Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You have just as many hair follicles. Human body hair tends to be much finer and much shorter. That is not a big difference. And there are a few people that by a very minor genetic change produce heavy long body hair.

 

[Audie]

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.

Typical are those who present that they
know more science than any scientist,
and do inerrant Bible- readin' too.

 

[Audie]

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.

Of course its evolution, with the
plants and animals best suited to
the environment being the ones who
survived to have offspring.

 

[YoursTrue]

I personally don’t agree to make such distinction. The roots are the same and the overlap is huge. Science is born from natural philosophy and I think science still has the genes of natural philosophy but with a methodology that is more focused on observation/experimentation, regardless the rational basis of reasoning in the process of interpreting the observations and extracting conclusion is similar. Philosophy applies the power of mind, logic, rational reasoning to understand reality, which is necessarily essential for methodological naturalism as well. Without the philosophical principals establishing the logic of inference, no interpretation of the observations or the underlying reality would be possible. But Philosophy may continue in the realm where science stops, and no further observations are possible.

I agree with you about evolution or the lack of 'evidence' in truth about evolution. I have come to the conclusion that evolution is not really possible. What do I mean by that? I do believe that inbreeding and genetics play a large part in developing different types of living things, but I read there is a very small dna difference between bonobos and humans. Yet the physical and mental differences are, in my opinion, vast enough for me to think it is insurmountable by evolutionary processes. I realize what those believing in the ToE say (it takes time, lots of time to separate bonobos from humans and chimpanzees and frogs, etc.) but not only are the differences vast and virtually realistically insurmountable, as I continue looking at what is considered reasoning and evidence by some here and elsewhere, I no longer accept the idea that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees, etc. came from what is called an "Unknown Common Ancestor." I used to. I used to believe everything I was taught in school about evolution. But humans and bonobos really do not look alike. When I see a bonobo, I don't think I'm seeing a human from an "Unknown Common Ancestor."

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

OK, let me say this: yes, pertaining to developing cows, which i certainly believe is possible and likely to have happened: when we here in the United States fill out certain forms, we are sometimes asked to check off what "race" we belong to. It wasn't too long ago that there were racial wars in certain countries and racial discrimination in many places. A bonobo is not a human. Simple, but true and possibly profound depending on who is realizing this. Humans are humans. Humans are not bonobos. The theory of race is a mixed up one to say the least. Bonobos and humans cannot interbreed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, let me say this: yes, pertaining to developing cows, which i certainly believe is possible and likely to have happened: when we here in the United States fill out certain forms, we are sometimes asked to check off what "race" we belong to. It wasn't too long ago that there were racial wars in certain countries and racial discrimination in many places. A bonobo is not a human. Simple, but true and possibly profound depending on who is realizing this. Humans are humans. Humans are not bonobos. The theory of race is a mixed up one to say the least. Bonobos and humans cannot interbreed.

Yes, humans and bonobos are different species. Bu t no one has tried artificial insemination. I am not advocating for it. In fact I am very much against it since evolution does not need that sort of evidence. I do wish that you would learn just a little bit about what evolution is and what it does. Then you might not keep making such rather pitiful arguments.

 

[John53]

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.

I'd never heard of them but I'm doing some reading now. Very interesting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Typical are those who present that they
know more science than any scientist,
and do inerrant Bible- readin' too.

Indeed it is.

It's interesting to notice how frequently those for whom no amount or type of evidence will convince them are here telling everyone that very thing. Yet, here they are. It doesn't appear they are here to learn anything, since they have told us that nothing will convince them that their true and proper knowledge and understanding through belief is inferior to some tainted and distorted knowledge and understanding from science based on reason and evidence.

I wonder why they bother knowing so much absolute truth and the correct way to come to that truth even above others that believe mostly as they do.

To keep the conversation alive so that their belief will remain always the default. To change the minds of others that don't believe exactly, to the letter, like they do and get them to blindly follow. To preach dissent of any view not their own.

Learning something new, understanding others and coming to see that knowledge can be accepted without betraying belief doesn't seem to be of any interest near as I can tell.

You would think that such absolute knowledge would be a comfort. Yet creationists always seem so agitated. Some, perhaps many, seem upset in their ultimate knowledge that has brought them peace and love.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'd never heard of them but I'm doing some reading now. Very interesting.

Learning about the little, unnoticed things in the world is still one of my favorite things to do.

 

[metis]

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.

That is likely to have evolved later as much of our early evolution as humans did as such in the savannas of the horn region of Africa where trees were scarce. Most of our body hair is likely to be why we have sweat glands as they do have the function with us to cool us down.

 

[metis]

You have just as many hair follicles. Human body hair tends to be much finer and much shorter. That is not a big difference. And there are a few people that by a very minor genetic change produce heavy long body hair.

The father of a friend of mine had so much body hair that he looked like a gorilla from behind when he had his shirt off-- literally!

 

[Audie]

The father of a friend of mine had so much body hair that he looked like a gorilla from behind when he had his shirt off-- literally!

I've seen deer that literally had...no antlers!

This may indicate they are not actually deer but
a special creation of God, set above all mere animals.

Or, it may not.

Depends on how religious they are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've seen deer that literally had...no antlers!

This may indicate they are not actually deer but
a special creation of God, set above all mere animals.

Or, it may not.

Depends on how religious they are.

Or does.

 

[cladking]

I see that it is agreed that cows evolved. Certainly, it was through artificial selection by people, but evolution it is.

I most certainly do not agree. Cows changed. They did so very suddenly caused by a force that usually causes speciation; only individuals with unusual behavior survived a bottleneck. In this case it was an artificial bottleneck created by the application of ancient science. Homo sapiens selected for docile behavior and for every practical purpose other individuals did not survive the bottleneck as the original species was hunted to extinction. Wolves survived the change into dogs because they were harder to catch and less tasty.

We believe nature selects for traits that make the species stronger, faster, or smarter but this isn't normally the case. All individuals are fit and any changes imposed by niches on genetics of a species also normally occurs much more rapidly. Major changes occur at bottlenecks that "select" for behavior.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Life is consciousness and consciousness is free will.

Previously, you said, "Life is consciousness and consciousness is life"

Even major changes in structure or behavior are not necessarily "speciation".

Earlier, you posted, "I define speciation as a fundamental change in behavior caused by a change in the genetic make-up."

Many of these changes occur suddenly and some more gradually

And here you wrote, "EVERY SINGLE SPECIATION EVENT EVER SEEN was sudden"

Maybe you can reconcile some of these, but can you see how difficult it is to track what you believe when you do this? My recommendation is to avoid poetry, by which I mean vague or symbolic language like song lyrics, which are intended to function as verbal Rorschach tests wherein one knowingly and willingly inserts some of himself into the meaning he takes - what it says to him - and stick with concrete prose like one would find in cooking or driving directions, or a will - words meant to be clearly understood and without ambiguity.

I realize what those believing in the ToE say (it takes time, lots of time to separate bonobos from humans and chimpanzees and frogs, etc.) but not only are the differences vast and virtually realistically insurmountable, as I continue looking at what is considered reasoning and evidence by some here and elsewhere, I no longer accept the idea that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees, etc. came from what is called an "Unknown Common Ancestor."

You begin with an incredulity fallacy - you just don't see how it could have happened, so you have decided it didn't - and then reject the reasoning of others.

humans and bonobos really do not look alike.

How about humans and orangutans, who are more distantly related to man than bonobos?: "The name "orangutan" is derived from the Malay words orang, meaning "person", and hutan, meaning "forest"."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I most certainly do not agree. Cows changed. They did so very suddenly caused by a force that usually causes speciation; only individuals with unusual behavior survived a bottleneck. In this case it was an artificial bottleneck created by the application of ancient science. Homo sapiens selected for docile behavior and for every practical purpose other individuals did not survive the bottleneck as the original species was hunted to extinction. Wolves survived the change into dogs because they were harder to catch and less tasty.

We believe nature selects for traits that make the species stronger, faster, or smarter but this isn't normally the case. All individuals are fit and any changes imposed by niches on genetics of a species also normally occurs much more rapidly. Major changes occur at bottlenecks that "select" for behavior.

Cows do not appear to be the products of "ancient science" At least there is not evidence that I know of for such and since you never support your claims I sincerely doubt that you will support this one either. Cows appear to be the product of artificial selection. And why would the reason for dogs survival be because wolves were harder to catch and less tasty? You took too red herrings and tried to make a logical argument out of it. Are wolves harder to catch? Yes, I will grant that. Though the young of either one are much either to catch so perhaps I should not grant that one. Are they less tasty? I don't know, but probably. They are certainly safer to eat. The problem is that cows survived because they are tasty. Milk from cows was probably a secondary use for them.

So do you have any evidence for any of your claims or just bad arguments?

 

[YoursTrue]

The father of a friend of mine had so much body hair that he looked like a gorilla from behind when he had his shirt off-- literally!

I have seen pictures of such and it is true that genetics plays a part and one might say he looked like a gorilla from behind but I doubt it. The bodily form and shape is different plus feet & hands plus the amount of hair.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is likely to have evolved later as much of our early evolution as humans did as such in the savannas of the horn region of Africa where trees were scarce. Most of our body hair is likely to be why we have sweat glands as they do have the function with us to cool us down.

Oh yes, lest I forget, humans are not gorillas. And, of course, I still go back to the fact that apparently (I use the word fact delicately) there is no "common ancestor" known amoing gorillas and humans. Do I think that God made man different than gorillas? Yes I do. Insofar as I am concerned, the differences are significant and inexplicable by testable science.

 

[cladking]

Cows do not appear to be the products of "ancient science" At least there is not evidence that I know of for such and since you never support your claims I sincerely doubt that you will support this one either.

The very existence of cow, the very fact they exist shows there was ancient science just as beaver farming shows there is such a thing as "beaver science". The waggle dance is "bee science" because in nature all science is natural science based on metaphysical language. We are confused so it's impossible for us to use natural science. We always reason in circles unless science (experiment) blocks it. Bees, beavers, and homo omnisciencis were not confused. They are (were) able to use metaphysical language which reflects the wiring of the brain with scientific observation to discern the nature of reality and to use this knowledge to their own ends. This gets to the very root of consciousness/ life/ free will.

But we (homo omnisciencis) have no choice but to use words that are symbolic, analog, and have no concrete relationship to the real world where abstractions do not exist. We parse words and we don't ever parse them exactly as intended and sometimes don't even try. Even our thinking is affected because we use induction which is often little more than relationships between words and definitions. We have no choice but we don't see these realities because we think we know everything including what the other guy is saying and our own thought processes which often are astray from reality due to words or reasoning in circles. We must use experiment to understand reality but instead it is often merely opinion and appearances presented as "science", "truth", or "reality". If a model or belief isn't firmly rooted in experiment it can only be true through coincidence.

Ancient man invented cows and dogs by some means. The question is what was their metaphysics. it OBVIOUSLY was not experiment and it apparently was language itself. Human language; one single language all humans shared just like a set of genes. Obviously this language no longer exists and all we have are stories about the language becoming confused. We have assumptions about human intelligence, instinct, and trial > error. We have assumptions imparted by language and old wives tales rather than experiment. We have vast confusion that causes the economy to barely run at all.

 

[exchemist]

Oh yes, lest I forget, humans are not gorillas. And, of course, I still go back to the fact that apparently (I use the word fact delicately) there is no "common ancestor" known amoing gorillas and humans. Do I think that God made man different than gorillas? Yes I do. Insofar as I am concerned, the differences are significant and inexplicable by testable science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla–human_last_common_ancestor

So we have a fossil that is close, if not exactly at the point of divergence.