Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

Correct. For the philosophical idea of true, it is not true. That is why science don't use philosophical truth. It uses evidence and that is not truth. That is another philosophical system.

What can be accepted as true if not through the rational means of philosophy? Philosophy defines rationalism and the inference principles for the scientific method to allow the interpretations of observations and the extraction of conclusions. Otherwise, no conclusions would be possible. Do you think data can be accepted as evidence without the logical inference principles (#2164)? Philosophy defines the logical principles, the essential reference to evaluate world data/observations; it is not merely some useless rhetoric.

 

[LIIA]

Yes, I, my ego alone

Ok, since we both agreed that you have an egocentrism view, then there is no point in discussing a different perspective with you. You are the defining reference. I’m not.

 

[LIIA]

How do you think that helps you? All that is is an acknowledgment that new concepts need to be included. It is not a refutation of the "standard theory of evolution".

Your logic skills are lacking again. Discoveries that Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation was not one hundred percent accurate did not result in its being thrown out by scientists. They knew that sometimes it was inaccurate. And that was way back in the 1800's. Einstein came up with his theory that supplanted Newton's work in the 1900's. Guess what, Newton's work was still accurate enough for all sorts of uses. His theory is used for ballistics, not Einstein's because it is so much easier to do the math. We relied on Newton's Laws of gravity to get to the Moon and back. It was accurate enough for that.

Bonus question, what every day device that you probably use relies upon Einstein's work and not Newton's?

Calls for reform are rarely refutations in the sciences That is all that you have found. And all of your sources disagree with you about the fact that you are a product of evolution. It appears to be a natural process. Even if all of those reforms were adopted you would still be a monkey.

No, if the framework is false, if the central assumptions are false (contradict latest scientific finds), then the theory is false.

The problem is that evolution is considered by evolutionists as an axiom independent of the MS theoretical framework. It’s not.

 

[exchemist]

No, if the framework is false, if the central assumptions are false (contradict latest scientific finds), then the theory is false.

The problem is that evolution is considered by evolutionists as an axiom independent of the MS theoretical framework. It’s not.

What makes you say that? Evolutionary theory is on exactly the same footing as anything else in science, surely? It is grounded in reproducible observations of nature and makes testable predictions. What's special about it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, if the framework is false, if the central assumptions are false (contradict latest scientific finds), then the theory is false.

The problem is that evolution is considered by evolutionists as an axiom independent of the MS theoretical framework. It’s not.

The "framework" is fine. You are complaining about the need for rather small changes I know that you do not like it, but you are still a monkey.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Bonus question, what every day device that you probably use relies upon Einstein's work and not Newton's?

I'm guessing that you mean GPS.

No, if the framework is false, if the central assumptions are false (contradict latest scientific finds), then the theory is false.

The theory is correct in the main. Its central tenets are settled science, not false.

The problem is that evolution is considered by evolutionists as an axiom independent of the MS theoretical framework. It’s not.

What problem? What are its manifestations and what makes them a problem in your estimation?

Also, the theory is not considered axiomatic. It was derived empirically.

since we both agreed that you have an egocentrism view, then there is no point in discussing a different perspective with you.

A different moral theory for me? Is your purpose to change me or share your views? It must be the former if you find no value in further discussion on the matter. I'm content with my present understanding of what is right and wrong and how that is decided. I still find myself tweaking my behavior, but only when I notice that it is not achieving its intended purpose according to a stable set of core values and a humanist agenda.

If you are an Abrahamic theist (I'm assuming as much from your use of the word evolutionist above, since I only hear that word from creationists), you probably believe that moral values should be received through a religion. But those values are not mine, following them would feel immoral to me in places, and they were not chosen with the individual's (including my) interests at heart.

Constantine chose Christianity as the state religion for a practical purpose. It's the one that tells its adherents to be meek, to be longsuffering, and to turn the other cheek for a great reward after death. That's terrible advice for the individual in my estimation, but good advice from the perspective of he who wishes to exploit others without them uprising - like Constantine. Why do we suppose that the Bible is so misogynistic and condones slavery? That's certainly not a good moral system for women or potential slaves.

You are the defining reference. I’m not.

Of course. You seem surprised or disappointed. And that independence has served me well.

 

[Audie]

The problem is that evolution is considered by evolutionists as an axiom independent of the MS theoretical framework. It’s not.

Your prob is you've no idea what you are
talking about, and, just make things up.

 

[cladking]

Also, the theory is not considered axiomatic. It was derived empirically.

Oh!!! What empirical evidence suggests a land animal gradually turned into a whale by means of survival of the fittest?

Reading fossil records is akin to reading tea leaves.

Even after you find such evidence science requires an experiment to create theory.

 

[cladking]

What makes you say that? Evolutionary theory is on exactly the same footing as anything else in science, surely? It is grounded in reproducible observations of nature and makes testable predictions. What's special about it?

No. It is grounded in Darwin's beliefs which have become axioms. Need I remind you again what Darwin's underlie beliefs?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What empirical evidence suggests a land animal gradually turned into a whale by means of survival of the fittest?

Try this. Basically, you have a series of extinct creatures ranging in age from older forms that more closely resemble furry creatures that walked on all fours to newer, more whalelike forms. No other mechanism that could account for that apart from natural selection acting on genetic variation has ever been suggested. Creationism doesn't predict or explain finding ancient, extinct forms.

Reading fossil records is akin to reading tea leaves.

No, it's more like reading the Rosetta stone. But don't forget that we have data from multiple fields besides paleontology that also support the theory. Do you know the word consilience: "agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities." Here we have consilience within the life and earth sciences, with multiple nested hierarchies in comparative anatomy, physiology, embryology, genetics, taxonomy and biochemistry. These are representative of biological evolution the same way that the nested hierarchies of families of religions and languages trace their cultural evolution.

Even after you find such evidence science requires an experiment to create theory.

The theory of biological evolution is correct. It unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. It's passed the tests of time and practicality.

It is grounded in Darwin's beliefs which have become axioms.

Yes, as well they should (in the metaphorical sense of the word meaning considered established as opposed to a mathematical axiom) The theory is considered to be settled science within the community of evolutionary scientists notwithstanding dissenting voices from outside of that community, most of whom are creationists. You seem to have a different reason for challenging the science, but certainly you understand that the scientists, who neither hear nor answer them, don't consider that a debate.

 

[cladking]

Try this. Basically, you have a series of extinct creatures ranging in age from older forms that more closely resemble furry creatures that walked on all fours to newer, more whalelike forms. No other mechanism that could account for that apart from natural selection acting on genetic variation has ever been suggested. Creationism doesn't predict or explain finding ancient, extinct forms.

Science doesn't work by narrowing things down to a single possibility. This is a great way to think or reason but it is not science. You can think like this to invent hypothesis or experiment but NOT theory.

These are representative of biological evolution the same way that the nested hierarchies of families of religions and languages trace their cultural evolution.

You are making an assumption that consilience shows survival of the fittest and that this is the mechanism of change in species. It's obvious to even the most casual observer of life that in every given case being faster, smarter, stronger, etc is preferable to being weaker etc. This hardly proves that species change because there is a tendency for the "fittest" to survive. Even the fittest are the exact "same" species as every other. If evolution wanted such "fitness" then why would the species change? Why wouldn't every individual be exactly alike (much as Darwin assumed) except for its sex?

Again, and this can't be said too many times, science is experiment but logic, observation, evidence, etc are products not of reality but of our own minds. We see what we believe until experiment shows us otherwise.

And you seem to be forgetting that I maintain consilience "proves" my theory because it has more experiment, observation, and logic within it than Darwin's does.

All religions and languages appear to date back only to 2000 BC.

The theory of biological evolution is correct. It unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture. It's passed the tests of time and practicality.

You can't prove any scientific theory. They stand only until a better one comes along.

Yes, as well they should (in the metaphorical sense of the word meaning considered established as opposed to a mathematical axiom) The theory is considered to be settled science within the community of evolutionary scientists notwithstanding dissenting voices from outside of that community, most of whom are creationists. You seem to have a different reason for challenging the science, but certainly you understand that the scientists, who neither hear nor answer them, don't consider that a debate.

There is and never will be such a thing as "settled science". This is political pablum not reason.

Creationism doesn't predict or explain finding ancient, extinct forms.

So now you are an expert on the will of God also. Perhaps God just wants us to strive to understand our universe. Maybe the universe was created as it is so we could learn about it. Maybe the big bang was created or maybe an infinite number of other things. I'm sure I don't know but the problem is most people do and believers in science are the holiest of thou in a species that is by definition holier than thou (homo omnisciencis).

 

[cladking]

I'm sure I don't know but the problem is most people do and believers in science are the holiest of thou in a species that is by definition holier than thou (homo omnisciencis).

Nobody agrees. Even those who think they agree don't notice their models and beliefs have glaring differences one to another. They ignore it by parsing the other peoples' sentences to agree with their own models and beliefs. Yet everyone has all the answers.

I believe we don't even know what the questions are yet and it will require at least another century to find out. I believe we might go extinct before this time because of Tower of Babel 2.0

We individually and collectively have far too much power for anyone to survive when everything is turned against us. People have the crazy idea that survivors of a catastrophe can just return to ancient ways of living but all the ancient ways are forgotten and require cooperation to reinvent. We must learn to understand nature to survive and this will require significant time. We lack even the language in which to cooperate. There is no going back for our species. We must either go forward or perish and the biggest challenges we have ever faced are in the coming century. Darwin, belief in Darwin, may be the single largest impediment to our survival.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science doesn't work by narrowing things down to a single possibility. This is a great way to think or reason but it is not science. You can think like this to invent hypothesis or experiment but NOT theory.

Science did not try to narrow things down to a single possibility. It is simply what happens sometimes when one finds the right answer. Right now there is only evidence for evolution. Don't blame biologists and other scientists for that fact. You should be blaming the "creation science" cowards that are afraid to follow the scientific method.

You re making an assumption that consilience shows survival of the fittest and that this is the mechanism of change in species. It's obvious to even the most casual observer of life that in every given case being faster, smarter, stronger, etc is preferable to being weaker etc. This hardly proves that species change because there is a tendency for the "fittest" to survive. Even the fittest are the exact "same" species as every other. If evolution wanted such "fitness" then why would the species change?

No, he is not. He is simply stating a fact. There is no "proof" in science. But there are varying degrees of certainty due to evidence. Consilience leads to extremely high degrees of certainty since we have very strong evidence for evolution from very independent fields and once again no evidence for anything else. I will remind you again it is up to the people that oppose evolution to find scientific evidence for their beliefs. That is not the job of people that do not believe silly ideas nor would you want them to try. The person that you want to try to find evidence for ideas is someone that believes in them. Of course the sciences require honesty and we all know that is lacking in creationists as well.

Again, and this can't be said too many times, science is experiment and logic, observation, evidence, etc are products not of reality but of our own minds. We see what we believe until experiment shows us otherwise.

And this cannot be said too many times. You do not understand either evidence or the scientific method and are afraid to discuss them. You take yourself out of this debate.

And you seem to be forgetting that I maintain consilience "proves" my theory because it has experiment, observation, and logic within it than Darwin's does.

All religions and languages appear to date back only to 2000 BC.

No, you have none of those. If you did you would bring up examples and post proper links. All that you have are empty, repetitive, ignorant claims.

You can't prove any scientific theory. They stand only until a better one comes along.

No, but like a convicted killer it can be "proven beyond a reasonable doubt". The standard in the sciences is to treat a well supported theory or hypothesis as factual until evidence to the contrary arises. They do not have to reinvent the wheel every time they do an experiment. Do you have any evidence to the contrary when it comes to the theory of evolution? No? I didn't think so. So since you have no evidence to the contrary, and since it is indeed incredibly well supported by evidence the proper thing to do is to treat it as if it was "proven" until something better comes along.

There is and never will be such a thing as "settled science". This is political pablum not reason.

This is simply wishful thinking and demonstrates ignorance on your part again. You are in effect demanding that scientists reinvent the wheel. That is just silly. One does not need to reconfirm conservation of momentum every time that one runs an experiment in physics. One does not need to reconfirm that two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen combine to form water in every chemistry experiment. Settled science is regularly used in the laboratory and elsewhere in the sciences.

So now you are an expert on the will of God also. Perhaps God just wants us to strive to understand our universe. Maybe the universe was created as it is so we could learn about it. Maybe the big bang was created or maybe an infinite number of other things. I'm sure I don't know but the problem is most people do and believers in science are the holiest of thou in a species that is by definition holier than thou (homo omnisciencis).

If a God exists there are certain constraints even on God, at least the God that people claim to believe in. Now if you want to claim that God is evil, unjust, and incompetent, maybe those same claims won't apply to him ,but that does not appear to be your version of God.

 

[gnostic]

What can be accepted as true if not through the rational means of philosophy? Philosophy defines rationalism and the inference principles for the scientific method to allow the interpretations of observations and the extraction of conclusions.

You say that, but you are completely ignoring that there are hundreds of philosophies, past and present, eastern and western, many of them long forgotten.

And more importantly, many are not rational at all, and often contemporary schools disagreed with another. Meaning, philosophies are different from one another, and not all are “rational”, “logical”, or “wise”.

Not all philosophies focus on natural phenomena. Many are social or cultural, while others focused on political issues, other still on morality.

For instances, neither Stoicism, nor Taoism, concerned itself with the studies of nature - the natural phenomena, plus the natural processes (or the mechanisms).

So how would you determine which of these hundreds of different philosophies to be true?

So my real question to you:

Which of these philosophies are you talking about?​

There is no “one philosophy”, LIIA.

 

[gnostic]

Btw, @LIIA

The majority of philosophies are just talks - blah-blah-blah this, blah-blah-blah that - so they have no substances. To put it very bluntly, most of them are outdated pieces of craps.

Very few are worth the time of learning, but for me, only out of personal curiosity I would look at the fraction, but the rest are not worth my time.

 

[cladking]

The standard in the sciences is to treat a well supported theory or hypothesis as factual until evidence to the contrary arises.

No. Real scientists draw no conclusions. "Conclusions" are equivalent to accepting something as being "proven". Your models of science are highly flawed.

They do not have to reinvent the wheel every time they do an experiment.

Since no theory is proven every experiment is a reinvention of the wheel. This is what "interpretation" or "conclusions" concern- how it affects the status quo.

One does not need to reconfirm conservation of momentum every time that one runs an experiment in physics.

Of course you don't: Until such time as an experiment shows it not to hold. But from time to time we all should consider a new interpretation for every experiment or at least each experiment.

Coming to conclusions and holding theory as sacrosanct is scientism. Did I ever mention we each see what we believe?

If a God exists there are certain constraints even on God,

!!!

Wow!!! Does that mean even God can not make a stone so large He Himself can't lift it? Mebbe God isn't constrained by semantics. I'm not so I'm confident a Supreme Being can get around such corners.

but that does not appear to be your version of God.

The only thing I know about God is that if "He" exists that He is unknowable to each of us and to science. This isn't to say no insights into the nature of a Creator can be gleaned by various means but much as we can't prove theory we can't really know God. Just as we ultimately know (nearly) nothing about reality we know (nearly) nothing about its cause and ultimate disposition.

We are homo omnisciencis in name only. We each have illusions about the nature of reality. All I'm saying is that your pet cat might have a better handle on "evolution" than Darwin ever did.

 

[gnostic]

@LIIA

I would to add that many of philosophies don’t EXPLAIN in any details in biology, especially molecular biology, genetics and evolution.

For instances:

Can you name a single philosophy that EXPLAIN the anatomy of brown bear, or that of horse, or that of the barn owl?​

​

Can you name a single philosophy that EXPLAIN the photosynthesis of plant life?​

​

Can you name a single philosophy that EXPLAIN the differences between the crocodiles and lizards?​

None of the philosophies would offer any accurate or useful answers to those questions I have just ask you. There are no comparisons between modern natural sciences and any of the philosophies.

 

[Audie]

@LIIA

I would to add that many of philosophies don’t EXPLAIN in any details in biology, especially molecular biology, genetics and evolution.

For instances:

Can you name a single philosophy that EXPLAIN the anatomy of brown bear, or that of horse, or that of the barn owl?​

​

Can you name a single philosophy that EXPLAIN the photosynthesis of plant life?​

​

Can you name a single philosophy that EXPLAIN the differences between the crocodiles and lizards?​

None of the philosophies would offer any accurate or useful answers to those questions I have just ask you. There are no comparisons between modern natural sciences and any of the philosophies.

The semester I took a 400 level course in
comparative vertebrate anatomy, it was a full
time job by itself. Omg, the three part Latin names,
origin insertion and action of just the muscles in a cats eye!

Tracing anatomy all the way from what are they. Tunicate worms
and hemihordates , placoderms, crossopterygians and
labyrinthpdonts, pelycosaurs and taking apart a pigeon and and!

A reasonable understanding of biology is actually a lot
of work, and maybe breathing formaldehyde fumes in
an 8 a.m. lab class.

Some here know that.

Others think that by a nebulous reference to
" metaphysivs", or " philosophy"
or "god" (guides my understanding etc) that they
can make legitimate claim to knowledge, not
JUST some knowledge, but exceeding that of any
scientist on earth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What Darwin assumed about populations.

In reviewing the subject of evolution and the core assumptions of the theory, as formulated by Darwin, I find that these are among the consistent basic assumptions that Darwin followed:
1. Reproduction with heritability.
2. Variation in heritable traits.
3. Differential survival and reproduction based on the trait/environment interaction.

These can be found readily by anyone that is actually interested in developing an understanding.

Given these assumptions, claims that Darwin assumed population stability or that he believed every individual is exactly alike are nonsense. It is simply the false conclusions of someone that has no knowledge, education or experience in science and whose claims regarding science that require the expertise they do not possess can be reasonably and immediately dismissed.

Nor is the performance of repeating what Denis Noble says some sort of refutation of the theory of evolution. I'm not sure what, if any role, performance art plays in refuting science. That a theory is incomplete is the state of all theories in science. If we knew, we wouldn't need theories. That theories are amendable, replaceable and subject to rejection, even with no reasonable replacement does not render the subject of the theoretical explanation suddenly non-existent or under the authority of the prevailing belief system of anyone making claim that existing theory fails. Not only that, but those making the claim have to explain how such a situation exists and not just repeat what Denis Noble says while ignoring what others point out as real flaws in those silly attempts at religion by default or God of the gaps.

It cannot be overstated and under-repeated how it is those that have not been educated, trained and work in science that seem to feel they understand science to the point of being able to selectively dismiss science when it is only on the basis of their personal distaste for particular science.

Those individuals cannot see the flaws in their own positions that stand out like sore thumbs at a hitch hiker's convention. The stinky-footed, bumpkin nonsense that is offered as truth falls short of explaining anything or replacing existing explanation. It is ripe with logical fallacies, ignorance and imagination with no basis.

I think the majority of those posting in support of science are positioned by their experiences to come up with far better fan fiction than I have read on here from those denying the science. Not that I get the impression that any would be inclined to waste the time to manufacture such silliness. If what I have been seeing is the cutting edge of creationist denial, that denial hasn't got a prayer in my opinion other than on repetition and persistence in repetition. That hardly seems fitting for anyone that believes they have the truth.

Do any of those that deny science have any valid arguments with evidence and not something made up or ridiculous to offer in support of your claims?

 

[cladking]

Why do we keep believing Darwin? The problems with ‘survival of the fittest’.

The Darwinian notion of ‘survival of the fittest’ is still too dominant in our thinking. And it’s getting in the way of societal progress…

medium.com

Given these assumptions, claims that Darwin assumed population stability or that he believed every individual is exactly alike are nonsense.

No matter how many times I post his quote from the 3rd edition of "origin of species" it and all his other assumptions will be ignored.

Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations - Nature

To explain the evolution of cooperation by natural selection has been a major goal of biologists since Darwin. Cooperators help others at a cost to themselves, while defectors receive the benefits of altruism without providing any help in return. The standard game dynamical formulation is the...

www.nature.com

use the data below to support darwin statement that there is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate that if not destroyed the earth would soo 90604

Numerade offers video solutions for the most popular textbooks

www.numerade.com

And this can even be found on the wiki article on his book;

• Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).

Darwin was wrong because his every assumption was wrong. He was wrong that you can factor consciousness out of reducing species to experiment. He was wrong because consciousness varies more than even genetics and is the root of change in species. He was wrong because inductive logic and manipulation of taxonomies in logical ways can not take the place of scientific experiment. He was wrong because he didn't believe behavior affects change in species. He was wrong because he didn't believe in bottlenecks and THIS is when species change. He was wrong that you can intuit "Evolution" from studying fossils. But most of all he was wrong because there is no such thing as "survival of the fittest" in which he believed.

His definition, axioms, and assumptions were wrong across the board and it led to the foregone conclusion that matched all these assumptions.

It is quite apparent that ancient people had a different theory on "change in species" and used this theory to invent agriculture. It is quite apparent that the others species which have invented agriculture did not use darwinian methodology. It is quite apparent that we are viewing the reality of how species change at right angles to reality and from so poor a perspective we are missing almost the entire picture. Darwin was wrong and until we admit it there is no way off this roller coaster to oblivion.

The statement that pops are stable actually appears in Origin of Species but the search engines SUCK. Someone else can try their luck or read the silly tripe.