Darwin's Illusion

[John53]

Why do people that reject the science so stuck on Darwin? I still think he is seen as some sort of prophet or priest that destroying will bring down the science. How weird is that idea?

I was once told evolution is my religion and Darwin is the high priest. I'm not sure what to assume from that.

 

[John53]

I understand they look at bones. I have seen the thoughts regarding fish becoming landrovers. There is no scientific proof even if you call floppy fish evidence.

I used to own a land rover similar to this one. It didn't evolve from a fish. It had an aluminium body but the frame was steel and so badly rusted if I went over 80kph I had to hold the driver side window so it wouldn't bend out. I hated driving it in the rain.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not that I don't want to know about certain aspects of science. I see no reason (yet) to believe that everything evolved from a couple of cells by the process governing natural selection. I understand that scientists can figure out about cell structure and chemicals.

I don't understand what else there is to discuss. You reject everything presented. That has not changed from your beginning here. You admit you do not understand biology and pointing out your ignorance of it is mischaracterized as personal attack. Pointing out logical fallacies that you use is mischaracterized as personal attack. You repeat things over and over as if they are significant without explaining how they are significant or that scientists make the claims that you repeat. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that claims that ducks won't give birth to ducks or that they will magically transform into some other thing.

I'm lost. There seems to be nothing left to discuss. If you want someone to keep providing evidence so you can arbitrarily reject it, I suggest you look for that person that might be interested in the futility. I am not. You have convinced me that no amount of reason or evidence will even be considered or objectively reviewed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was once told evolution is my religion and Darwin is the high priest. I'm not sure what to assume from that.

That the person saying it didn't know science and had no basis to understand it, let alone reject it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I used to own a land rover similar to this one. It didn't evolve from a fish. It had an aluminium body but the frame was steel and so badly rusted if I went over 80kph I had to hold the driver side window so it wouldn't bend out. I hated driving it in the rain.

View attachment 73877

Fish didn't evolve into Land Rovers. Land Rovers remain Land Rovers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I used to own a land rover similar to this one. It didn't evolve from a fish. It had an aluminium body but the frame was steel and so badly rusted if I went over 80kph I had to hold the driver side window so it wouldn't bend out. I hated driving it in the rain.

View attachment 73877

I have to get to bed. Take care.

I wish I had a Land Rover. I guess I better get me a goldfish. Wait, it will just remain a goldfish.

 

[John53]

I have to get to bed. Take care.

I wish I had a Land Rover. I guess I better get me gold fish.

Good night, I must go walk the dog, her 3pm alarm has sounded.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good night, I must go walk the dog, her 3pm alarm has sounded.

Make sure she stays a dog.

 

[cladking]

I'm not sure I understand the thinking that wrongly condemns early successes in science as examples of scientism in action holding back progress and worshiping ignorance through the actions of some imagined conspiracy theory of self-satisfied scientists.

There's lots of mysticism to go around. Homo circularis rationatio.

All advancement is created by individuals and most individuals creating the most advancement are the least prone to scientism. At least there is a significant inverse correlation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason is that some things cannot be "proved." Again, I do believe that vaccines can work. And lab tests can show various aspects of one's health. But where is the proof that humans evolved along with chimpanzees? Oh yes, I drive regularly. I like that some cars use less gasoline than others. I don't like that the atmosphere is being ruined.

That depends. Scientists love clarity. "Proved" has more than one meaning. There are ways to "prove" things mathematically. But those proof often have little to do with reality. Then there is the legal standard of "Proven beyond a reasonable doubt". Evolution has easily met that standard. It is easy to show that all of your objections are unreasonable.

And one has to lie to deny that evolution has endless scientific evidence for it. Refusing to learn an easy concept is no longer a valid excuse.

 

[Audie]

I have no idea what else to discuss with you. Do you like auto racing? What are your thoughts on muscle cars?

Never even found out what " soil shifts" is supposed to mean.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again! Darwin used "survival of the fittest".

It was coined by Herbert Spencer and to the extent that Darwin talked about it, he argued against it as he didn't deem it appropriate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What do you think goosebumps are?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

You are making waaaaaaaay to much sense. You are upsetting the eco-balance of this thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Insofar as I am concerned, the differences are significant and inexplicable by testable science.

Yes, but that is only the case because you insist on staying ignorant about the testable science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no proof that gorillas, humans, chimpanzees and whatever else they say emerged (evolved) from a "Common Ancestor," still unknown, is true.

Yes there is. It's called DNA. It allows us to trace ancestry.

One bone doesn't do the job.

A couple DNA samples does.

Neither do ideas that some humans have lots of hair on their backs, fronts, legs, etc.

True. But DNA does.

None whatsoever.

Except for DNA then.

Gorillas as of yet remain gorillas and humans stay humans.

Yep. And both are apes / primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes...
And human descendants will remains humans (and subspecies thereof). And apes / primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes...

You know... we've been over this a 1000 times before. This is why I told you a post or two to go that you insist on being ignorant about the "testable science", as you put it. I completely lost count how many times you used this ignorant "X remain X" nonsense and how many times both me and others have pointed it out.

Why do you insist on being so wrong? Why do you insist on remaining ignorant? Why do you insist on repeating falsehoods after they've been pointed out to you.

What is it that you hope to accomplish by doing this?


How many times must it be repeated?
One more time perhaps?

If humans would produce non-humans, then evolution theory is falsified.

So "humans remaining humans", in fact, lies within the predicted expectations of the theory.

WHY do you insist on repeating this error? It's a genuine question.. I really would like to know why you keep repeating this, as if it is somehow a "gotcha" or a problem for evolution theory.........................

I just don't get it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here I go again. Birds still remain birds. They can be so pretty, some to me are not so pretty. They are still birds with no evidence now that they evolve to another being NOT a bird. (They stay birds...beaks changing or not.)

Indeed... there you go AGAIN.

cfr my last post.

Over and over and over and over.

Insisting on being wrong.

Baffling.

 

[metis]

I have decided that radiocarbon dating or other means of dating fossils and cave paintings are not correctly assessed.

Are you a nuclear physicist?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is there anything you want to argue about here?

I can't argue with you. I don't know what your position is. I don't know why you think science needs to change, just that you do. I don't know why you think that all change is sudden, just that you do. I've explained that I disagree and why, but haven't gotten a rebuttal, by which I mean a counterargument that if correct, falsifies my argument. An example: You said that all change is sudden and even mentioned galaxies colliding and merging, and I falsify that by noting that that process occurs over millions of years. That's a rebuttal, because we can't both be correct unless by sudden you mean over millions of years, which you've never stated to be your understanding of the word. This is why we can't debate. Only I am debating by this definition - rebutting claims. I can't make you be clear, and I can't make you address my arguments beyond rejecting them out of hand without explanation, so I can't engage in such a discussion with you. My effort has been to get idea like these through to you. Unsupported claims are disregarded, so why bother making them? Dissent without rebuttal is impotent. Use standard language rather than pet phrases that only you understand the meaning of.

If you like facile and superficial answers and the inability to act in the face of anomalies and the unexpected, then I agree with you. But if you want to live in the real world and progress human understanding of how things work then there's usually no choice but to look a little deeper.

I wrote, "Reality is not all that complex, at least not learning effective rules for navigating our world." I like answers that work, that allow me to accurately anticipate outcomes.

The analytical faculty has one purpose - to tell us what is true about the world using information accumulated through the senses. How we feel about it varies from individual to individual. And it is that affective addition that determines the quality of our conscious experience. Does it make us feel frightened or secure? Do we experience beauty or repulsion. Are we enjoying the weather or scattering for shelter. Do we feel connected to our environment and neighbors or alienated. None of that is rational. None is solved or calculated. It is discovered.

This has been my approach to navigating life. What is true about the world, how does it work, and what circumstances are desirable so that the knowledge of how things work and what outcomes can be expected in various circumstances can be applied to curating and managing that conscious experience. The life we aim for is generally the one where we feel safe, secure, loved, have leisure and freedom from want, anxiety, fear, loneliness, regret, shame and the like. We don't come to that knowledge except through trial-and-error, which means making mistakes and learning from them (empiricism). And my present understanding of the world along with some luck (no terminal diseases of fatal car accidents, for example) has allowed me to approximate that state to my satisfaction.

It's going to be pretty difficult for anybody to convince me that I did it wrong. Nevertheless, every week on these threads we see life advice given. The criticism I see most is that my thinking is myopic - too limiting, too materialistic. But as is the case with our discussions, when I ask what problem do you see - and I ask for specifics, not vague generalizations - and how does your modification meliorate them, we discover that the claim was only poetry.

It has taken the human race 4000 years just to begin to realize how wholly ignorant we really are.

Is there a complaint there or just an observation? Also, most of the human race is not aware of what the vanguard in science and philosophy concern themselves with. It's common knowledge that with learning comes the understanding of how much more there is to learn that we know we don't know yet, and that there are also unknown unknowns yet to be discovered.

Theory is approaching the limitations of experiment.

I'm not sure what you mean here. These are the kinds of comments that benefit from fleshing them out with more words. But the scientific community is busy with multiple challenges and will be for the foreseeable future. And what are these present limits of experimentation? Are you aware of LISA?

"LISA consists of three spacecraft that are separated by millions of miles and trailing tens of millions of miles, more than one hundred times the distance to the Moon, behind the Earth as we orbit the Sun. These three spacecraft relay laser beams back and forth between the different spacecraft and the signals are combined to search for gravitational wave signatures that come from distortions of spacetime. We need a giant detector bigger than the size of Earth to catch gravitational waves from orbiting black holes millions of times more massive than our sun. NASA is a major collaborator in the European Space Agency (ESA)-led mission, which is scheduled to launch in the early 2030s and we are getting ready for it now!"

Gravitational waves. That's huge. They have only recently begun measuring them using a ground-based device called LIGO, which is a few miles big. LISA is huge. Until recently, the only messages we got from space were rocks (meteorites), high energy particles (solar wind, cosmic rays) and electromagnetic radiation. This is a third messenger, and the astronomical community is salivating with anticipation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason I am here is to figure certain things out regarding those who believe the process of evolution basically as described by Darwin.

Darwin got some things wrong. He did not know about genetics so it was all but impossible to get everything right. What you should be trying to figure out is why is your faith in God so weak. Why won't you believe in him if he did not make the Earth in just the manner that you want? Trying to tell God how he made the Earth is a bit heretical if you ask me.