Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Make it stop

I wish I could, but there is no reasoning against it. It's more than just fan fiction.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Make it stop

Winner Frube!

 

[YoursTrue]

So what species of primates would you expect to see?

So when do you think that humans (however you define them) first appeared, and what do you think were the parents of the first humans?

I know that there is a timeline in the Bible about when humans were created by God. I have not found dating methods of remains to be accurate regarding humans. So does that settle the question? Insofar as I no longer accept the theory of evolution as posited by those embracing the theory as how it all happened, and the Bible does not give a detailed account of how God enabled the various animals and plants, I now believe the Bible's account of the creation of Adam and Eve uniquely and distinctly.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've dealt with this many times before with you and explained my position in brief, so why do you again post questions like this? And who are you to question someone else's faith? Have you no shame?

It sounds to me like this is a very difficult and touchy question for some to answer; yes, I do wonder seriously about those who have a form of religion when it comes to those who believe Moses did not exist, Jesus was prone to believe mythical history even though (1) it is said he is the only-begotten son of God, (2) he was in heaven before he came to the earth, and he also said (3) he IS the truth.
John 14:6, Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

 

[YoursTrue]

I've dealt with this many times before with you and explained my position in brief, so why do you again post questions like this? And who are you to question someone else's faith? Have you no shame?

I must have forgotten how one may explain that some think Jesus was believing in myths although he said he is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6)
Yet go to a house of worship proclaiming basis in the Bible and pray to God for whatever...Jesus did say to pray for God's kingdom.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep, you have just as much body hair as a gorilla. Sorry to tell you that.

it's ok. It's just different. Plus the difference of dna is a bit inexplicable except, of course, that it is probably theorized that whatever happened in the course of evolution managed to remove that particular percentage of dna.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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..."

Darwin's main assumptions behind evolution in populations are reproduction, heritable variation, non-random mating and selection.

While not knowing the specifics, Darwin recognized that traits of the parents were passed down to the offspring. These traits were protected or weeded out by the selection of the environment. Those with favorable traits were selected by the environment to have a better than average success at reproduction.

Much of "On the Origin of Species" is a presentation of all the evidence that supports the theory. Evidence available to him from plant and animal breeding and direct observation of natural populations.

For not having the benefit of a modern fossil record, genetics, population biology or a number of other modern research conveniences, he got an amazing amount of things right and his work forms the basis of modern biology.

But science has moved on and Darwin was not a saint to be canonized and his work allowed to stagnate as revealed truth. It is upon the basis he established that entire fields of study have risen to provide us with even greater knowledge. And it continues.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's ok. It's just different. Plus the difference of dna is a bit inexplicable except, of course, that it is probably theorized that whatever happened in the course of evolution managed to remove that particular percentage of dna.

How is the difference in the DNA inexplicable? When did you become an expert in DNA? A valid source would be very helpful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I must have forgotten how one may explain that some think Jesus was believing in myths although he said he is the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6)
Yet go to a house of worship proclaiming basis in the Bible and pray to God for whatever...Jesus did say to pray for God's kingdom.

The theory of evolution says nothing about Jesus. It neither confirms him or refutes him.

 

[We Never Know]

The theory of evolution says nothing about Jesus. It neither confirms him or refutes him.

We share 92% of DNA with cats.

My question to you(which I expect you will avoid) its what % of DNA to chimpanzees share with cats?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We share 92% of DNA with cats.

My question to you(which I expect you will avoid) its what % of DNA to chimpanzees share with cats?

I do not know of any studies, but it is almost certain that they share the same 92% with cats. There could be small differences, but that is what the theory would predict.

 

[Audie]

We share 92% of DNA with cats.

My question to you(which I expect you will avoid) its what % of DNA to chimpanzees share with cats?

Look it up. Then look inside hour head to figure what significance
you attach to the Q and A.

 

[Audie]

Darwin's main assumptions behind evolution in populations are reproduction, heritable variation, non-random mating and selection.

While not knowing the specifics, Darwin recognized that traits of the parents were passed down to the offspring. These traits were protected or weeded out by the selection of the environment. Those with favorable traits were selected by the environment to have a better than average success at reproduction.

Much of "On the Origin of Species" is a presentation of all the evidence that supports the theory. Evidence available to him from plant and animal breeding and direct observation of natural populations.

For not having the benefit of a modern fossil record, genetics, population biology or a number of other modern research conveniences, he got an amazing amount of things right and his work forms the basis of modern biology.

But science has moved on and Darwin was not a saint to be canonized and his work allowed to stagnate as revealed truth. It is upon the basis he established that entire fields of study have risen to provide us with even greater knowledge. And it continues.

Your friend there seems to share with all other creationists
the weird notion that Darwin is a sort of counterpart to
Jesus. See " Darwinism". A revealed but false religion.

They have just to find flaws in his work and character, real
or imagined and down tumbles the whole edifice.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Life is consciousness.

And so you conclude that all living things are conscious. By that definition, the word has no clear meaning. Why not call matter conscious whether living or not?

The kind of consciousness you are using as a definition exists ONLY in modern humans (homo omnisciencis).

I didn't define consciousness, but what I call consciousness seems to exist in a multitude of animals. Do you think that a wolf snarling at you with bad intent isn't conscious of your presence and its significance? Do you not think it is planning a response? That's the same kind of consciousness you and I possess, and that animal is likely experiencing a parade of conscious phenomena when awake.

No other species can conceive of any sort of abstraction.

Disagree. Learning new correlations and responses requires induction.

No other species even experiences "thought".

Disagree again. We took the dogs out for their Sunday morning ride. They know as soon as the harnesses come out, and begin squealing and dancing. How's that for abstract thought - the harnesses appearing leads to riding in the car.

Not all off spring are identical to the parents genetically or in any other way.

None are.

I've said repeatedly that cosmology is mired in the 1920's with no unified field theorem. Archaeology is stuck in the 1880's. I've offered numerous solutions. I've repeatedly said what the causes are.

I wrote, "And you depict science as wrong-minded and on the wrong track, needing to be rethought from the ground up, but don't point to any specific problem, say why it's a problem, offer any solution, or show why it's a solution. Just warnings that the sky is falling." You still haven't done that. I still don't see a problem, just a nonspecific complaint.

Belief in science is dangerous to the individual and to the culture.

Science has been very good to me. Disbelief in science, however, can be lethal. Most Americans that died of Covid after vaccines were available that were eligible to take the vaccine and could mount an adequate immune response to it died needlessly due to a dangerous disbelief in the science.

 

[Audie]

And so you conclude that all living things are conscious. By that definition, the word has no clear meaning. Why not call matter conscious whether living or not?

I didn't define consciousness, but what I call consciousness seems to exist in a multitude of animals. Do you think that a wolf snarling at you with bad intent isn't conscious of your presence and its significance? Do you not think it is planning a response? That's the same kind of consciousness you and I possess, and that animal is likely experiencing a parade of conscious phenomena when awake.

Disagree. Learning new correlations and responses requires induction.

Disagree again. We took the dogs out for their Sunday morning ride. They know as soon as the harnesses come out, and begin squealing and dancing. How's that for abstract thought - the harnesses appearing leads to riding in the car.


None are.

I wrote, "And you depict science as wrong-minded and on the wrong track, needing to be rethought from the ground up, but don't point to any specific problem, say why it's a problem, offer any solution, or show why it's a solution. Just warnings that the sky is falling." You still haven't done that. I still don't see a problem, just a nonspecific complaint.

Science has been very good to me. Disbelief in science, however, can be lethal. Most Americans that died of Covid after vaccines were available that were eligible to take the vaccine and could mount an adequate immune response to it died needlessly due to a dangerous disbelief in the science.

Politicians incl the doctor faucci did more harm to credibility
than any innate distrust pf science

 

[John53]

We share 92% of DNA with cats.

My question to you(which I expect you will avoid) its what % of DNA to chimpanzees share with cats?

Did you truly expect someone would know that off the top of their head?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Politicians incl the doctor fauci did more harm to credibility than any innate distrust pf science

Why mention it? Your point wasn't a rebuttal to the claim that a rejection of science can be fatal.

I think Fauci's place in medicine is pretty well established. Fauci literally wrote the book on Internal Medicine, a book every medical student buys:

 

[cladking]

And so you conclude that all living things are conscious. By that definition, the word has no clear meaning. Why not call matter conscious whether living or not?

Not exactly. I am observing that by defining life as consciousness much more experiment makes sense. I am observing that other definitions become simpler and that it streamlines what is already established fact. I am saying that anomalies disappear.

I would add that it also is supported by observation of other life forms and explains how the pyramid builders worked and spoke but Egyptologists can't see. All knowledge shakes down to a simpler form. Yes, it also shows the complexity of all things and shows just how little we really know about everything from species to religion.

Disagree. Learning new correlations and responses requires induction.

I believe this is simple pattern recognition and it is an aspect of consciousness itself. A calf might imprint on the farmer if it sees him before its mother.

I wrote, "And you depict science as wrong-minded and on the wrong track, needing to be rethought from the ground up, but don't point to any specific problem, say why it's a problem, offer any solution, or show why it's a solution. Just warnings that the sky is falling." You still haven't done that. I still don't see a problem, just a nonspecific complaint.

Science is NOT wrong minded. It is merely a tool and its utility is limited by its inflexible metaphysics. At least hithertofor it has been inflexible. i believe it can be operated in tandem with natural science.

It is reductionistic and bound by definitions and axioms. It can never discover anything that isn't shown by experiment.

Science has been very good to me. Disbelief in science, however, can be lethal.

Science good. Stupidity bad.

But science is different to everybody and I'm suggesting that some aspects of science are incorrectly modeled by almost everyone.

Belief in science may have killed more people than disbelief in science and belief in religion combined.

There are other options. One needn't believe in science to use or invent science. Indeed, more science is invented by scientific agnostics than by believers. Most science and a lot of technology comes from science agnostics.

 

[cladking]

Why mention it? Your point wasn't a rebuttal to the claim that a rejection of science can be fatal.

I think Fauci's place in medicine is pretty well established. Fauci literally wrote the book on Internal Medicine, a book every medical student buys:

View attachment 73806

Well, he became a politician and lied so many times he lost all credibility among the population. People never got the data they needed to make informed decisions and we're only now coming to see this was Swine Flu 2.0

Billions of people were injured and many millions are still likely to die from the fall out and apparently it was principally to save inconvenience to doctors and hospitals caused by too many critically ill old sick and fat people.

Maybe Fauci is a good doctor but he was no kind of leader. Never again should "science" lead the commonwealth. But we'll have learned nothing even if we now get 20 years of stagflation and sharply lower populations. Though it might be observed that our leaders BELIEVE there must be lower populations to save the planet and rich people. There are too many farting cows for the planet as we once knew it to survive.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your friend there seems to share with all other creationists
the weird notion that Darwin is a sort of counterpart to
Jesus. See " Darwinism". A revealed but false religion.

They have just to find flaws in his work and character, real
or imagined and down tumbles the whole edifice.

That is why I think he comes up all the time. As if science is mired in the past deeds of its great contributors, it can be brought down by bringing those "prophets" down.

Down it tumbles and what the believers believe, whether creationism or something dreamed up in the imagination of some alternative believer, becomes the replacement by default.

It is a strange idea that reveals much about the ignorance of those attacking Darwin.