appear to understand the nature of science at all. All the flaws and foibles that you claim for others appear to be just projection onto those others that have tried in vain to get you to think outside this box of fantasy that you have created in place of facts.

You have not pointed out one way that Darwin was wrong. Darwin never made the quote you attribute to him. Modern biologists use the term natural selection that Darwin did coin.

Face it, when it comes to science you are in the dark feeling an elephant and calling it a nest of vipers.

Science is based on observations (evidence). Those observations do not have to come from experiments. Darwin based his theory on observations.

It gets tiring to see you squeeze out all of the nonsense you repeat incessantly in the face of valid correction.

You are not a reliable source in these discussions and you refuse to learn anything. Unless you imagined it, nothing appears to be real to you.

I don't know how to say it any other way. You have nothing but belief. That you may on chance throw in an occasional fact doesn't make that belief true. None of what you post is anywhere in the science literature and that is because it is all nonsense and not because of some fictional conspiracy of peers keeping you down.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've considered this many times. I suppose not doing it is habit chiefly because I learned long ago that you can change only one mind at a time. Of course it's almost impossible to change the mind of those who believe in doctrine and a magical process run on intelligence that hands it down from whoever happens to have the most doctorates to his credit. If you don't understand what a paradigm is or why doctrine changes one funeral at a time you don't really understand the nature of science at all and if you don't know that theory is founded in experiment you don't understand why science works.

All I can do here is point out the many ways that Darwin was wrong when he said "survival of the fittest is the best term" and his many logical fallacies and false assumptions. "Evolution" is a religion and is still being used to walk on the poor and disinherited. At least religions send mercenaries to impoverished places while the true faithful send exploiters. Nobody is so badly off they can't be used.

You have never pointed out any example of Darwin being wrong. No logical fallacies. No false assumptions. You just keep repeating it over and over like a mantra. What you propose is a religion based on what you imagine is true and not on any evidence, observations or experiments. There are no hundreds of times that you have explained what you claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've considered this many times. I suppose not doing it is habit chiefly because I learned long ago that you can change only one mind at a time. Of course it's almost impossible to change the mind of those who believe in doctrine and a magical process run on intelligence that hands it down from whoever happens to have the most doctorates to his credit. If you don't understand what a paradigm is or why doctrine changes one funeral at a time you don't really understand the nature of science at all and if you don't know that theory is founded in experiment you don't understand why science works.

All I can do here is point out the many ways that Darwin was wrong when he said "survival of the fittest is the best term" and his many logical fallacies and false assumptions. "Evolution" is a religion and is still being used to walk on the poor and disinherited. At least religions send mercenaries to impoverished places while the true faithful send exploiters. Nobody is so badly off they can't be used.

All living things are not equally fit. You have never once provided any evidence for this or provided valid explanation of why the definition of and understanding of biological fitness is wrong and your claim is correct.

That all members of a population do not reproduce equally in the face of the actions of their environment is evidence that not all of them are equally fit. Yet, you will just ignore this without one attempt to rebut it and repeat your claim without evidence. It is what we have all seen.

 

[cladking]

All living things are not equally fit. You have never once provided any evidence for this or provided valid explanation of why the definition of and understanding of biological fitness is wrong and your claim is correct.

Very little time right now.

I've addressed all these other issues before and will probably return to address at least a few of them again but this is the first time I've been challenged here. Obviously there are differences between individuals and their likelihood to survive and/ or reproduce but Darwin fell into a trap of defining fitness by whether a member of a species does survive and reproduce. But this is just assuming the conclusion. I don't dispute that species rapidly adapt to changes in their niche and that this adaptation largely results from the proclivity of some individuals to better succeed under said changing conditions. But even those which don't succeed might have had their luck or experiences been different. They were no less "fit" to live merely different and/ or unlucky.

Adaptation to the environment is caused by changes to the environment but can "never" lead to speciation for the numerous reasons I've already listed and have been ignored. "Survival of the fittest" is putting the cart before the horse and highly assumptive. Once you have an assumption for the cause of speciation you quit looking. You can't even see the extensive evidence that speciation is sudden just like everything else that affects life which is always and only individual. "Species" is a word, a mnemonic with no real referent.

 

[Audie]

So....

Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know?

"The Bible tells me so..." and everything else can be ignored by those you suppose you can reach. You can't reach them. They lack the openness (I wanted to say capacity) to learn.

Here it is, @Dan From Smithville .... "I already know the truth, no facts are going to convince me otherwise."

" capacity". It's about capacity.

 

[Audie]

All living things are not equally fit. You have never once provided any evidence for this or provided valid explanation of why the definition of and understanding of biological fitness is wrong and your claim is correct.

That all members of a population do not reproduce equally in the face of the actions of their environment is evidence that not all of them are equally fit. Yet, you will just ignore this without one attempt to rebut it and repeat your claim without evidence. It is what we have all seen.

The myth of the lone rebel scientist who forges ahead of all
others is strong with some people.

Some wish to be OT style prophets, othrrs to be the tragic grnius artist. Or high school football hero.

Interestingly we get lots of our
religious sorts who think they not only have True biblical insights- from God, directly- but also know, ore science thannany scientist on earth.

 

[Audie]

You have never pointed out any example of Darwin being wrong. No logical fallacies. No false assumptions. You just keep repeating it over and over like a mantra. What you propose is a religion based on what you imagine is true and not on any evidence, observations or experiments. There are no hundreds of times that you have explained what you claim.

Its impossible to explain something senseless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Very little time right now.

You always say that when you are challenged and can't come up with anything to the point.

I've addressed all these other issues before and will probably return to address at least a few of them again but this is the first time I've been challenged here.

Not once. I don't expect you will address them anytime in the future. To be fair, your post here may be the closest you have ever come to addressing the faults of your claims. It almost appears as if some of what we have tried to teach you is sinking in, but your desire for things to be as you see them is evident in all the attempts to twist the facts to fit your preconceived views.

You have been constantly challenged to support your claims for over 200 pages.

Obviously there ae differences between individuals and their likelihood to survive and/ or reproduce but Darwin fell into a trap of defining fitness by whether a member of a species does survive and reproduce. But this is just assuming the conclusion.

Darwin did not assume the conclusion. Saying something, anything, as is your proclivity, is not evidence for what you claim.

The evolution of a trait is relative to the advantages that the trait provides for existing in the environment. It is the net reproductive success of those with a trait beneficial to increased survival to particular environmental stresses over those without that lead to a change in the population where that trait becomes predominant. Darwin was not the only one to notice this. He and and Alfred Russel Wallace were just the first to present it and publish it.

I don't dispute that species rap[idly adapt to changes in their niche and that this adaptation largely results from the proclivity of some individuals to better succeed under said changing conditions. But even those which don't succeed might have had their luck or experiences been different. They were no less "fit" to live merely different and or unlucky.

Those with the adaptation have a greater reproductive success and pass on the favorable traits to a larger pool of descendants. Those without it don't just cease to exist or stop reproducing entirely.

You really do not understand what you claim is wrong to have the authority to claim it wrong. Clearly.

It is all "you don't believe it or understand it" therefore it is wrong. That is not a logical reason to join you. It is without evidence or experiment.

Those that do not have traits beneficial to favor their net reproductive success in an altered environment are less fit. It can even be quantified through experiment and observation.

Adaptation to the environment is caused by changes to the environment but can "never" lead to speciation for the numerous reasons I've already listed and have been ignored.

Not true and your misunderstanding of it is not an explanation of any validity.

As a general rule, the evidence of this thread indicates that you do not explain yourself. You simply repeat your claims and then declare everyone else believers, babble about peers, project everything you are doing on to the rest of us and then repeat yourself again.

Your flawed opinions have been addressed for over 200 pages and you just keep repeating them and ignoring what everyone else has told you.

"Survival of the fittest" is putting the cart before the horse and highly assumptive. Once you have an assumption for the cause of speciation you quit looking. You can't even see the extensive evidence that speciation is sudden just like everything else that affects life which is always and only individual. "Species" is a word, a mnemonic with no real referent.

You have been told numerous times by numerous different posters that "survival of the fittest" is not a good description of natural selection, it is not used as a definition or description in contemporary biology and was not coined by Darwin.

Speciation has been studied consistently since Darwin. No one has stopped looking except for those like you that believe they know everything without any effort applied to learning and discovering anything.

It is a word. All of these pages are filled with words. So What?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Its impossible to explain something senseless.

As we have all observed thanks to the repeated examples so lovingly provided by those that think their knowledge exceeds expertise without benefit of acquiring that expertise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Its impossible to explain something senseless.

W.F.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The myth of the lone rebel scientist who forges ahead of all
others is strong with some people.

Some wish to be OT style prophets, othrrs to be the tragic grnius artist. Or high school football hero.

Interestingly we get lots of our
religious sorts who think they not only have True biblical insights- from God, directly- but also know, ore science thannany scientist on earth.

Science based on 1950's science fiction movies?

It seems so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The myth of the lone rebel scientist who forges ahead of all
others is strong with some people.

Some wish to be OT style prophets, othrrs to be the tragic grnius artist. Or high school football hero.

Interestingly we get lots of our
religious sorts who think they not only have True biblical insights- from God, directly- but also know, ore science thannany scientist on earth.

I have been reading more about the Dunning/Kruger effect and how it appears today in much wider application in science and politics and beyond.

Buzz Lightyear. Dunning/Kruger and Beyond!

 

[Audie]

Science based on 1950's science fiction movies?

It seems so.

Well there's Elvis as the young rebel chemist.

 

[Audie]

I have been reading more about the Dunning/Kruger effect and how it appears today in much wider application in science and politics and beyond.

Buzz Lightyear. Dunning/Kruger and Beyond!

As Clint would say, a man should know his limitations.