Darwin's Illusion

[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?

So no valid disagreement with the assumptions Darwin used or that he was correct about natural selection as the mechanism of evolution.

I didn't expect any.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do living things reproduce and do they pass on their traits to their progeny?

In a population, is there variation in the heritable traits?

Do some members of a population reproduce with greater success than others?

Darwin saw this as the basis of a theory of evolution and a mechanism that drives that evolution.

No one has shown that he was wrong in that.

 

[John53]

So no valid disagreement with the assumptions Darwin used or that he was correct about natural selection as the mechanism of evolution.

I didn't expect any.

None from me but I can endlessly repeat the same thing for you... if you want?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Natural selection favors cooperation in a diverse population of defectors and cooperators. That is variation of a trait that Darwin assumed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

None from me but I can endlessly repeat the same thing for you... if you want?

I'm just having fun using facts that obliterate the empty uninformed claims.

How are you doing?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or maybe the claims are empty, biased and ill-informed since some of them speak to subjects that do not seem to exist.

 

[John53]

I'm just having fun using facts that obliterate the empty uninformed claims.

How are you doing?

Not too bad thanks.

I don't think you're allowed to have fun, it's deadly serious and you must prove yourself right at all cost because only the fittest will survive. Wait! That can't be right...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

None from me but I can endlessly repeat the same thing for you... if you want?

I find it amusing to see the use of links that do not substantiate the claims that those using the links claim they do. It is as if they didn't really read or didn't understand what they were reading. That it was key words that lead to the use of the link and not that those key words supported anything that the linkers were claiming.

One article is about the evolution of cooperation that fits Darwin's assumptions. The other is just noise as near as I can tell.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Everything in our realm has limits. Everything is relative. Nothing can be defined unless it gets defined in relation to something else/reference but How is that relevant? It’s not about what makes sense to me in a personal sense, I only provided options/possibilities and asked you to provide your own if you can and which option is valid logically. Again, here are the options:

a) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 ….(continues in an infinite regression)

b) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 …, Ax is dependent on A (circular reasoning)

c) A is dependent on A1, A1 is dependent on A2 …, Ax is dependent on "the Absolute". "The Absolute" is non-contingent/first cause.

Which option is logically valid? Are there any other relevant options?

The c) is the dogmatic one as per Agrippa.
You have listed the 3 problems identified by Agrippa. "Ax is dependent on "the Absolute". "The Absolute" is non-contingent/first cause." is without evidence and treated as a fact, hence it is dogmatic.
What you don't understand is that all 3 happen in a given brain and are not observed independent of brains, yet they are all 3 about what is independent of brains.
And all 3 are a result of processes in brains. That is Agrippa's Trilemma.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not too bad thanks.

I don't think you're allowed to have fun, it's deadly serious and you must prove yourself right at all cost because only the fittest will survive. Wait! That can't be right...

You'd think that, but I find different ways to have fun as much as I can.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not too bad thanks.

I don't think you're allowed to have fun, it's deadly serious and you must prove yourself right at all cost because only the fittest will survive. Wait! That can't be right...

I think that it is difficult for some people to understand metaphor. I think in this argument, the idea persists that being persistent is the means to win and not evidence and rational conclusion. Word games, logical fallacies and unwavering adherence to being wrong seem to be the means that are employed to deny science.

I will survive.

 

[John53]

You'd think that, but I find different ways to have fun as much as I can.

I tried reading one of the articles this morning, I didn't have fun, I was only confused how modern politics is supposed to be showing that Darwin was wrong. Maybe it's too early in the morning here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I tried reading one of the articles this morning, I didn't have fun, I was only confused how modern politics is supposed to be showing that Darwin was wrong. Maybe it's too early in the morning here.

Huh? I suppose that acting against one's own interests in support of a group might be some sort of kin selection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I tried reading one of the articles this morning, I didn't have fun, I was only confused how modern politics is supposed to be showing that Darwin was wrong. Maybe it's too early in the morning here.

I'm more interested in the claims about the basic assumptions and how some keep saying Darwin's were wrong, without showing they were or reconciling those claims with actual fact that Darwin wasn't.

I know that keeps the senseless beating up on Darwin alive. Can't be helped. He can take it. His work has lasted this long.

 

[John53]

Huh? I suppose that acting against one's own interests in support of a group might be some sort of kin selection.

The sun is coming up and I must walk the dog before all the other dog walkers come out so I don't have to stop and chat. The early dog walker survives.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I tried reading one of the articles this morning, I didn't have fun, I was only confused how modern politics is supposed to be showing that Darwin was wrong. Maybe it's too early in the morning here.

I'm convinced that, were Darwin alive today, he would be a huge AC/DC fan.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The sun is coming up and I must walk the dog before all the other dog walkers come out so I don't have to stop and chat. The early dog walker survives.

Have fun. Don't step in anything.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The sun is coming up and I must walk the dog before all the other dog walkers come out so I don't have to stop and chat. The early dog walker survives.

And be careful about your assumptions. The population of dog walkers varies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

"Real scientists" do that all of the time. I need to remind you that you do not even know what science is and are afraid to even discuss the topic.

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.

No, this is incredibly foolish. That is not the way that science works,. Wasn't it Newton who first coined the phrase about standing on the shoulders of giants? He knew that his work was based upon earlier work.

Once again I need to remind you that you do not even know what science is or how it is done. When will you get over your fear? Are you afraid because you know that you are wrong? Don't worry, everyone else already knows this.

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.

Only when there is a valid reason to do so. "I do not like this concept because it refutes my personal religious beliefs is never a valid reason to deny an idea in the sciences. Here is a clue, first you must form a properly testable hypothesis and then find some evidence for it. Then you can challenge the status quo.

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

LOL!! That is what you do. Thank you for telling us that you only use scientism. That would explain quite a lot.

!!!

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.

An omnipotent and omniscient benevolent God is self-contradictory. And why posit a Supreme Being in the first place? You need to demonstrate that one is needed first.

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.

And if a God exists he is clearly not your version of God. Let's leave God out of the argument since none is needed for the fact that life is the product of evolution.

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.

Dude, that is so sad. No one uses your silly silly little words . What a weak weak ending of a supposed argument.

 

[cladking]

An omnipotent and omniscient benevolent God is self-contradictory.

You'll have to explain this to me. Of course, you'll not respond at all or will respond off topic because believers believe, they don't address other arguments. I respond to everything and believers respond to nothing at all. They just repeat their own beliefs.

A response might be fun though, eh?

You need to demonstrate that one is needed first.

This is another that eludes me. I have to prove there is a need for a God but you have theory which is proof enough for believers. And you believe I don't know how science works.

And if a God exists he is clearly not your version of God.

Why don't you describe my version of God?

Have you ever actually read one of my posts while trying to understand?

Let's leave God out of the argument since none is needed for the fact that life is the product of evolution.

And again, homo omnisciencis.

Wasn't it Newton who first coined the phrase about standing on the shoulders of giants?

Kuhn is just one more scientist/ metaphysician that you don't understand. I'm sure you didn't read Burtt.

https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_download/repository/Burtt,_The_Metaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf

It seems someone who doesn't understand there is a basis to science wouldn't go around trying to explain science to others.

"Real scientists" do that all of the time. I need to remind you that you do not even know what science is and are afraid to even discuss the topic.

Nope; "settled science" doesn't exist. It's political claptrap with no referent. There is only "theory" and it is an interpretation of a set of experiments known as a "paradigm". Every paradigm is overturned in the long run (so far). I am suggesting that the current paradigm is based on old science. It is a poor explanation of how species change and exists in part because modern biology won't jettison Darwin's Illusions.