Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

Which book?

Hawking is a "theoretical" physicist.

Do you understand that?

Theoretical physicists don't often do experiment.

Instead a theoretical physicist would find solutions through logical models, which they would often use maths, and in the case of theoretical astrophysics, very complex maths.

Maths aren't evidence, but maths are part of the explanation in scientific theories or hypotheses.

So if a physicist include equations with his or her explanation, then the equations are not true, until the testable evidence or experiment support the equations.

Take Albert Einstein for instance. He too was a theoretical physicist, and both Special Relativity (1905) and General Relativity (1915) started out being "theoretical", but other physicists have tested SR & GR models. That was how Relativity became a scientific theory.

So other physicists or other scientists would have to test his "theoretical" models.

But as I have asked earlier. Which book was talking about?

Until we know which book you have read, we cannot tell if his theoretical model was tested or not.

It doesn't matter about which book, he changed his mind upon occasion. He's a theoretical physicist, I'm gathering from his book that he likes to play with concepts, real (if there are any) or imaginary. I see he likes to guess. Maybe yes, maybe no. His "God" concept was shoved aside by him, since he as well as others have decided from lack of evidence or misunderstanding in many religious beliefs they know about, seen or unseen, that there is no God. I do not agree that there is no God, just as his ideas are personal, so are other ideas personal.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which book?

Hawking is a "theoretical" physicist.

Do you understand that?

Theoretical physicists don't often do experiment.

Instead a theoretical physicist would find solutions through logical models, which they would often use maths, and in the case of theoretical astrophysics, very complex maths.

Maths aren't evidence, but maths are part of the explanation in scientific theories or hypotheses.

So if a physicist include equations with his or her explanation, then the equations are not true, until the testable evidence or experiment support the equations.

Take Albert Einstein for instance. He too was a theoretical physicist, and both Special Relativity (1905) and General Relativity (1915) started out being "theoretical", but other physicists have tested SR & GR models. That was how Relativity became a scientific theory.

So other physicists or other scientists would have to test his "theoretical" models.

But as I have asked earlier. Which book was talking about?

Until we know which book you have read, we cannot tell if his theoretical model was tested or not.

I realize much of Hawking's ideas centered around creation and if there is a Creator. He decided after time there doesn't have to be. Or there is no God. OK, that's his theory. I hope you're not going to tell me it's been tested. Although I understand the claims of some doesn't mean I agree with their conclusions.

 

[cladking]

When a person (such as yourself) present a claim or model that differ from the current knowledge/information, then you either present evidence yourself or cite scientific sources.

I cited wiki.

Are you afraid of it. Everything I've said is either obviously true or easily researched. It is your job to show I'm wrong about anything rather than to simply gainsay everything.

None of my citations are rocket science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On one hand you don't believe in God (you are an atheist, however you define it) you put down the Bible at any turn, then on the other hand you make suggestions as to what you think would improve a religion.

That is because I used to be a Christian. and Christianity still has some good points. People that abuse the Bible tend to also be the worst of Christians. When you abuse the Bible you invite others to insult it too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's my answer to you -- I don't believe much of what you say right now. Maybe another time. Nothing personal I suppose.

I am not like you. I do not make things up. Just because you are wrong when it comes to your own holy book is no good reason not to trust someone that understands it better than you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I realize much of Hawking's ideas centered around creation and if there is a Creator. He decided after time there doesn't have to be. Or there is no God. OK, that's his theory. I hope you're not going to tell me it's been tested. Although I understand the claims of some doesn't mean I agree with their conclusions.

No, Hawkngs' work centered on the beginning of our universe. And why do you think that his work cannot be tested?

 

[gnostic]

No! That is not history. I've seen many of these lists and records of such things does not say anything at all about the the economy, culture, or the changes. Laundry lists are just laundry lists. A list of temple offerings doesn't tell you why the temple exists it only provides a list of who donated what.

You cannot get to dictate what writing is history and what isn't history.

Plus, you wrote that nothing written before 2400 BCE, "comprehensible":

No. History and writing are not the same thing because there is no writing from before about 2400 BC that is comprehensible.

You weren't just talking about history, you were saying "writing" (which could be anything and everything else) incomprehensible.

So I gave you examples of both writing being historical and comprehensible...even if they were just administrative or accounting records, eg the clay tablets of Jemdet Nasr.

I have even given you example of Instructions of Shuruppak, while not "historical" in the sense of the subject and textual contexts, they are historical in the sense they can be dated to a certain period, for instance the oldest copy of Instructions is the Abu Salabikh tablet, is dated to 2600 BCE. Instructions of Shuruppak is definitely comprehensible.

Those clay tablets are not only comprehensible, they are also "historical".

You are neither historian, nor archaeologist, nor translator. So I am not impress by your claims.

Beside that. You are being very hypocritical.

Do you remember that image of prehistorical symbols/doodles that you keep posting up in the other threads?

Those symbols are not written language, are incomprehensible. And yet, YOU interpret them as metaphysical language of science. How do you arrive at that conclusion? Not because you can read those symbols.

Your claims and your excuses have no credibility.

 

[Boris Norris]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

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..."

Evolution is a fact with irrefutable evidence. It might be abrasive to admit that but is a fact nonetheless. Darwin did not offer how life began. That is wrong.

 

[cladking]

Plus, you wrote that nothing written before 2400 BCE, "comprehensible":

Anybody can look at a laundry list and deduce that it is a laundry list. He can then extrapolate the existence of laundries and that the people wore clothes.

If you want to extrapolate "history" from one word sentences, titles, and labels on jars then have at it.

To me all real "history" must contain sentences that actually say something about what were current events; not how much starch to put in the king's loin cloths.

Real history must come from writing that is comprehensible and in entire sentences: Not from books of incantations or the local laundry.

 

[cladking]

Evolution is a fact with irrefutable evidence. It might be abrasive to admit that but is a fact nonetheless. Darwin did not offer how life began. That is wrong.

Very few people doubt that life changes. What most posters in this thread doubt is that Darwin got anything about the nature or causes of the changes right.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Even the unicellular slime mold uses an external memory. If it weren't conscious, what would be the point of "remembering" at all?

That's a metaphorical use of the word memory, and doesn't require consciousness. Unconscious matter can accumulate and store changes over time.

What most posters in this thread doubt is that Darwin got anything about the nature or causes of the changes right.

Isn't it just you that doubts that Darwin got anything right?

On one hand you don't believe in God (you are an atheist, however you define it) you put down the Bible at any turn, then on the other hand you make suggestions as to what you think would improve a religion.

That's not inconsistent to me. If I were ever to embrace any form of theism again, it would be a private religion based in nature and void of an interventionist deity, hence no scripture or prayer or miracles. I would consider that an improvement to any Abrahamic religion - drop the book, and return the sacred to nature.

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.

No, based on the observed fact of differential reproductive rates in competing organisms in a biological population. Nature selects for the most fecund forms however simple or complex they might be.

Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species

I'm not aware that he had any explanation for genetic variation. He didn't know about DNA.

and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter

Comments like this undermine your credibility. There's a term in the philosophy of argumentation called ethos, which refers to the meta-messages a speaker or writer sends his audience in addition to the explicit meaning of his argument, such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

The fact that the theory is still alive and well belies your claims about Darwin relying on life being simple.

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.

I disagree. Ring species fulfill the challenge.

 

[cladking]

That's a metaphorical use of the word memory, and doesn't require consciousness.

If a living thing stores memory externally and can recover it as needed then that is real, it is concrete. It is not "metaphorical".

Isn't it just you that doubts that Darwin got anything right?

Well... ...I am the only one in this thread who actually phrases it that way. Even I could poke through his writing and find things that have been supported or that I agree with. My point is simply that all his assumptions and major tenets appear to be wrong.

I disagree. Ring species fulfill the challenge.

No. "Ring species" merely show adaptation. They show that species change to reflect their niche and not that the changes are gradual and caused by survival of the fittest. Even if this could be shown it doesn't really show speciation where species become something very different.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If a living thing stores memory externally and can recover it as needed then that is real, it is concrete. It is not "metaphorical".

If we're not talking about a conscious mind, then the use of the word memory is metaphor, as with memory foam pillows. You lay on one, it deforms, and it "remembers" that shape.

No. "Ring species" merely show adaptation.

Yes, but a specific type of adaptation: biological evolution leading to speciation. Adaptation is too broad a words that includes many kinds of responsive change in both living and nonliving things. Skin tanning is adapting. Closing the window when it gets cold is adapting. Learning when to keep one's mouth shut (or anything else) is adapting.

They show that species change to reflect their niche and not that the changes are gradual and caused by survival of the fittest.

Ring species show evidence of the gradual evolution of an organism into one it cannot breed with. The mechanism is the natural selection of adaptive changes that facilitate reproduction.

Even if this could be shown it doesn't really show speciation where species become something very different.

It does show speciation.

 

[gnostic]

No! That is not history. I've seen many of these lists and records of such things does not say anything at all about the the economy, culture, or the changes. Laundry lists are just laundry lists. A list of temple offerings doesn't tell you why the temple exists it only provides a list of who donated what.

Anybody can look at a laundry list and deduce that it is a laundry list. He can then extrapolate the existence of laundries and that the people wore clothes.

If you want to extrapolate "history" from one word sentences, titles, and labels on jars then have at it.

To me all real "history" must contain sentences that actually say something about what were current events; not how much starch to put in the king's loin cloths.

Real history must come from writing that is comprehensible and in entire sentences: Not from books of incantations or the local laundry.

Wow.

That’s two replies of yours, where you mentioned “laundry list” and certain types of clothes, which I have never wrote, hence you’re attacking straw-man.

I said the contained the clay tablets, accounting records that listed numbers of animals, mainly cattle and herds, animals that they would keep in farms or in which would trades, supplies of food and drinks (eg I had mentioned beers), objects made of pottery, eg vessels for storage.

There are no mention of clothes or this laundry list. You’re putting words (especially laundry lists) in my mouth that I didn’t say or didn’t write.

Using the straw man fallacy in your replies, in which you substituted words that I clearly didn’t use, is you being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Boris Norris]

Very few people doubt that life changes. What most posters in this thread doubt is that Darwin got anything about the nature or causes of the changes right.

That type of pedantism is totally unfounded.
I think he got every piece of his finding correct and us now proven to be fact.

 

[cladking]

There are no mention of clothes or this laundry list. You’re putting words (especially laundry lists) in my mouth that I didn’t say or didn’t write.

I'll repeat again for about the 6th time directed at you;

All the writing that survives is one word sentences, labels, titles, and various types of lists.

I call this "writing" laundry lists because you can't fathom history from either one word sentences or from books of incantation written centuries later.

History doesn't begin until P.I.E arises ~2000 BC and people write about things that are going on. This is 1200 years after formal writing was invented and about 3000 years since the first symbols used in proto-writing. It is 40,000 years after the same symbols were found in caves all over the world suggesting there was a single universal language.

 

[cladking]

If we're not talking about a conscious mind, then the use of the word memory is metaphor, as with memory foam pillows.

No. A pillow doesn't remember which head slept on it or pick which one it allows on it in the future. It requires consciousness to make or use memory. The sleeper makes the memory on his pillow.

Yes, but a specific type of adaptation: biological evolution leading to speciation.

Maybe it would eventually lead to speciation but this is EXACTLY the point! I maintain that NO niche lasts long enough to create a new species. Before a new variant of a ring species could evolve into something the niches in which they live will have changed. When they do suddenly change the animals in them will have changed suddenly as well.

You must show speciation within a niche to prove gradual change in species that may or may not have been caused by Darwin's survival of the fittest.

 

[cladking]

That type of pedantism is totally unfounded.
I think he got every piece of his finding correct and us now proven to be fact.

That's a new word for disagreeing with doctrine.

Usually people just point at heretics and scream.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A pillow doesn't remember which head slept on it or pick which one it allows on it in the future.

That's why calling it memory in foam is a metaphor.

It requires consciousness to make or use memory.

That's why I don't call the accumulation of changes in a slime mold memory. You seem to be defining such changes as memory, and then declaring the organism conscious for accumulating them - an equivocation fallacy - but for me, there's no more memory involved there than there is with a scar in a tree from lightning hitting it.

this is EXACTLY the point! I maintain that NO niche lasts long enough to create a new species. Before a new variant of a ring species could evolve into something the niches in which they live will have changed.

Niches aren't part of the definition of species. They facilitate speciation, but so does the founder effect in the same niche, as when a small number of salamanders migrate to a neighboring area where they begin to multiply:

You must show speciation within a niche to prove gradual change in species that may or may not have been caused by Darwin's survival of the fittest.

I don't understand exactly what you require be shown, but ring species are a demonstration of evolution (natural selection applied to variations in gene pools) generating new species. If you think that's wrong, please explain what part is wrong and why (counterargument), not just what you believe instead. If you can't do that, why consider it wrong?

 

[Valjean]

.

I always imagined my encounter with a playboy bunny would be different.

Were you imagining him with his ears erect?