Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Theoretically, about 30,000 b.p.: Sinodonty, Sundadonty, and the Beringian Standstill model: Issues of timing and migrations into the New World

Thanks Metis. I was confident you would know something on this subject. Now, I have more to read. But that's a good thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Over 4,400 posts?!?!?! Nothing of substance. This type of thread needs to come in perforated rolls.

It was "sudden". As everything is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks. It's a relatively recent change for me. I was a firebrand poster originally. We might be doing different things here. Like you, I enjoy discussion, especially debate, and I would like to find a way to be of value to whomever I'm disagreeing with, but if I am, there's little evidence of it. I'm also very interested in trying to understand not just what others think, but how they think. I'm trying to imagine what it looks like through other minds that makes their pronouncements seem acceptable to them. I'd like to get to the point where I can say, "I might not agree with you, but I see where you're coming from." It's the cognitive equivalent of empathy, which is trying to feel as others feel, but for thought - thinking as others think.

I like people like @cladking. I don't think he's arguing in bad faith. I think that he is trying to trade ideas and would like to engage in dialectic, but isn't ready. His opinions don't create a negative emotional response for me. And I want to see if I can make an impact with him in areas like effective debate, rebuttal, and clarity in thought and language.

This is an area where clarity is needed. I'm not sure where the contradictions are since I'm not always clear on what words mean. I don't know what is meant by a language, since I believe that he uses the term to refer to prelinguistic thought. And the Tower of Babble references just add additional ambiguity. I can't help but believe that this all makes sense to him, and I'd like to understand how.

I have also spent time considering how people like you and a few other Abrahamic theists think, why your opinions seem indistinguishable from any atheistic humanist's and yet in this one area, you are willing to depart from the method of thinking you depend on professionally and in your posting. It makes me wonder what would have to be different in me to do the same. I think that I would have needed to grow up in an environment where religion was comfortably familiar and brought me pleasure being around it - what I call a cultural Christian.

I know many Jews who see themselves that way. They're atheists, but drawn to Jewish culture. They like Jewish cuisine, but don't respect the dietary laws. They like to be with other Jews just because of common culture. They use Yiddish expressions, and occasionally go to synagogue, albeit rarely. And they call themselves Jews, but also, humanists. I suspect that many self-identifying Christians fit into this category - humanistic values and a humanistic agenda, but self-identifying with a religion. I'm calling them theistic humanists.

I hope you don't find this kind of speculation offensive. If so, apologies.

Not at all. I enjoy reading your posts and your speculation regarding my personal views isn't all that far from the target in many ways.

I'll withhold any other opinion regarding specific content. Except to say, I get this strong sense of fan fiction. Where a core of established information is picked through and the pieces that resonate are incorporated into an entirely different, unique story that the is just loved by a writer, but makes no sense to anyone else. Especially those familiar with the methods, evidence and conclusions of the source material.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The essence of it is that no creationist has
fact one to offer.
You can't disprove a theory without facts.

IF someone ever did discover disproof of
evolution the consequence ,woul extend beyond
any reckoning.

And there is zero chance it would be a creationist
who made the discovery.

Best you can hope for would be to find someone
with the education to ask challenging questions.

I can't imagine those that don't even know what they are looking at would be able recognize something significant.

 

[Audie]

I can't imagine those that don't even know what they are looking at would be able recognize something significant.

That would be one prob

 

[Audie]

Over 4,400 posts?!?!?! Nothing of substance. This type of thread needs to come in perforated rolls.

Consider that creationists have never once had a substantive post

 

[gnostic]

@cladking

Your human-termite example.

Humans do indeed and can grow their own food - fruit, vegetables & crops...

...but termites don't grow their own food.

At best, termites forage for their food, by feeding on woody plants that exist.

Agriculture involved planting seeds, and tending them through watering, and later harvesting them when they are in season.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@cladking

Your human-termite example.

Humans do indeed and can grow their own food - fruit, vegetables & crops...

...but termites don't grow their own food.

At best, termites forage for their food, by feeding on woody plants that exist.

Agriculture involved planting seeds, and tending them through watering, and later harvesting them when they are in season.

I think the reference is to the symbiotic relationship between members of the termite genus Mastotermes and a fungi. It is a mutualism that benefits both the termites and the fungi. The fungi feed on material that the termite cannot and produce sugars that the termite can eat. Referring to them as farmers carrying out agriculture is an analogy and not meant to indicate that the termites had the consciousness to notice the fungi and decide to cultivate it.

I know that many popular authors play on these sorts of stories and relate them rather poetically and romantically. An unskilled reader might get the erroneous impression that termite intelligence and choice exist and were involved in the development of this mutualism. But scientists studying the actual system have developed some interesting data on how this developed naturally from the normal fungal associates that predate this phenomena.

Ancestral predisposition toward a domesticated lifestyle in the termite-cultivated fungus Termitomyces

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@cladking

Your human-termite example.

Humans do indeed and can grow their own food - fruit, vegetables & crops...

...but termites don't grow their own food.

At best, termites forage for their food, by feeding on woody plants that exist.

Agriculture involved planting seeds, and tending them through watering, and later harvesting them when they are in season.

Interestingly, Mastotermes includes the species darwiniensis, the most ancestral species of termite known. It shares many characters with Blattaria, the cockroaches and is found in Australia. Perhaps you are familiar with this species @John53?

It is a real name applied in honor of Darwin and his great contributions to science.

 

[gnostic]

Interestingly, Mastotermes includes the species darwiniensis, the most ancestral species of termite known. It shares many characters with Blattaria, the cockroaches and is found in Australia. Perhaps you are familiar with this species @John53?

It is a real name applied in honor of Darwin and his great contributions to science.

Too bad his name was used to name after species of termites, and not something more magnificent like tiger or falcon.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Too bad his name was used to name after species of termites, and not something more magnificent like tiger or falcon.

Well, termites certainly aren't as large, awe-inspiring and as beguiling as some people find tigers and falcons, but they are awesome in many ways in their own right.

One wonders how they would have been housed on an ark made of wood. Maybe that is why is was called gopher wood. When the termites would eat up parts of the hull Noah would have the boys go fer wood to fix the holes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Theoretically, about 30,000 b.p.: Sinodonty, Sundadonty, and the Beringian Standstill model: Issues of timing and migrations into the New World

I've been reading through that reference. It is amazing what the study of a few bones and some teeth can reveal about the evolution and migration of species. I think this paper is a great example of the evidentiary basis of science applied to better understand the present. To see how evidence from one discipline can support the models of an entirely different discipline is something I find wonderful. Even inspiring.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Over 4,400 posts?!?!?! Nothing of substance. This type of thread needs to come in perforated rolls.

Isn't that a Bruce Springsteen song? 4400 posts and nothing's on. Something like that.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I was looking at pictures of gorillas, bonobos, monkeys, and I don't see too many without a lot of hair. In fact I don't see any without a lot of bodily hair.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Consider that creationists have never once had a substantive post

When they don't really know the subject matter or science, it isn't really surprising.

 

[cladking]

An unskilled reader might get the erroneous impression that termite intelligence and choice exist and were involved in the development of this mutualism.

I believe the "unskilled reader" will get the erroneous impression that he himself is intelligent and that termites are not.

Life is consciousness and consciousness is free will. Every individual which ever lived on or in the earth understands this. We all owe our life not to fitness but rather to consciousness. Humans by definition put the cart before the horse (homo circulus ratiocinatio) (I think therefore I am).

We are a truly remarkable species with two truly remarkable tools; complex language and real science. Unfortunately "Evolution" is not real science. When it comes to understanding the nature of life you might consult a sparrow rather than a linguist or truck driver. You certainly don't want to turn to a 21st century natural philosopher or Charles Darwin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Consider that creationists have never once had a substantive post

As an extension of what I said, when they do not know the subject matter, but believe they are experts in everything, they set themselves up to fail.

 

[cladking]

I was looking at pictures of gorillas, bonobos, monkeys, and I don't see too many without a lot of hair. In fact I don't see any without a lot of bodily hair.

I'm not sure of your point. I personally don't consider things such as color or body hair to be cause to call it speciation. Even majorr changes in structure or behavior are not necessarily "speciation". Many of these changes occur suddenly and some more gradually but I use the term "speciation" to apply to significant differences. I believe in many cases the transition is so sudden there can even be breeding between the two species.

The lack of missing links is caused by the exceedingly low populations during these events.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see that it is agreed that cows evolved. Certainly, it was through artificial selection by people, but evolution it is. Darwin used many examples of artificial selection to demonstrate his theory of evolution and natural selection.

Artificial selection is applied natural selection. Where people mimic natural selection and decide what is most fit in cattle, dogs, horses, corn, cotton, soy etc. Those with the desired traits are more fit since they will breed more successfully than those without the traits.

Darwin was incredibly successful with his insights and recognition of the evidence. Considering the times in which he lived, he got a lot right.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That would be one prob

It is a problem that I keep seeing repeated on here.